20211421 Ver 1_Draft Mitigation Plan_20220601

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20211421
Version* 1
Select Reviewer: *
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 06/01/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 6/1/2022
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? * 0 Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name: *
Catherine Roland
Project Information
ID#:*
20211421
Existing ID#
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
DMS • Mitigation Bank
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site
Davidson
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload:
Signature
............................................
Print Name: *
Signature:*
Email Address: *
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
Existing Version
Rolling Meadows Draft Mitigation Plan.pdf 106.8MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Catherine Roland

Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Davidson County, North Carolina
Private Commercial Mitigation Bank for
Stream and Riparian Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Credits
Upper Yadkin River Basin (CU 03040101)
(Warm Water Thermal Regime)
USACE Action ID Number: SAW-2021-01538
DWR #: 20211421 v1
Prepared for:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1343
Prepared by:
WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS
7721 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 130, RALEIGH, NC 27615
(919) 614 - 5111 1 waterlandsolutions.com
June 2022

Table of Contents
1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1
Background...................................................................................................................................
6
1.2
Bank Sponsor................................................................................................................................
6
1.3
Mitigation Goals and Objectives...................................................................................................6
2 Bank
Establishment and Operation......................................................................................................7
2.1
Site Selection.................................................................................................................................7
2.2
Service Area..................................................................................................................................7
2.3
Site Protection Instrument............................................................................................................8
2.4
Watershed Need and Feasibility...................................................................................................8
3 Baseline
Information.............................................................................................................................8
3.1
Watershed Characterization.........................................................................................................9
3.1.1
Surface Water Classification.................................................................................................9
3.1.2
Jurisdictional WOTUS............................................................................................................9
3.1.3
NC SAM and NC WAM...........................................................................................................9
3.2
Land Use and Development Trends............................................................................................10
3.3
Landscape Characteristics...........................................................................................................10
3.3.1
Physiography and Geology..................................................................................................10
3.3.2
Soils.....................................................................................................................................10
3.3.3
Climate................................................................................................................................10
3.3.4
Existing Vegetation.............................................................................................................11
3.4
Existing Stream Conditions.........................................................................................................12
3.4.1
Geomorphic Assessment....................................................................................................12
3.4.2
Existing Reach Descriptions................................................................................................14
3.4.3
Sediment Supply, Delivery and Storage..............................................................................16
3.5
Existing Wetland Conditions.......................................................................................................16
3.5.1
Plant Community Characterization.....................................................................................16
3.5.2
Hydrological Characterization.............................................................................................16
3.5.3
Soil Characterization...........................................................................................................17
3.6
Potential Site Constraints............................................................................................................17
3.6.1
Existing Easements on the Site...........................................................................................17
3.6.2
Utility Corridors within the Site..........................................................................................18
3.6.3
Aviation Facilities................................................................................................................18
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Page 2

3.6.4 Mineral or Water Rights Assurance....................................................................................
18
3.6.5 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass.....................................................18
3.6.6 Invasive Species Vegetation................................................................................................
18
3.6.7 Potential Future Site Risk and Uncertainties......................................................................18
3.7 Regulatory Considerations..........................................................................................................
19
3.7.1 Cultural Resources..............................................................................................................
19
3.7.2 Threatened and Endangered Species.................................................................................19
3.7.3 Conditions Affecting Hydrology..........................................................................................
19
3.7.4 Adjacent Land Use..............................................................................................................
20
4 Functional Uplift Potential..................................................................................................................20
4.1.1 Restoration Potential and Project Benefits Summary........................................................20
5 Determination of Credits....................................................................................................................
22
5.1 Proposed Mitigation Credit Types..............................................................................................
22
5.2 Credit Release Schedule..............................................................................................................22
6 Mitigation Work Plan..........................................................................................................................23
6.1 Design Approach.........................................................................................................................
23
6.2 Design Criteria Selection.............................................................................................................24
6.2.1 Stream Design Reach Summary..........................................................................................25
6.2.2 Riparian Wetland Re-establishment...................................................................................27
6.3 Flow Regime................................................................................................................................27
6.3.1 Regional Curve Comparison................................................................................................28
6.3.2 Channel Forming Discharge................................................................................................29
6.3.3 Channel Stability and Sediment Transport Analysis...........................................................
30
6.4 Reference Sites...........................................................................................................................
32
6.4.1 Reference Streams..............................................................................................................32
6.4.2 Reference Wetlands............................................................................................................33
6.5 Water Quality Treatment Features.............................................................................................33
6.6 Revegetation Plan.......................................................................................................................33
6.6.1 Planting Materials and Methods.........................................................................................34
6.7 Site Construction Methods.........................................................................................................
35
6.7.1 Site Grading and Construction Elements............................................................................35
6.7.2 Stream, Wetland and Floodplain Improvement Features..................................................36
6.7.3 Construction Feasibility.......................................................................................................36
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 3

6.7.4 Future Project Risks and Uncertainties...............................................................................36
7 Maintenance Plan...............................................................................................................................37
8 Performance Standards......................................................................................................................38
8.1 Streams.......................................................................................................................................
38
8.2 Wetlands.....................................................................................................................................39
8.3 Vegetation...................................................................................................................................40
8.4 Invasive Species..........................................................................................................................40
9 Monitoring Plan..................................................................................................................................40
9.1 Stream Monitoring......................................................................................................................40
9.1.1 Hydrologic Monitoring........................................................................................................41
9.1.2 Geomorphic Monitoring.....................................................................................................41
9.1.3 Flow Duration Monitoring...................................................................................................42
9.2 Wetland Monitoring...................................................................................................................43
9.3 Vegetation Monitoring................................................................................................................43
9.4 Visual Assessment Monitoring....................................................................................................43
10 Long -Term Management Plan............................................................................................................45
11 Adaptive Management Plan...............................................................................................................45
12 Financial Assurances...........................................................................................................................46
13 References..........................................................................................................................................48
Tables
Table 1.
Parcel Ownership Information.......................................................................................................8
Table 2.
NCSAM/NCWAM Summary............................................................................................................9
Table 3.
Existing Project Site Vegetation...................................................................................................11
Table 4.
Reach Watershed Drainage & Jurisdictional Status.....................................................................13
Table 5.
Existing Channel Morphology Summary......................................................................................13
Table 6.
Function -Based Goals and Objectives Summary..........................................................................20
Table 7.
Project Benefits Summary............................................................................................................21
Table 8.
Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits(SMCs)................................................................................
22
Table 9.
Proposed Wetland Mitigation Credits(WMCs)............................................................................
22
Table 10.
Credit Release Schedule.............................................................................................................23
Table 11.
Proposed Design Parameters.....................................................................................................25
Table 12.
Flow Level and Ecological Role...................................................................................................28
Table 13.
North Carolina Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations........................................................29
Table 14.
Design Discharge Analysis Summary..........................................................................................30
Table 15.
Sediment Transport Analysis......................................................................................................31
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Page 4

Table 16.
Reference Reach Data Comparison............................................................................................32
Table 17.
Proposed Riparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings...........................................................................34
Table 18.
Proposed Riparian Buffer Permanent Seeding...........................................................................35
Table 19.
Routine Maintenance Components...........................................................................................38
Table 20.
Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary.........................................................................................44
Table 21.
Financial Assurances...................................................................................................................46
Figures
Figure1.........................................................................................................................Project Location Map
Figure 2........................................................................................................... Geographic Service Area Map
Figure3..................................................................................................................... USGS Topographic Map
Figure4.................................................................................................................................. NRCS Soils Map
Figure5......................................................................................................................................... LiDAR Map
Figure6....................................................................................................................... FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure7a-7b..................................................................................................................... Historic Aerial Map
Figure8.................................................................................................................... Existing Conditions Map
Figure9..................................................................................................................Proposed Mitigation Map
Figure 10.............................................................................................................. Proposed Monitoring Map
Appendices
AppendixA........................................................................................................................ Design Plan Sheets
Appendix B................................................................................................... Existing Conditions Information
AppendixC..........................................................................................................................Site Analysis Data
Appendix D........................................................................................................... Site Protection Instrument
Appendix E............................................................................................................ USACE Assessment Forms
AppendixF..................................................................................................................... WOTUS Information
Appendix G...............................................................................................................Agency Correspondence
AppendixH...........................................................................................................................Site Photographs
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Page 5

1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is pleased to submit this mitigation plan for the WLS Yadkin 01
Umbrella Mitigation Bank (Bank). WLS developed this private commercial Umbrella Bank to allow the
addition of project sites in the Yadkin River Basin, 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040101. The Bank
currently has two project sites named 'Grassy Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project' and 'Toms Creek
Tributaries Mitigation Project.' This mitigation plan presents a third bank project named 'Rolling Meadows
Mitigation Project.' The purpose of the Bank is to provide stream and wetland mitigation credits to
compensate for unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S. authorized under section 401 and 404 of the
Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and all applicable state statutes. The project
site will provide 6,974 warm thermal regime stream mitigation credits, 7.85 riparian wetland credits, and
53.9 acres of easement that will be protected in perpetuity.
This mitigation plan is prepared in accordance with C.F.R. §332.1-8 (2008), Compensatory Mitigation for
Losses of Aquatic Resources, and is based on current United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) —
Wilmington District Guidance, which is subject to the approval of the USACE District Engineer (DE) in
consultation with the North Carolina Inter -Agency Review Team (IRT).
1.2 Bank Sponsor
WLS will serve as the Bank sponsor for the WLS Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Rolling Meadows
Mitigation Project. The contact information for the sponsor is:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Attn: Catherine Roland
7721 Six Forks Rd, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
1.3 Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The purpose of the proposed Bank is to generate compensatory mitigation credits in the Upper Yadkin
River Basin (HUC 03040101). The mitigation goals and objectives are based on the current resource
condition and functional uplift capacity of the project watersheds to improve and protect aquatic
resources comparable to stable reference stream and wetland systems within the Piedmont Physiographic
Province. The proposed Bank addresses the general watershed goals and restoration opportunities
outlined in the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration
Priorities Plan (RBRP, 2009). The Bank project goals include the following components:
• Reducing sediment, soil erosion, turbidity, and nutrient inputs such as fecal coliform bacteria,
nitrogen, and phosphorus to the Upper Yadkin River Watershed.
• Restoring, enhancing, preserving, and protecting streams, wetlands, riparian buffers and aquatic
habitat functions.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 6

• Improving riparian corridors and targeting restoration of impacted streams and riparian buffer
areas.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives will be measured to document overall project
success:
• Provide a floodplain connection to incised streams by lowering bank height ratios to less than 1.2,
thereby promoting stable channel conditions and more overbank flood flows
• Improve bedform diversity by increasing scour pool spacing and depth variability
• Increase native riparian buffer and wetland vegetation density/composition along streambanks
and floodplain areas to meet a minimum 50-foot-wide and 210 stems/acre after the monitoring
period
• Improve aquatic habitat and fish migration through the addition of in -stream cover and native
woody debris
• Site protection through a 53.9-acre conservation easement that will protect all streams, wetlands,
riparian buffers, and aquatic resources in perpetuity
The existing conditions site assessment suggests that the proposed mitigation activities will result in a
higher functioning aquatic ecosystem. The project goals and objectives address water quality stressors by
reducing nutrient and sediment inputs through stream restoration, riparian buffer restoration, and
riparian wetland restoration. Raising the local water table will improve hydrologic functions and biologic
and habitat functions will improve by the revegetation of the riparian buffers.
2 Bank Establishment and Operation
2.1 Site Selection
The Rolling Meadows project site is in Davidson County and located in the Reedy Creek Community (Figure
1). The Project is in the 12-digit HUC 030401011502 all within the Yadkin River Basin. The project reaches
include Reedy Creek and unnamed tributaries to Reedy Creek. Reedy Creek flows west to its confluence
with Huffmans Creek. After the confluence with Huffmans Creek, Reedy Creek flows directly into the
Yadkin River approximately three miles downstream.
To access the site from Raleigh, NC, travel on 1-40 West, continue 1-40W/1-85 South and follow signs for I-
73 N/High Point/Charlotte. Take exit 118 for 1-85 BUS S/US-29 towards High Point. Turn right onto
Greensboro St Ext, then turn right onto Ridge Rd. Turn left onto City Lake Rd, continue onto Arnold Rd,
then in 1.2 miles turn right onto Hoover Rd, then right onto Link Rd. Then in 0.3 miles turn left on
Kendlebrook Farm Rd (35.916696,-80.304871).
2.2 Service Area
The proposed Bank will provide compensatory mitigation credits for unavoidable impacts to waters of the
United States in the Yadkin River Basin 8-Digit HUC 03040101 Geographic Service Area (GSA) (Figure 2).
Use of the Bank to compensate for impacts outside the GSA may be considered by USACE on a case -by -
case basis. The Bank will supply compensatory mitigation for warm water stream impacts and riparian
wetland impacts.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 7

2.3 Site Protection Instrument
The Sponsor has obtained legal option agreements to develop the mitigation project with a permanent
conservation easement for each of the parcels that make up the site. A copy of the agent authorization
form and conservation easement template are provided in Appendix D. The Sponsor shall record a
conservation easement with the Davidson County Register of Deeds that has been approved by the
USACE, in coordination with the IRT, and provide a copy of the recorded conservation easement to the
USACE. The current property owners for the Project site are listed in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Parcel Ownership Information
North State Environmental, Inc. 6718-01-29-0067 Davidson 40.31 2474/1187
North State Environmental, Inc. 6719-03-30-7146 Davidson 49.33 2474/1187
North State Environmental, Inc. 6718-01-49-2814 Davidson 3.00 2474/1187
North State Environmental, Inc. 6719-03-30-4935 Davidson 5.40 2474/1187
The conservation easement will ensure that the site will be protected in perpetuity from land uses that
are inconsistent with the UMBI. Apart from USACE-approved activities (in coordination with the IRT), the
site shall not be disturbed by activities that would adversely affect the intended extent, condition, or
function of the project. The conservation easement shall not be removed or modified without prior
written approval of the USACE.
2.4 Watershed Need and Feasibility
As a result of implementing this Bank, WLS will address restoration components as defined in the RBRP
(DMS, 2009). In order to appropriately offset unavoidable impacts to Waters of the United States
associated with growth and development, the proposed Bank will improve water quality and protect
aquatic resource functions in this region.
The technical feasibility of the Project is assured due to WLS' extensive experience with stream and
wetland mitigation in North Carolina and throughout the Southeast. Examples of WLS' success with
stream and wetland restoration include the WLS Neuse 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank and the WLS Neuse
02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The absence of fatal flaws, such as hydrologic trespass and absence of
threatened and endangered species and their habitats means the project is unlikely to be impeded by
resource issues, or by objections from landowners.
3 Baseline Information
WLS performed an existing conditions assessment for the site by compiling and analyzing baseline
information, aerial photography, and field data. The purpose of this assessment was to determine how
aquatic resource functions have been impacted within the catchment area. Parameters such as watershed
drainage area, percent impervious cover, land use, climate, and hydrology were evaluated. The following
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Page 8

sub -sections describe the existing site conditions, impairment, and primary controls that were considered
for developing an appropriate restoration design approach.
3.1 Watershed Characterization
3.1.1 Surface Water Classification
The project site is situated within the Reedy Creek watershed in the northwestern portion of Davidson
County, NC. The project reaches include Reedy Creek and unnamed tributaries to Reedy Creek. Reedy
Creek (Stream Index 12-96-0.7) is classified by the NCDEQ Division of Water Resources as 'C' and 'WS-IV'
(Aquatic Life, Water Supply) waters within project area downstream to its confluence with Yadkin River.
3.1.2 Jurisdictional WOTUS
WLS investigated on -site jurisdictional WOTUS using the USACE Routine On -Site Determination Method.
This method is defined in the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual and subsequent and subsequent
Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Regional Supplement. Stream classification utilized the NCDWQ Stream
Identification Form. Potential jurisdictional (JD) wetland areas as well as upland areas were classified using
the USACE Wetland Determination Data Form. The results of the on -site field investigation indicated that
all Project reaches were determined to be jurisdictional stream channels. In addition, one jurisdictional
wetland area was delineated within the proposed Project area (Figure 8) located on the Reedy Creek
floodplain (W01 is 0.834 acres). WLS submitted a preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) request
to the USACE in August 2021 and received a PJD in March 2022. Appendix F contains the PJD and
supporting documents.
3.1.3 NC SAM and NC WAM
WLS completed stream and wetland assessments using the NC Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM,
Version 5.0, 2015) and NC Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM, Version 2.1, 2015). WLS evaluated the
NC WAM and NC SAM metrics relevant to the Project wetland areas and stream reaches (See Appendix
Q. The Project reaches all scored 'low' due to incised channels, lack of buffer, and water quality stressors
from agriculture. Stream S300 was not rated because it currently does not flow across the project area.
Wetland area W01 rated 'high'. The ecological assessments also incorporated qualitative and quantitative
observations using historic aerials, field evaluations, and detailed topographic survey data collected across
the site. The conclusions from these assessments help describe the current stream and wetland conditions
and functional ratings, however, these methods are not intended for determining mitigation success on
the site.
Table 2. NCSAM/NCWAM Summary
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 9

Low N/A Low Low
3.2 Land Use and Development Trends
The Reedy Creek watershed is primarily agricultural or forested undeveloped parcels that are privately
owned. The Bank will extend the wildlife corridor and protect aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the project
area through a permanent conservation easement (Figure 9). Currently, the project area consists of mostly
pasture (hay and grass) and row crop that have been in near -continuous production for several decades.
A review of topographic maps, field investigations of on -site soils, stream and wetland conditions, and
LiDAR survey data provides clear evidence that the valley morphology and catchments support a
Piedmont stream and riparian wetland system.
3.3 Landscape Characteristics
3.3.1 Physiography and Geology
The Project site is located in the Southern Outer Piedmont (45b) Level IV Ecoregion (Omernik, 2014). More
specifically, the Project area consists of Granitic Rock ('PPg') (Geologic Map of North Carolina, NC
Geological Survey, 1998). The Southern Outer Piedmont is characterized by lower elevations, less relief,
and less precipitation than Inner Piedmont. Gneiss, schist, and granite are typical rock types, covered with
deep saprolite and mostly red, clayey subsoils. (Griffith et al., 2002).
3.3.2 Soils
As shown on the NRCS Soils Map (Figure 4), existing floodplain soils surrounding the project reaches are
mostly within the mapping units ChA (Chewacla), PaB, PaE, PaD (Pacolet). Chewacla loam soils are
frequently flooded and have 0 to 2 precent slopes. It is anticipated that as a direct result of implementing
Priority Level I stream restoration, ditch plugging and revegetation, the natural wetland hydrology will be
restored and allow the wetlands to regain their natural/historic functions.
On -site hydric soil investigations of the project areas proposed for wetland restoration were conducted
in March 2021 and June 2021by George K. Lankford, LSS, (See Hydric Soils Report in Appendix B). The
findings were based on hand -turned auger borings and indicate the presence of hydric soils along the left
floodplain of Reedy Creek. Areas of existing hydric soils were mapped that have been manipulated by a
combination of past and current agricultural and silvicultural practices (i.e., lateral ditching and tillage
management).
3.3.3 Climate
Davidson County is generally hot and humid in the summer and winter is moderately cold but short (NRCS,
1985). The average growing season for the Project site is 225 days, beginning March 27t" and ending
November 7t" (Lexington, NC WETS table). The average annual precipitation in the Project area is
approximately 45.62 inches with a consistent monthly distribution, except for convective storm events or
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 10

hurricanes that occur during the summer and fall months. Over the past 48 months, the rain gauge at
Lexington station has recorded 141.82 inches of rain (NRCS).
3.3.4 Existing Vegetation
The current use within the project is primarily agriculture fields. A thin buffer of trees is present along
Reedy Creek and a disturbed mature forest is present in-between 5100 and 5101. The southern portion
of the proposed easement includes existing mature forest in the uplands above the floodplain of Reedy
Creek. Prior to anthropogenic land disturbances, the riparian vegetation community likely consisted of
Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood (mixed riparian community) in the floodplain of Reedy Creek and a
Mesic Mixed Hardwood along 5100 and 5101 (Schafale, 2012).
Agricultural Fields: Currently, most field areas surrounding the Project area are used for row -crop and
hay production.
S100 and S101: The canopy is dominated by larger hardwoods such as red maple, sweetgum, tulip poplar
and beech trees. Saplings and shrubs in the understory include tag alders, red cedar, dogwood, red maple,
black cherry and black willow. Various grasses, pokeweed and blackberry are present along woodland
edges and streambanks. Vine species include poison ivy and honeysuckle.
Reedy Creek: A thin buffer of larger trees exists along Reedy Creek composed mostly of sycamore,
sweetgum, black willow, and box elder. Red maple, tag alder, and sweetgum are present as saplings and
shrubs. Various grasses, blackberries and vines including poison ivy and honeysuckle make up the
herbaceous layer prior to the floodplains transition into agricultural fields. A small area of remnant
floodplain bottomland hardwood forest is present in the southeastern corner of the proposed easement.
Canopy species present in this disturbed forest include red maple, box elder, sweetgum, and sycamore.
Toe of slope woodline: The southern portion of the project consists of mature forest located in the
uplands above the left floodplain of Reedy Creek. This area includes W01. Mature trees such as red maple,
beech, various hickories, blackgum, and sweetgum are present. A small understory of red maple,
ironwood, and sweetgum is present. A light herbaceous layer includes Christmas ferns and pokeweed.
Vines include Virginia creeper, greenbrier, and poison ivy.
Invasive Species Vegetation: There is not a significant presence of invasive species vegetation in the
project area. There are sparse occurrences (totaling less than 5 percent) of multiflora rose located in
existing riparian buffers along 5100 and 5101. One small occurrence of kudzu is located at an existing
crossing near the top of the project on Reedy Creek. Additional wooded areas within the project area
contain individual or small groups of Chinese privet and tree of heaven. After restoration, these areas will
be monitored, and any invasive plants found within the project boundary will be treated to prevent
expansion and establishment of a substantial invasive community. This will allow for a native riparian and
upland plant community to establish.
Table 3. Existing Project Site Vegetation
Mockernut hickory
Carya tomentosa
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 11

American sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Black walnut
Juglans nigra
American beech
Fagus grandifolia
Sweetgum
Liquidambar styraciflua
Red oak
Quercus rubra
Tulip tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
Shortleaf pine
Pinus echinata
Tag alder
Alnus serrulata
Red cedar
Juniperus virginiana
Dogwood
Cornus florida
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
Black cherry
Prunus serotina
Black willow
Salix nigra
Blackberry
Rubus argutus
Japanese honeysuckle
Lonicera japonica
Poison ivy
Toxicodendron radicans
Pokeweed
Phytolacca americana
Japanese stiltgrass
Microstegium vimineum
Christmas fern
Polystichum acrostichoides
Greenbrier
Smilax rotundifolia
Multiflora rose
Rosa multiflora
Kudzu
Pueraria montana
Chinese privet
Ligustrum sinense
Tree of heaven
Ailanthus altissima
3.4 Existing Stream Conditions
3.4.1 Geomorphic Assessment
WLS conducted geomorphic assessments of the Project reaches to determine the current stream function,
channel stability, and the impact of past and current land use on the Project site's aquatic resources. From
historical aerial research evidence was found to demonstrate that most of the Project area has been
heavily impacted from historic and current land use practices. A further review of topographic maps, field
investigation of on -site features, stream and wetland reference data, and LiDAR imagery (Figure 5) provide
clear evidence that the existing channel conditions appear to be indicative of valley signatures, valley
slopes, and drainage basins that support stream and wetland systems with associated bottomland
hardwood forest.
The streams of the Project were broken down into five reaches (S100, S101, S300, Reedy Creek Upper,
and Reedy Creek Lower) totaling approximately 6,711 linear feet of existing streams. Field evaluations
determined that project reaches S100, S101, Reedy Creek Upper, and Reedy Creek Lower are perennial
streams and reach S300 is anticipated to be intermittent. Table 4 provides reach designations,
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Page 12

approximate drainage area, stream status based on field analysis and NCDWR stream classification form
score.
Table 4. Reach Watershed Drainage & Jurisdictional Status
119.7
0.19
Perennial
37.0
61.8
0.01
Intermittent
30.0
89.7
0.14
Intermittent
N/A
5,024.0
7.85
Perennial
40.5
5,504.3
8.60
Perennial
40.5
The existing project streams have been degraded as a result of historic and current land use practices,
including agriculture and silviculture. Agricultural practices, including regular channelization/dredging and
streambank maintenance have severely impacted the streambanks along some of the project stream
reaches. The project streams are incised and unstable, with documented channel manipulations (i.e.
straightening, widening) and associated bank erosion. Clearing and ditching of stream buffers for
agricultural purposes has removed or reduced high functioning riparian buffers. Currently, the project
reaches act as significant sources of sediment and nutrient contamination to the watershed, and
downstream waters. Table 5 characterizes the existing stream morphology based on general descriptions,
channel evolution (Simon, 1989) and Rosgen stream classification (Rosgen, 1994).
Table S. Existing Channel Morphology Summary
1,415
1.5
6.9
4.6
G5
410
1.5
5.7
2.5
G5
384
5.0
29.6
1.3
N/A (Channelized)
806
4.8
6.2
1.5
E5 (Channelized)
3,696 3.6 4.7 1.2 E5 (Channelized)
Note: S300 was assessed outside the project boundary. Due to the existing ditched conditions, it was difficult to
accurately classify the stream and describe the channel morphology.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Page 13

3.4.2 Existing Reach Descriptions
Looking downstream at left bank along 5100 showing
severe incision and stream bank erosion.
S100: S100 is a perennial tributary that has been
historically channelized and straightened along
much of its length. The valley slope is
approximately 1.2 percent and the drainage
area is 119.7 acres. The reach begins at a culvert
crossing at Kendlebrook Farm Road and flows
south to Reedy Creek. Because the stream
system has been channelized and moved to the
right valley, the sinuosity is very low (k=1.02).
The dimension of S100 is a trapezoidal channel
with an average top width of approximately
20.0 feet, a depth of approximately 7.0 feet,
and near vertical side slopes. The channel is
severely incised and unstable with a Bank
Height Ratio (BHR) of 4.6. The riparian buffer
along the right bank of S100 consists of woody
vegetation, however the entire left buffer is within an agricultural field. Based on the historic
anthropogenic disturbances, including channelization, and straightening, S100 is classified as an incised
'G5' stream type.
S101: S101 begins at an existing farm crossing
and flows south to its confluence with S100. The
valley slope is approximately 1.4 percent and the
drainage area is 61.8 acres. Similar to S100, S101
is highly incised, with vertical stream banks and
BHR of 2.5. The dimension of S101 is a
trapezoidal channel with an average top width of
approximately 13.0 feet, a depth of
approximately 4.1 feet with near vertical side
slopes. A majority of stream length appears to be
channelized and moved to the left valley. The
riparian buffer is less the 10 feet wide along the
right bank throughout its entire length. Based
on the existing conditions, S101 is classified as a
Rosgen 'G5' stream type.
Looking upstream at incised channel conditions
along S101.
S300: S300 begins downstream of a pond dam spillway outside the project boundary. The valley slope is
approximately 1.5 percent, and the drainage area is approximately 89.7 acres. Below the pond dam, S300
has been channelized and relocated along the adjacent property line before its confluence with Reedy
Creek. The sinuosity is very low (k=1.01), however it is likely that erosive flows and channel instability have
been reduced from the impoundment and flow diversion further upstream. Limited woody vegetation
was observed along most of S300 and riparian buffer widths average less than 10 feet. Existing woody
vegetation is maintained along the reach which has led to sparse understory vegetation. Based on the
historic manipulation, S300 was difficult to classify under current channelized conditions.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Page 14

Looking upstream at typical conditions along upper
Reedy Creek. Note vertical stream banks and
minimal riparian buffer.
Reedy Creek Upper: Reedy Creek is the main
stem perennial tributary that enters from the
eastern project boundary to the confluence with
S100 and S101. Reedy Creek Upper has a valley
slope of 0.34 percent, and drainage area of
approximately 5,024 acres. The channel in this
section is slightly incised (BHR=1.2) with localized
bank erosion. The existing channel appears to be
vertically stable but lacks bedform diversity.
Based on watershed reconnaissance, field
observations, depositional patterns and
landscape position, the sediment supply appears
to be coarse to fine grained sand material from
eroding bed/bank materials and surface runoff
from upstream agricultural fields.
Based on historic aerials and field observations,
Reedy Creek appears to have been manipulated and straightened to accommodate agricultural practices
and tillable area. In this upper section, woody vegetation is maintained along the stream banks which has
led to sparse understory vegetation. Reedy Creek is actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly in
the form of excess sediment inputs and minimal riparian buffer widths. Based on the existing channel
conditions and anthropogenic disturbances, Reedy Creek Upper is classified as a Rosgen channelized 'E5'
stream type.
rceeay LreeK Lower: neeay ureeK Lower Degins
downstream of an existing culvert crossing near the
confluence with S100 and S101. Reedy Creek Lower {
valley slope is 0.31 percent and drainage area is 5,504
acres at the downstream terminus. Similar to Reedy
Creek Upper, the channel appears to have been
historically straightened (k=1.02) with lateral ditching
in an attempt to drain surface hydrology for
� a
agricultural use. The channel is slightly incised
(BHR=1.2) and vertically stable. However historic
4-:
channel manipulation and straightening has led to:
poor bedform diversity and localized streambank Looking atchannehzed conditions and minimal
instability. Limited woody vegetation was observed riparian buffer vegetation along Reedy Creek.
along most of stream banks and riparian buffer widths
average less than 10 feet. Based on the existing channel conditions and anthropogenic disturbances,
Reedy Creek lower is classified as a Rosgen channelized 'E5' stream type.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Page 15

3.4.3 Sediment Supply, Delivery and Storage
Representative bed materials were bulk sampled from reaches 5100, 5101 and Reedy Creek. The project
reaches consist of predominantly medium sand and silt with some fine gravel materials observed along
the channel bottom. Much of the parent material, which contains sandy and clay loam alluvium, are buried
and still evident in the bank profiles. Field investigations suggest the sediment supply along Reedy Creek
is recruited predominantly from streambank erosion along the project stream reaches and upland
agricultural activities throughout the watershed. The streambank erosion along the smaller project stream
reaches (5100, 5101, 5300) appears to be limited during episodic storm flows due to the lack of adequate
buffer vegetation throughout the headwater catchments. Sediment deposits consisting of coarse sand
were observed in a few locations along the floodplain of Reedy Creek.
3.5 Existing Wetland Conditions
3.5.1 Plant Community Characterization
The existing vegetation communities within the wetland areas are mature forest located in the uplands
above the left floodplain of Reedy Creek. W01 vegetation is mostly a mature forest of red maple, beech,
various hickories, blackgum, and sweetgum. A sparse understory of red maple, ironwood, and sweetgum
is present. A light herbaceous layer includes Christmas ferns and pokeweed. Vines include Virginia
creeper, greenbrier, and poison ivy. Areas HS01, HS02 and HS03 are not considered jurisdictional
wetlands but contain hydric soils areas proposed for wetland re-establishment. It is expected that as a
direct result of plugging and filling floodplain ditches, implementing the stream restoration along Reedy
Creek and revegetation in these areas, wetland functions will be restored.
3.5.2 Hydrological Characterization
Historic land clearing and conversion to agricultural fields have smoothed the surfaces by removal of
shallow depressions and low hummocks typical in a floodplain landscape. Natural hydrology appears to
be a high groundwater across the Reedy Creek floodplain due to frequent overbank flooding with
significant floodplain storage and flat or depressional topography. The hydric soil indicators observed
suggest historic hydrology was wet for longer periods of the growing season within depressional areas
and backwater areas. Other areas along the toe of slope are supplemented by hillslope discharge and
seepage.
Observed hydrologic alterations impacting local groundwater include the incised Reedy Creek and
extensive ditch network. The ditches extend to the toe of slope to intercept upland runoff and slope
seepage. The floodplain appears to have been smoothed and crowned in the past to improve surface
drainage. Spoil berms are present from constructing and maintaining these ditches. No spoil was observed
adjacent to ditches within the field, indicating the spoil and the surrounding soil was graded to facilitate
surface drainage. Thicker sand lenses in the upstream portion of the site appear to provide subsurface
drainage of the backwater areas to the incised Reedy Creek.
Shallow groundwater was observed in an early April 2021 visit in the lower elevations of the hydric soil
units, but during the June 2021 site visit, groundwater was only observed within a deeper sandy horizon
below 30 inches and within an existing wetland. For the first site visit, rainfall for the two of the preceding
three months was above normal, and for the second site visit below normal for two of the preceding three
months. The jurisdictional W01 had a water table within 10 inches during both evaluation periods. Five
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 16

automated groundwater well were installed on site to evaluate the range of hydrologic conditions within
the one jurisdictional wetland (W01) and the three areas where hydric soils are present and wetland -re-
establishment is proposed (HS01, HS02 and HS03) (Figure 8). This well data will help provide the basis for
comparing pre- and post -construction groundwater hydrology. The wells were installed in September
2021 and the data summary is included in Appendix B. WLS will identify trends in water table depth
throughout the pre -restoration monitoring period that reflect seasonal rainfall as well the hydrologic
interaction with the disturbed stream. The automated data loggers (HOBO U20L-04) are programmed to
record water table levels every 12 hours.
3.5.3 Soil Characterization
Detailed soils mapping, conducted by a licensed soil scientist (George K Lankford, LLC) determined that
jurisdictional wetlands and hydric soils are present within the Project area (See Figure 8 and Hydric Soils
report in Appendix B). The soil borings exhibited hydric soil indicators within 12 inches of the soil surface
within floodplain depressions and drained soils across the site. Approximately 148 shallow borings ranging
from 18 to 30 inches were evaluated to characterize the soils and delineate the hydric soil boundaries.
Based upon field observations, the actual site conditions appear representative of the expected range of
soil characteristic described by NRCS mapping units with hydric soils present in the floodplains.
The soil evaluation found hydric indicators throughout large areas of the floodplain. Based on recorded
profiles, the most common hydric soil indicators are F3-Depleted Matrix and F8-Redox Depressions. Soil
underlain by a depleted matrix having distinct or prominent redoximorphic concentrations meet the
criteria for the F3-Depleted Matrix. Where the redox concentrations exceed five percent and occur within
a depressional landscape meet the F8-Redox Depressions indicator. Many areas contain more than 20
percent distinct or prominent redox concentration near the surface and meets the criteria for the F19-
Piedmont Flood Plain Soils. The F-19 indicator is currently a test indicator within this MLRA region but
appears to be an appropriate hydric indicator at this site. Generally, the soils lack sufficient organic
content for indicators requiring dark or black soils surfaces to be present. Clearing, drainage, and tillage
increased aeration and soil temperature, allowing accumulated organic matter to rapidly oxidize. The F2-
Loamy Gleyed Matrix was only observed within the wetland and is an indicator where saturation exists
for very long periods.
The hydric soils in the floodplain of this project reflect characteristics of the NRCS map units, most notably
the Wehadkee soil. Based on mitigation guidance for Piedmont soils (US Army Corps of Engineers 2016),
the Wehadkee series (Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts) is expected to have a natural hydroperiod of between
12 and 16 percent during the growing season where the water table is within 12 inches of the surface.
The Chewacla soil is not considered hydric but may have areas with a natural hydroperiod of between 10
and 12 percent during the growing season. A Riverview type soil may have hydroperiods of 7 to 9 percent
but are not expected to meet those criteria at this site. Upland soil surrounding the floodplain are not
included in the Corps guidance and are not anticipated to have significant hydroperiods.
3.6 Potential Site Constraints
3.6.1 Existing Easements on the Site
There are no other existing easements on the site.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 17

3.6.2 Utility Corridors within the Site
There is one utility easement in the project area.
upstream end of the project on Reedy Creek Upper
68 ft break in the proposed conservation easement.
3.6.3 Aviation Facilities
An overhead powerline easement is located at the
At the powerline easement there is an approximate
Based on a review using Google Earth, the nearest airport to the project site is Marchmont Plantation
Airpark, which is located approximately 4.5 miles northwest of the site. The project is not anticipated to
affect aviation at this private 2,000-foot grass strip airport. There are no other aviation facilities within
five miles of the project area.
3.6.4 Mineral or Water Rights Assurance
There are no known mineral or surface water rights issues within or adjacent to the site properties.
3.6.5 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
Review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program's
Digital Flood Insurance Rate Mapping (DFIRM) panel 3710670800J, effective March 9, 2009, found that
the lower portions of 5100 and 5101, as well as the entirety of Reedy Creek, are located within the FEMA
regulated floodplain ("Zone AE") (Figure 6). While it is not anticipated that there will be issues associated
with FEMA permitting or documentation, WLS will coordinate with the local floodplain administrator as
needed and prepare the required documentation to obtain approval for any FEMA regulated impacts. In
addition, the project has been designed so that any increase in flooding will be contained within the
project boundary and will not impact adjacent landowners, therefore hydrologic trespass will not be a
concern.
3.6.6 Invasive Species Vegetation
There is not a significant presence of invasive species vegetation in the project area. There are sparse
occurrences of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) located in existing riparian buffers along 5100 and 5101.
One occurrence cluster of kudzu (Pueraria montana) is located at an existing crossing near the top of the
project on Reedy Creek. Additional wooded areas within the project area contain individual or small
groups of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). All invasive species total less than five percent aerial cover
in the project area. After restoration, these areas will be monitored, and any invasive plants found within
the project boundary will be treated to prevent expansion and establishment of a substantial invasive
community. This will allow native riparian and upland plant communities to establish.
3.6.7 Potential Future Site Risk and Uncertainties
Future site risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to development, silviculture, and
infrastructure maintenance. Historic aerial imagery indicates that the Project has been used extensively
for agricultural and silviculture purposes. The surrounding areas remain in an agricultural communitywith
some neighboring forested property and small home sites. Due to low development potential, the project
area will likely remain in agricultural use. There are some forested areas surrounding the project area that
could be used for silviculture or logging operations. There is also potential for the area surrounding the
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Page 18

easement to be developed in the future. The project area is not adjacent to any roads that might need
future maintenance. Project streams and wetlands were designed to be self -maintaining and resilient in
a dynamic landscape. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet in many areas of the project will protect the
project reaches and wetland areas from changes in watershed hydrologic regimes.
3.7 Regulatory Considerations
3.7.1 Cultural Resources
The project is not anticipated to have any adverse impacts on cultural or historic resources. There are no
sites currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within the project area. The State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended the project area be systematically surveyed prior to
any ground disturbing activities. This request was the result of the project site being located within one-
half mile from five identified Native American archaeological sites containing lithic tool and ceramics. WLS
hired Terracon Consultants, Inc. from the list of experiences archaeological consultants who met the
Secretary of the Interior's Professionals Qualifications Standards. The field methods used during the
investigation included pedestrian inspection and shovel testing.
As a result of the investigation, 176 shovel tests were excavated and one new archaeological site was
identified partially within the project area. Terracon recommended that the site found was not eligible for
NRHP and that project should be granted clearance to proceed without concern for impacts to significant
archaeological resources. The report is located in Appendix B. WLS received comments from SHPO on
April 21, 2022, with Terracon's conclusion the identified archeological site was not significant within the
project boundary. SHPO also concurred that no further investigations were required prior to full
implementation of the mitigation project. SHPO correspondence is located in Appendix G.
3.7.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
Based on a review of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC) database, there are currently two federally -listed threatened and endangered species known to
occur in Davidson County: Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and the Schweinitz's
Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). No potential protected species occurrences were observed during
initial site investigations. Project implementation is not anticipated to have a negative impact on these
species. The USFWS comments to the prospectus public notice stated that Northern Long-eared bat
incidental take associated with tree clearing is exempt and concurred with a Schweinitz's Sunflower "No
Effect" determination. This agency correspondence is provided in Appendix G.
3.7.3 Conditions Affecting Hydrology
Within the project area there are four existing road culvert crossings (upper and lower Reedy Creek, upper
and lower 5100). All culverts within the proposed easement will be removed. The culvert under
Kendlebrook Farm Road above 5100 will remain to provide landowner access. The channel design
elevations will tie into vertical control points. There are also several ditches throughout the site. These
ditches were historically used to drain wetlands and create arable land for agricultural production. Many
of these ditches will be plugged during restoration activities to maximize wetland hydrology on the
completed project.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 19

3.7.4 Adjacent Land Use
Site -adjacent land use is primarily agricultural and silvicultural. The is a small residential development
located in the upper catchment of 5101. None of these land uses will have negative impacts on the
operation of the site.
4 Functional Uplift Potential
Harman et al. (2012) provides a framework for conducting function -based assessments to develop project
goals and objectives based on a site's restoration potential and functional uplift. The framework is based
on the Stream Functions Pyramid (SFP) which is a conceptual model that can be used to help define project
goals and objectives by linking them to stream functions. Stream functions are separated into a hierarchy
of functions and structural measures, ranging from Level 1 to Level 5 and include the following functional
categories: Hydrology (Level 1), Hydraulic (Level 2), Geomorphic (Level 3), Physicochemical (Level 4), and
Biological (Level 5). Function -based goals and objectives were considered that relate restoration activities
to the appropriate parameters from the SFP framework, which are based on existing conditions, site
constraints and overall restoration potential. To accomplish these site -specific goals, the following
functional objectives will be measured to document overall project success as described in Table 6.
Table 6. Function -Based Goals and Objectives Summary
Improve Base Flow
Reconnect Floodplain / Increase
Floodprone Area Widths
Improve Bedform Diversity
Increase Lateral Stability
Establish Riparian Buffer Vegetation
Improve Water Quality
Improve Macroinvertebrate
Community and Aquatic Species
Health
Improve and/or remove existing stream
crossings, restore a more natural flow regime,
and improve aquatic passage.
Lower BHRs to <1.2 and increase ERs at >_2.2
Increase riffle/pool percentage and pool -to -
pool spacing ratios.
Improve cross-section values to stable
reference conditions.
Plant native species vegetation a minimum 50'
wide from the top of the streambanks with a
composition/density comparable to reference
condition.
Establish 50 ft wide riparian buffers that will
filter excess nutrients.
Provide substrate and bedform diversity and
incorporate native woody debris into channel.
4.1.1 Restoration Potential and Project Benefits Summary
Restoration projects commonly provide functional lift of Level 2 and 3 parameters. To achieve goals in
Levels 4 and 5, a combination of reach scale restoration and upstream watershed health must be
measurable and sustainable. The Project is expected to provide numerous water quality and ecological
benefits within the smaller catchments. While many of these benefits focus on the immediate project
area, others, such as nutrient removal and sediment reduction also provide downstream benefits.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Page 20

However, given the landscape position and larger catchment size of Reedy Creek, the functional lift within
the physicochemical and biological functional categories may be limited. The expected project benefits
and ecological improvements are summarized in Table 7.
Table 7. Project Benefits Summary
Restoring and enhancing 50-foot forested riparian buffers and alleviating concentrated flow
points will decrease the volume and intensity of runoff into the system.
Restoration practices will restore proper floodplain connection by establishing stable bank
height ratios and entrenchment ratios.
Floodplain connectivity will allow for more surface area for surface storage and retention.
Raising and reconnecting the restored stream bed will promote higher water table
conditions and more hyporheic exchange.
An appropriate channel form for the valley type and slope will allow for a self-sustaining
system.
Decreasing stream bank erosion, connecting with the floodplain, and removing areas from
silviculture will decrease the sediment coming from the restored system.
Restoring and enhancing 50-foot forested riparian buffers will allow for canopy cover and
large woody debris in the system.
The use of woody in -stream structures will ensure channel stability while also providing
large woody debris.
Restoration practices will exclude streams from adjacent agricultural and silvicultural use
and provide functional riparian buffers of sufficient width to provide nutrient reductions.
Restoration practices will exclude streams from adjacent agricultural and silvicultural use,
provide functional riparian buffers of sufficient width, and stabilize stream bank erosion to
provide sediment reductions.
Restored buffers will also provide shade, reduce water temperatures, and increase dissolved
oxygen concentrations. The restored stream bed will promote higher water table conditions
and facilitate denitrification.
Restoration practices will restore appropriate habitats, reduce sediment and nutrient loads,
and provide increased shading and organic material inputs for aquatic organisms.
Restoration practices will restore a healthy stream corridor, promoting aquatic and
terrestrial species migration and protecting their shared resources in perpetuity.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 21

5 Determination of Credits
The Project consists of stream restoration and enhancement, and riparian wetland restoration and
enhancement to achieve the highest ecological lift possible. The proposed mitigation credit types, ratios
and design approaches were discussed with the IRT during the prospectus site visit and described further
in the meeting minutes located in Appendix G.
5.1 Proposed Mitigation Credit Types
Proposed mitigation credit types are Stream Mitigation Credits (SMCs) (warm thermal regime) and
riparian Wetland Mitigation Credits (WMCs). See Tables 8 and 9 for the proposed credit summary.
Table B. Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits (SMCs)
Stream Restoration
1,415
1,469
1:1
1,469
Stream Restoration
410
572
1:1
572
Stream Restoration
384
201
1:1
201
Stream Enhancement 1
189
189
1.5:1
126
Stream Restoration
589
619
1:1
619
Stream Restoration
3,696
3,987
1:1
3,987
Note: No stream mitigation credits were calculated outside the conservation easement boundaries.
Table 9. Proposed Wetland Mitigation Credits (WMCs)
Riparian Wetland Re-establishment 6.02 1:1 6.02
Riparian Wetland Re-establishment 1.22 1:1 1.22
Riparian Wetland Re-establishment 0.61 1:1 0.61
Note: No wetland mitigation credits were calculated outside the conservation easement boundaries.
5.2 Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases will be based on the total number of mitigation credits generated as reported in the
approved mitigation plan and verified by the as -built survey. The initial credit release will be based on the
proposed stream restoration lengths (SMCs) and wetland acreages (WMCs) as approved in the final
mitigation plan. The credit ledger will be managed by WLS and approved by the USACE District Engineer
(DE) and IRT. The estimated credits will be released following current USACE guidance, as shown in Table
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Page 22

10 below. The initial credit release milestone shall include approval/execution of MBI, approval of final
mitigation plan, securing the Project site, financial assurances delivery, long-term protection mechanism
delivery, title opinion delivery, and issuance of any permits necessary for construction.
Table 10. Credit Release Schedule
Project Site Establishment (as defined
above)
15%
15%
15% 15%
Completion of all initial physical and
biological improvements made pursuant
15%
30%
15% 30%
to the Mitigation Plan
Year 1 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that interim performance standards have
10%
40%
10% 40%
been met
Year 2 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that interim performance standards have
10%
50%
10% 50%
been met
Year 3 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that interim performance standards have
10%
60%
15% 65%
been met
Year 4 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that interim performance standards have
5%
65%
5% 70%
(75%-)
been met
Year 5 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that interim performance standards have
10%
75%
15% 85%
(S5%-)
been met
Year 6 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that interim performance standards have
5%
80%
5% 90%
(90%*)
been met
Year 7 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that interim performance standards have
10%
90%
10% 100%
(100%*)
been met
Note: *10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull
event performance standard has been met.
6 Mitigation Work Plan
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of five stream reaches (S100, S101, S300, Reedy
Creek Upper and Reedy Creek Lower) totaling approximately 7,037 linear feet of streams and 7.85 acres
of riparian wetlands (Figure 9). The design approach utilizes common mitigation practices and will
appropriately address the jurisdictional streams and wetlands at the site, including protecting or enhancing
riparian buffers along all the Project stream reaches and wetlands, providing the maximum functional uplift
with the goal of improving aquatic functions to a degraded resource. The design approach and mitigation
work plan are described in the following subsections.
6.1 Design Approach
The Project appropriately addresses all the jurisdictional stream reaches at the project site, including
restoring riparian buffers along all the project stream reaches currently in agriculture, and restoring
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 23

riparian wetlands. Due to past downcutting and over widening associated with channelization, grade
control along the project reaches appears to be provided by culvert crossings. The project reaches are
moderately unstable, with associated channel widening and localized stream bank erosion. Many of the
disturbed riparian buffers are completely or partially cleared. The proposed project will provide adequate
floodplain access to all stream reaches. Priority Level I Restoration is proposed to reconnect the project
streams with their geomorphic floodplains. In upper and lower transition sections, the following elements
will be incorporated into the Priority Level 11 Restoration design and construction:
• Floodplain bench excavation grading will extend a minimum of 1.5 bankfull widths beyond the
stream belt width such that meandering floodplains are not created.
• All proposed floodplains will be constructed such that they are over -excavated to accommodate
replacement of topsoil.
• Design and construction oversight measures will ensure the proper harvesting, segregating,
stockpiling, storage, handling, overall management and replacement of A and B soil horizon
materials onto the excavated floodplain.
• Constructed return slopes between the outer edge of the excavated floodplain and the terrace
will be a minimum of 5:1.
The Project will provide increased floodplain access throughout the project area for all reaches and will
be monitored to demonstrate successful floodplain function. The stream channel design included analysis
of the hydrology, hydraulics, shear stress, sediment transport, and bankfull channel dimensions. WLS
considered three methods (field indicators if present, published regional curve information, and hydraulic
modeling) for estimating a design bankfull discharge. The hydrology and hydraulics analysis evaluated a
range of lower flow discharges and flood frequency curves to help determine an appropriate design
discharge. The design discharge was used to select an appropriate channel geometry and help monitor
long-term project performance.
The wetland restoration approach is supported by on -site soils investigations, surface flow observations,
topography, and groundwater hydrology data. Three hydric soils polygons are mapped along the
floodplain of proposed lower Reedy Creek. The combination of Priority Level I Restoration, plugging
ditches, and minor grading of spoil and fill will restore the hydrologic conditions that formed the in -situ
hydric soils.
6.2 Design Criteria Selection
Selection of design criteria (Table 11) was based on a combination of approaches, including review of
reference data, flow regime equations, evaluation of monitoring results from successful past projects, and
best professional judgment. Evaluating data from reference reach surveys and monitoring results from
numerous Piedmont stream and wetland restoration projects provide pertinent background information
to determine the appropriate restoration potential and design parameters given the existing conditions,
current functions and site constraints. The proposed stream design parameters also considered the USACE
Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE, 2003) and the Natural Channel Design Checklist (Harman, 2011) as
described Section 6.4.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 24

Table 11. Proposed Design Parameters
0.190
0.097
0.140
7.85
8.60
C4
C4
C4
C5
C5
4.7
3.3
4.1
80.0
82.0
4.5
4.8
4.6
4.8
4.9
7.8
6.5
7.3
33.5
33.9
0.6
0.5
0.6
2.4
2.4
13.0
13.0
13.0
14.0
14.0
36-88
33-75
20-40
65-120
100-275
4.6
5.0
2.7
2.4
3.1
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
7.7-11.5
7.0-11.8
8.2-11.0
4.5-8.4
9.1-12.1
2.0-3.0
2.1-3.1
2.1-3.1
2.1-3.1
2.0-3.0
3.6-5.3
3.5-5.2
2.6-4.0
2.6-3.3
3.5-5.9
1.17
1.19
1.12
1.09
1.19
0.0125
0.0138
0.0033
0.0225
0.0031
1.2-1.4
1.2-1.4
1.2-1.7
1.2-1.5
1.2-1.5
0.0-0.1
0.0-0.1
0.0-0.2
0.0-0.1
0.0-0.1
1.2-1.4
1.2-1.4
1.2-1.4
1.2-1.4
1.2-1.4
3.8-6.8
3.5-6.7
4.1-6.2
3.9-6.7
3.8-6.6
6.2.1 Stream Design Reach Summary
Restoration
S100: S100 begins at a perched culvert crossing that is currently experiencing active bank erosion. Work
along S100 will involve a Priority Level I Restoration approach. The reach will be restored as a Rosgen 'C4'
stream type using appropriate riffle -pool morphology with conservative meander geometry. A new
channel will be constructed offline across the abandoned floodplain and within natural valley before
reconnecting with the Reedy Creek channel alignment further downstream. Proposed in -stream
structures will include constructed stone and wood riffles for grade control and habitat, brush toe with
cover logs, and angled log weirs for energy dissipation, bank stability, and to provide scour features and
bedform diversity for improved aquatic habitat. An existing culvert crossing will be removed in the lower
reach prior to the confluence with Reedy Creek. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored and
protected along the entire length of the reach.
S101: Similar to S100, S101 has been historically channelized and relocated along the left toe of slope to
increase land for crop production. Work along S101 will involve a Priority Level I Restoration approach.
The reach will be restored as a Rosgen 'C4' stream type using appropriate riffle -pool morphology with
conservative meander geometry. A new channel will be constructed offline across the abandoned
floodplain and within natural valley before reconnecting with the Reedy Creek channel alignment further
downstream. Proposed in -stream structures will include constructed stone and wood riffles for grade
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 25

control and habitat, brush toe with cover logs, and angled log weirs for encouraging step -pool formation,
energy dissipation, bank stability, and to provide scour features and bedform diversity for improved
aquatic habitat. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored and protected along the entire length
of the reach.
S300: S300 begins at the adjacent property line along Reedy Creek and work will involve a Priority Level I
Restoration approach. The reach will be restored as a Rosgen 'C4' stream type using appropriate riffle -
pool morphology with a conservative meander planform geometry that accommodates the flatter valley
slope and widths. A new channel will be constructed across the floodplain before reconnecting with the
Reedy Creek channel alignment further downstream. Proposed in -stream structures will include
constructed stone riffles for grade control and habitat, brush toe with cover logs, and angled log weirs for
encouraging step -pool formation, energy dissipation, bank stability, and to provide scour features and
bedform diversity for improved aquatic habitat. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored and
protected along the entire length of the reach.
Reedy Creek Lower: Work along Reedy Creek Lower will involve relocating the existing channel across
the left floodplain and implementing a Priority Level I Restoration by raising the bed elevation and
reconnecting the stream with its geomorphic floodplain. This approach will promote more frequent over
bank flooding in areas with hydric soils, thereby creating favorable conditions for wetland restoration (re-
establishment). The reach has been channelized and currently exhibits over widening, as evidenced by
active bank erosion and excess sediment deposits. This systemic degradation is causing excess bank
sediments to enter the system and embeddedness will likely continue, if restoration is not implemented,
since the existing channel has steep vertical banks that are devoid of deep rooting vegetation, as a result
of removing riparian buffer vegetation for pastureland.
The reach will be restored as a Rosgen 'C5' stream type using appropriate riffle -pool morphology with a
conservative meander planform geometry that accommodates the valley slope and widths. This approach
will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity, as well as improved
ecological function through creating aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The design width -to -depth ratio for
the channel will be similar to stable streams in this geologic setting. In -stream structures will be
incorporated to control grade, dissipate flow energies, and protect streambanks. In -stream structures will
most likely include constructed rock and wood riffles for grade control and aquatic habitat, log j-hook
vanes for encouraging pool formation, bank stability, and bedform diversity.
The existing channelized section of Reedy Creek will be filled completely and graded to the natural valley
topography. When feasible, any existing lateral ditches that are not filled will be tied into the restored
valley as water quality improvement features. The floodplain will be graded to restore the natural
microtopographic variability and shallow depressions that are common with these stream and wetland
systems. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored and protected along the entire reach length.
Reedy Creek Upper: Restoration activities along Reedy Creek Upper will involve excavating bankfull
benches before raising the bed elevation and reconnecting the stream with its geomorphic floodplain
further downstream. Proposed grading activities will improve overbank flooding by removing berms and
other agricultural land manipulations. In -stream structures will be incorporated to dissipate flow energies,
protect streambanks, and increase pool -to -pool spacing and aquatic habitat. Proposed in -stream
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 26

structures will include rock cross vanes, constructed riffles and vegetated geolifts with brush toe and cover
logs for encouraging pool formation, energy dissipation, bank stability, and bedform diversity. An existing
culvert crossing will be removed, and the reach will transition to a Priority Level I Restoration further
downstream. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be planted and protected along the entire reach
length.
Enhancement Level I
Reedy Creek Upper: Enhancement Level I activities along Reedy Creek Upper will improve overbank
flooding by removing berms and other agricultural land manipulations upstream of the existing powerline
easement. Limited bank stabilization and in -stream structures will be incorporated to dissipate flow
energies and improve aquatic habitat. Proposed in -stream structures will include constructed riffles and
vegetated geolifts with brush toe and cover logs for encouraging pool formation, energy dissipation, bank
stability, and bedform diversity. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be planted and protected along
the entire reach length.
6.2.2 Riparian Wetland Re-establishment
HS01, HS02 and HS03: Wetlands HS01, HS02 and HS03 contain soil conditions that are favorable for re-
establishing riparian wetlands. It is anticipated that as a direct result of implementing a Priority Level I
restoration along Reedy Creek, ditch plugging, limited soil manipulation in the form of shallow ripping
(<12"), and revegetation, the hydrology will be restored and allow wetland areas to regain their natural
functions. An overbank flooding regime will be restored throughout these areas by plugging the existing
ditches and raising the stream bed elevation to reconnect the channels to their active floodplain. WLS has
compared monitoring data from successful stream and wetland restoration projects within the same or
similar soil types and expects these areas will likely experience seasonal wetness for prolonged periods
and conditions are favorable to support appropriate wetland hydrology.
Based on the 2016 NCIRT guidance and soil properties, WLS expects an appropriate wetland saturation
range and hydroperiod for the mapped soil series or with similar taxonomy to be at least 12 percent of
the growing season (USACE, 2016). Due to the current drainage modifications and the sandy subsoil
horizons, it may require a year for the site to become completely saturated and reach the target
hydroperiods. A lower hydroperiod between 9 and 12 percent, depending on final construction timing
and rainfall distribution may be expected the first year after construction (assuming at least average
seasonal rainfall, antecedent conditions, and over bank flow frequency).
6.3 Flow Regime
Extensive research has demonstrated that a wide range of flows are essential to maintain stable and high
functioning habitat across ecological systems. The flow regime has been identified as the primary factor
in sustaining the ecological integrity of riparian systems (Poff et al. 1997) and is a key variable in
determining the abundance, distribution, and evolution of aquatic and riparian species (Schlosser 1985,
Resh et al. 1988, Power et al. 1995, Doyle et al. 2005). The ecological significance of variable stream flows
is more relative to flow duration, not necessarilyjust the flow recurrence interval. Seasonal flowvariations
are impacted by natural and anthropogenic mechanisms that correlate to biological relationships and
habitat response. Although dynamic, flow conditions can generally be categorized as low flow, channel -
forming flow, or flood flows, each with specific ecological significance (Poste) and Richter, 2003).
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 27

WLS recognizes the importance of seasonal flow variables and the ecological role they play in supporting
high functioning steams, both small in headwater systems (first order) and larger rivers. As such, flow
monitoring will be conducted to demonstrate that the restored stream systems exhibit seasonal base flow
during a year with normal rainfall conditions. The stream surface flow documentation methods are further
described in Section 9. Table 12 summarizes the basic flow levels and ecological roles the restoration
design will provide after Project implementation.
Table 12. Flow Level and Ecological Role
-Provide year-round habitat for aquatic organisms (drying/inundation pattern)
-Maintain suitable conditions for water temperature and dissolved oxygen
-Provide water source for riparian plants and animals
-Enable movement through stream corridor and refuge from predators
-Support hyporheic functions and aquatic organisms
-Shape and maintain physical stream channel form
-Create and maintain pools, in -stream and refuge habitat
-Redistribute and sort fine and coarse sediments
-Reduce encroachment of vegetation in channel and establishment of exotic
species
-Maintain water quality by flushing pollutants
-Maintain hyporheic connection by mobilizing bed and fine material
-Create in -channel bars for seed colonization of native riparian plants
-Deposition of fine sediment and nutrients on floodplain
-Maintain diversity, function, and health of riparian floodplain vegetation
-Create streamside habitat, new channels, sloughs, and off -channel rearing
habitat through lateral channel migration and avulsion
-Recharge floodplain and storage processes
-Recruitment of native wood and organic material into channel
6.3.1 Regional Curve Comparison
Regional curves developed by Dunne and Leopold (1978) relate bankfull channel dimensions to drainage
area and are based on the channel forming discharge theory, which states that one unique flow can yield
the same channel morphology as the full range of flows. A primary purpose for developing regional curves
is to aid in identifying bankfull stage and dimension in un-gaged watersheds, as well as to help predict the
bankfull dimension and discharge for natural channel designs (Rosgen, 1994). Gage station analyses
throughout the United States have shown that the bankfull discharge has an average return interval of
1.5 years or 66.7% annual exceedance probability on the maximum annual series (Dunne and Leopold,
1978; Leopold, 1994).
Hydraulic geometry relationships are empirically derived and can be developed for a specific river or
extrapolated to a watershed in the same physiographic region with similar rainfall/runoff relationships
(FISRWG, 1998). Published and unpublished watershed specific bankfull regional curves are available for
a range of stream types and physiographic provinces. The NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et
al., 1999) and unpublished NC Piedmont Regional Curve developed by the NRCS (NRCS, Walker, private
communication, 2015) were used for comparison when estimating bankfull discharge. The NC Rural
Piedmont Regional Curve and bankfull hydraulic geometry equations are shown in Table 13.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 28

Table 13. North Carolina Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations
Qbkf = 55.31 AW" R2=0.97 Qbkf = 89.04 AW 0.12 R2=0.91
Abkf = 19.23 AW 0" R2=0.97 Abkf = 21.43 AW 0" R2=0.95
Wbkf = 17.41 AW 0.31 R2=0.79 Wbkf = 11.89 AW 0.43 R2=0.81
Dbkf = 1.09 AN, 0.21 R2=0.80 Dbkf = 1.50 AN, 0.32 R2=0.88
It's important to note reaches S100, S101 and S300 are classified as first order streams, and generally
smaller headwater streams can be poorly represented on the regional curves. Based on our experience,
the published NC Piedmont Regional Curve Equations can slightly overestimate discharge and channel
dimensions for smaller ungaged streams, such as those present at the Project site. Furthermore,
estimating bankfull parameters subjectively rather than using deterministic values may encourage
designers to make decisions on a range of values and beliefs that the bankfull depths must inherently be
within that range (Johnson and Heil, 1996).
WLS has implemented numerous projects in ungaged drainages in the Piedmont hydrophysiographic
province of North Carolina, including projects in surrounding Piedmont counties, and has developed
"mini -curves" specific to these projects. The data set help reduce uncertainty by providing additional
reference points and supporting evidence for the selection of bankfull indicators that produce slightly
smaller dimensions and flow rates than the published regional curve data set. Channel slope, valley
setting, channel geometry, and sediment supply, as well as information from published USGS regression
analysis and Manning's equations were all considered during examination of the field data. The estimated
bankfull discharges and surveyed cross -sectional areas at the top of bank were plotted on the NC Rural
Piedmont Regional Curve and illustrated in Appendix C.
6.3.2 Channel Forming Discharge
A hydrologic analysis was completed to estimate and validate the design discharge and channel geometry
required to provide more frequent overbank flows and floodplain inundation. WLS used multiple methods
for evaluating the bankfull stage and dominant discharge for the Project reaches. Cross -sections were
identified and surveyed to represent reach -wide conditions. Additional bankfull estimation methods, such
as the commonly accepted Manning's equation, were compared to help interpret and adjust field
observations to select the appropriate design criteria and justification for the design approach.
The bankfull flows in gaged watersheds within the NC Rural Piedmont study documented return intervals
(RI) that ranges from 1.1 to 1.8, with a mean of 1.4 years (Harman et al, 1999). WLS also compared the 2-
year flow frequency using the published USGS regression equations for rural streams within the piedmont
hydrologic area of North Carolina (USGS, 2009, 2014). As expected, these values fall slightly above the
published bankfull discharge and were extrapolated to represent a wider range of flows. WLS then
compared lower flow frequencies in the 1.2-yr, and 1.5-yr RI range versus existing conditions survey data,
LiDAR Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and FEMA HEC-RAS model.
It should be noted that this best fit approach does not always match the dataset, since it falls at the low
end of the curve. Therefore, caution should be used when comparing these lower Rls with additional data
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 29

sets. Using the rationale described above, the bankfull discharge analyses compared rural Piedmont
regional curves, Manning's equation discharges calculated from the representative cross-section
geometry for existing reaches and published USGS regional regression equations.
Table 14. Design Discharge Analysis Summary
S100 0.187 26.5 15.8 18.0 39.9 31.7 21.0
S101 0.097 16.5 9.5 59.9 26.2 21.5 16.0
S300 0.140 21.5 12.6 13.7 33.2 26.8 19.0
Reedy Creek 7.850 394.4 289.5 469.3 420.9 301.8 385.0
Upper
Reedy Creek 8.600 421.3 310.8 369.8 485.4 364.8 400.0
Lower
Note 1: Published NC Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999).
Note 2: Unpublished Revised NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve developed by NRCS (Walker personal communication, 2015).
Note 3: Bankfull discharge estimates vary based on Manning's Equation for the representative riffle cross -sections. Bankfull
stage roughness estimates (n-values) ranged from approximately 0.035 based on channel slopes, depth, bed material size,
and vegetation influence.
Note 4: USGS rural regression equation for 2-year flood recurrence interval for small rural streams (USGS, 2011)
Note 5: NC USGS rural regression equation extrapolated for 1.2- and 1.5-year flood recurrence interval (USGS, 2011)
After considering these estimation methods and results (geometry measurements, regional curves, flow
frequency and USGS regional regression equations), WLS estimated the design discharge using values
between the published NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve and Manning's equation to select the
appropriate design dimensions and flows rates that best correspond to the design channel that will convey
the 1.2-yr to 1.5-yr RI. The design discharge analysis summary is provided in Appendix C.
6.3.3 Channel Stability and Sediment Transport Analysis
WLS investigated potential sediment sources from the upstream watershed and collected bulk samples
along Reedy Creek, S100 and S101 to characterize substrate material. Small depositional features
observed within the stream channels contain a mix of sand, silt/clay, and small gravel due to the parent
soils and active stream bank erosion. The bulk sample results indicate that the dominant bed material in
the stream reaches is coarse sand under current conditions, with a few localized sections of small gravel.
The results of the bed were used to classify the streams and complete critical shear stress calculations
required for designing slopes/depths and predicting channel stability. Additionally, WLS calculated stream
power at representative cross -sections and compared the results to stable reference data and published
Shield's curve values to confirm that sediment supply can be transported adequately through the system
without containing excess energy in the channel and ensure design riffles will not excessively aggrade or
degrade. The sediment transport capacity was analyzed to help predict stable channel design conditions
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 30

and bankfull discharges for the Project reaches. Sediment transport analysis data shown on Table 15
represents the boundary shear stress and stream power values under proposed design conditions for the
Project reaches and include in Appendix C.
Table 15. Sediment Transport Analysis
4.8
3.3
4.1
80.0
82.0
0.0126
0.0139
0.0039
0.0021
0.0018
21.0
16.0
19.0
385.0
400.0
4.4
4.8
4.6
4.7
4.9
9.1
7.5
8.4
38.3
38.7
0.5
0.4
0.5
2.1
2.1
1.7
1.6
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
31.0
29.0
8.2
19.0
15.0
80.0
75.0
31.4
57.0
48.0
As a design consideration, portions of the bed material will contain particle sizes larger than the D84 and
Diooto achieve vertical stability in steeper channel sections immediately after construction. The proposed
channel slopes throughout the Project reaches range from approximately 0.2% (Reedy Creek) to 1.5%
(S100 and S101). In general, sections with steeper slopes (>0.5%) will be addressed by installing a
combination of grade control structures such as log/rock riffles, angled log sills and small boulders.
Incorporating these structures will prevent further channel degradation and embeddedness, promote
natural scour and sediment storage, and increase bed/bank stability since shear stress and sediment
entrainment are directly affected by factors such flow energy distribution and channel resistance. While
it is predicted that the restoration and enhancement efforts will reduce stream bed and bank erosion, the
channels must still adequately transport finer bedload material while maintaining vertical and lateral
stability.
A site -specific sediment rating curve and budget was not developed given the existing sediment supply,
surrounding land use and position in the watershed. However, empirical relationships from stable streams
were compared to published values and reference streams that have similar characteristics and boundary
conditions such as slope, controlling vegetation and bedform morphology. Based on field observations
within the Project watershed, Reedy Creek receives mostly finer materials directly from streambank
erosion with contributions from transport zones in the upper catchment area. This was evidenced by
visual observations along portions of the degraded channels.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Page 31

6.4 Reference Sites
6.4.1 Reference Streams
The morphologic data obtained from reference reach surveys can be a valuable tool for comparison and
used as a template for analog design of a stable stream in a similar valley type, drainage area, valley slope
and bed material. To obtain the morphological relationships observed in a stable stream system,
dimensionless ratios were compared from the reference reach data. These ratios were considered in the
stream design to 'mimic' the natural, stable form of the target channel type. While reference reach data
can be a useful aid in analog design, they are not always necessary and can have limitations in ungaged or
smaller stream systems (Hey, 2006).
The flow patterns and channel formation for many reference reach quality streams are often controlled
by slope, bed material, drainage areas and larger trees and/or other deep-rooted vegetation. Some
meander geometry parameters, such as radius of curvature, are particularly affected by vegetation
control. Pattern ratios observed in reference reaches may not be applicable or are often adjusted in the
design criteria to create more conservative designs that are less likely to erode after construction and
before the permanent vegetation is established.
For comparison purposes, WLS selected a 'rural piedmont' reference reach and compared with composite
reference reaches that are within the same climatic, hydrophysiographic and ecoregion as that for the
Project site. The data shown on Table 16 help to determine how the stream system will likely respond to
minimal changes within the watershed.
Table 16. Reference Reach Data Comparison
C4
C4
C5
5.9
3.5-5.0
3.5-5.0
18.4
10.0
- 15.0
10.0
- 14.0
3.7
>2.2
>2.2
1.3-2.1
1.2-1.5
1.2-1.4
1.0-1.1
1.0-1.1
1.0-1.1
7.2-15.7
7.0-14.0
7.0-14.0
1.8-3.6
2.0-3.0
2.0-3.0
2.5-4.6
3.0-8.0
3.0-8.0
1.17
1.2
-1.4
1.2
- 1.5
0.0242
0.005
- 0.015
0.002
- 0.010
0.0129
0.005
- 0.015
0.002
- 0.010
2.1
1.5
- 3.5
1.2
- 2.5
1.27
1.0
-1.7
1.0
- 1.7
2.2-4.8 3.0-7.0 3.0-7.0
Note 1: Composite reference reach values and ratios were compared using stable stream restoration projects
surveyed and monitored in NC as illustrated in the Natural Channel Design Checklist (Harman, 2011).
Note 2: Reference reach data collected from Shoals Community Park (SCP) site.
Shoals Community Park (SCP): Shoals Community Park is a small first order rural piedmont stream
(Rosgen C4 stream type) in Surry County, NC that was restored in 2008. The stream flows through the east
side of the park and originates just west of Shoals Road. The riparian corridor is vegetated, and the stream
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Page 32

has conservative meander geometry as it flows across the natural valley bottom and bedform diversity
consists of rock riffles, small boulder steps and angled log drops.
6.4.2 Reference Wetlands
A reference wetland was identified within the project area along the Reedy Creek floodplain (W01 in
Figure 8). The riparian wetland is an example of a Bottomland Hardwood Forest (NC WAM, 2016).
Bottomland Hardwood Forests exist in geomorphic floodplains along second order and larger streams.
These wetlands are generally intermittently to seasonally inundated and overbank flooding is the source
of groundwater and surface runoff. The wetland is partially forested and within a concave depression with
a shallow outlet near an existing toe of slope ditch. Soils consist of a sandy loam. The reference site has
experienced minimal disturbances in the past, primarily due to adjacent ditching and agriculture;
however, a mature canopy of vegetation exists near wetland. Evidence also suggests that the hydrology
and soils were minimally affected by the historic ditching activities. A groundwater monitoring well (WG-
1) was installed to document hydrology during the growing season prior to restoration activities.
6.5 Water Quality Treatment Features
Water quality treatment features in the form of small depressions or basins are designed to treat runoff
from the surrounding agricultural areas. The features are proposed along upper 5100 and function most
like a stormwater wetland to temporarily store surface runoff in shallow pools that support emergent and
native riparian vegetation. The features are designed by comparing the SCS Curve Number Method and
Simple Method to capture overland flow, increase infiltration and groundwater recharge, diffuse flow
energies, and allow nutrient uptake within the project area.
The features will be installed along non -jurisdictional areas where ephemeral drainages intersect with the
proposed restored stream corridor. The area will be improved and stabilized by grading flatter side slopes
(>3H:1V) and planting appropriate wetland vegetation. Over time, as vegetation becomes established, the
areas will function as shallow wetland complexes or depressions. The outlet channels will be constructed
with suitable material and stabilized with permanent vegetation and stone that will deliver reduced runoff
and prevent headcut migration and/or erosion into the newly constructed areas. This strategy will allow
the features to function properly with minimal risk and without long-term maintenance requirements.
See Appendix A design plan sheets for details and feature locations.
6.6 Revegetation Plan
Riparian buffers will be established a minimum of 50 feet from the top of the streambanks along each of
the Project reaches, as well as permanently protecting those buffers with a conservation easement. Many
of the proposed riparian buffer widths within the conservation easement are greater than 50 feet along
one or both streambanks to provide additional functional uplift potential, such as encompassing adjacent
wetland areas. Proposed plantings will be conducted using native species trees and shrubs, in the form of
live stakes and seedlings will predominantly consist of bare root vegetation planted at a total target
density of 680 stems per acre. The proposed plant selection will help to establish canopy cover and soil
stability based on an appropriate reference community. Schafale's (2012) guidance on vegetation
communities for Piedmont Bottomland Forest (mixed riparian community) and Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forest (Piedmont Subtype), the USACE Wetland Research Program (WRP) Technical Note VN-RS-4.1
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 33

(1997), as well as existing mature species identified throughout the project area, will be referenced during
the development of riparian buffer and adjacent riparian wetland planting plans for the Project site.
The proposed plant selection will help to establish an appropriate native vegetation community based on
reference conditions and water quality goals. Schafale's (2012) Natural Communities of North Carolina,
as well as existing mature species identified throughout the Project area, were referenced during the
development of riparian buffer planting plan for the Project site. The closest approximation the riparian
vegetation community is a mix of Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood in the floodplain of Reedy Creek and
a Mesic Mixed Hardwood along 5100 and 5101 (Schafale, 2012). Species proposed for revegetation
planting are presented in Tables 17 and 18. Riparian wetlands do not necessitate a separate community
designation.
Table 17. Proposed Riparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings
Betula nigra
River birch
FACW
---
10%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
FACW
4%
4%
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
FACW
15%
15%
Ulmus americana
American elm
FACW
5%
5%
Quercus rubra
Red oak
FACU
10%
---
Quercus alba
White oak
FACU
15%
5%
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
FACW
---
5%
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
FAC
---
10%
Quercus nigra
Water oak
FAC
6%
10%
Fagus grandifolia
American beech
FACU
15%
---
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
FAC
10%
5%
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip poplar
FACU
10%
8%
Alnus serrulata
Tag alder
OBL
---
8%
Corpus amomum
Silky dogwood
FACW
---
5%
Asimina triloba
Pawpaw
FAC
5%
5%
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
FAC
5%
5%
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. Species
substitutions will be coordinated
between WLS and planting contractor
prior to the procurement
of seeding stock. A
red -line table will be provided in the As -Built report document.
6.6.1 Planting Materials and Methods
Planting will be conducted during the dormant season, with all trees installed between Mid -November
and March 15t". The final planting zone limits may be modified based on these observations and
comparisons, and the final selection of the location of the planted species will be matched according to
the species wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of the planting area.
Live Staking and Live Branch Cuttings: Where black willow (Solix nigro) live staking is proposed on
streambanks, live stakes will typically be installed at a minimum of 40 stakes per 1,000 square feet and
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 34

the stakes will be spaced approximately three feet apart in meander bends and six feet apart in the riffle
sections, using a triangular spacing pattern along the streambanks, between the toe of the streambank
and bankfull elevation. When bioengineering is proposed, live branch cutting bundles will be installed at
five linear feet per bundle approximately two to three branches thick.
Permanent Seeding: Temporary and permanent seeding will be conducted simultaneously at all disturbed
areas of the Project site during construction and will conducted with mechanical broadcast spreaders.
Table 18 lists the proposed species, mixtures, and application rates for permanent seeding. The vegetation
species proposed for temporary seeding germinate quickly to swiftly establish vegetative ground cover
and thus, short term stability. The permanent seed mixture proposed is suitable for streambank,
floodplain, and adjacent riparian wetland areas, and the upland transitional areas in the riparian buffer.
Beyond the riparian buffer areas, temporary and permanent seeding will also be conducted at all other
disturbed areas of the Project site that are susceptible to erosion. If temporary seeding is applied from
November through April, rye grain will be used and applied at a rate of 130 pounds per acre. If applied
from May through October, temporary seeding will consist of browntop millet, applied at a rate of 40
pounds per acre.
Table 18. Proposed Riparian Buffer Permanent Seeding
Scirpus cyperinus
Woolgrass
FACW
10%
2.0
Dichanthelium clandestinum
Deer tongue
FAC
15%
3.0
Elymus virginicus
Virginia wildrye
FACW
15%
3.0
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
FAC
15%
3.0
Schizachyrium scoparium
Little blue stem
FACU
15%
3.0
Rudbeckia hirta
Black-eyed susan
FACU
10%
2.0
Echinacea purpurea
Coneflower
NI
10%
2.0
Juncus effusus Soft rush FAWC 10% 2.0
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. Species
substitutions will be coordinated between WLS and planting contractor prior to the procurement of seeding stock.
Invasive Species: There is not a significant presence of invasive species vegetation in the project area.
There are sparse occurrences (totaling less than 5%) of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) located in existing
riparian buffers along 5100 and 5101. One small cluster of kudzu (Pueraria montana) is located at an
existing crossing near the top of the project on Reedy Creek. Additional wooded areas within the project
area contain individual or small clumps of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) totaling less than 5% of
overall vegetation. During the Project implementation, invasive species exotic vegetation will be treated
both to control its presence and reduce its spread within the conservation easement areas.
6.7 Site Construction Methods
6.7.1 Site Grading and Construction Elements
Much of the grading across the Project site will be conducted within the existing riparian corridor. The
restored streams will be excavated within the existing valleys. Suitable fill material will be generated from
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Page 35

new channel excavation and adjacent upland areas and hauled to ditch fill/plugs or stockpile locations, as
necessary. Portions of the existing, unstable channels will be partially to completely filled in along their
length using compactable material excavated from construction of the restored channels.
Floodplain grading activities will focus on restoring pre -disturbance valley topography by removing field
crowns, overburden/spoil, and surface drains and ditches that were imposed during conversion of the
land for agriculture. In general, floodplain grading activities will be minor, with the primary goal of soil
scarification, creating depressional areas, water quality and habitat features, and microtopographic
crenulations by filling the drainage features at the site back to adjacent ground elevations (Scherrer,
1999). Any excess material not used for ditch plugging or suitable as a soil base for vegetation will be
spread across upland areas outside of the easement boundary and jurisdictional WOTUS.
6.7.2 Stream, Wetland and Floodplain Improvement Features
Stream improvement features such as in -stream structures and bioengineering techniques are proposed
for grade control, streambank protection, and improving bedform diversity and habitat. All in -stream
structures will be constructed from materials naturally found in the region such as hardwood trees,
trunks/logs, brush/branches, and gravel stone materials. Whenever possible, existing substrate material
in the abandoned stream channels will be harvested and utilized for the new channel locations.
WLS will also incorporate bioengineering practices, when appropriate, that use biodegradable materials
and fabrics, uncompacted soils, live plant cuttings, and native species vegetation to stabilize streambanks.
Bioengineering treatments will provide initial bank stability that allows for the quick establishment of
deep-rooted vegetation along the newly restored streambanks. Additionally, floodplain improvement
features such as large woody debris (LWD) will be installed. This will mimic features like tree throws, snags,
stumps, etc. that are commonly found in natural riparian systems. These floodplain improvement features
will be added to provide habitat and serve as water storage and sediment sinks throughout the corridor
to improve riparian functions (Dooley, 2003).
6.7.3 Construction Feasibility
WLS has field verified that the Project site has adequate, viable construction access, staging, and stockpile
areas. Physical constraints or barriers, such as stream crossings, account for only a small percentage of
the proposed total stream reach length within the Project boundary. Existing Project site access points
and features will be used for future access after the completion of construction.
6.7.4 Future Project Risks and Uncertainties
Listed below are identified project risks and uncertainties that have been evaluated in the development
of design plans for the site, along with methods that have been/will be used to address these concerns.
Land Use Development: There is minimal risk that changes in land use upstream in the project watershed
would alter the hydrology or sediment supply enough to impair the project streams after construction.
The project area has seen little to no development in recent years, and it is unlikely development will the
threaten the site.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 36

o Methods to Address: Restoration and reforestation of the site streams will reduce the likelihood
of future degradation from watershed changes, as erosive flood flows will spread over a wider
reconnected floodplain.
Easement Encroachment: There is potential for landowner encroachment into the permanent
conservation easement.
o Methods to Address: WLS has had considerable discussions with the landowner regarding the
project requirements and limitations of easement access and is confident that the landowners
fully understand and will maintain the easement protections. The easement boundaries will be
clearly marked per requirements. Any encroachments that do occur will be remedied by WLS or
the long-term steward to remedy any damage and provide any other corrections required by the
I RT.
Drought and Floods: There is potential for extreme climatic conditions during the monitoring period of
the project.
o Methods to Address: WLS will apply adaptive management techniques as necessary to meet the
site performance criteria. Such adaptive management may include replanting, channel damage
repair, irrigation, or other methods. If adaptive management activities are significant, additional
monitoring may be required by the IRT.
Beavers: There is minimal evidence of beaver activity during recent assessments, there is potential for
beavers to affect the site during the monitoring period of the project.
o Methods to Address: WLS will take steps to trap and remove beaver if they threaten Project
success during the monitoring period.
7 Maintenance Plan
The Project will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the Project will take place at
least twice a year throughout the post -construction monitoring period until performance standards are
met. These inspections may identify Project components and features that require routine maintenance.
Routine maintenance is anticipated in the years following Project construction and may include the
following components as described in Table 19.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 37

Table 19. Routine Maintenance Components
Stream Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include modifying in -stream structures
to prevent piping, securing loose coir matting, and supplemental installation of live stakes and
other target vegetation along the Project reaches. Areas of concentrated stormwater and
floodplain flows that intercept the channel may also require maintenance.
Wetland Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose coir matting
and supplemental installations of target vegetation within the wetland. Areas of concentrated
storm flows that intercept the wetland may also require maintenance to prevent excess scour.
Vegetation Vegetation will be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant community.
Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting,
pruning, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species will be treated by mechanical and/or
chemical methods. Any invasive plant species control requiring herbicide application will be
performed in accordance with NCDA rules and regulations.
Project Site Project boundaries will be demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
Boundary project site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard,
post, or other means as allowed by Project conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary
markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed
basis.
Beaver Routine maintenance and repair activities caused by beaver activity may include supplemental
Management planting, pruning, and dewatering/dam removal. Beaver management will be implemented
using accepted trapping and removal methods only within the recorded Conservation Easement.
8 Performance Standards
The success criteria for the Project will follow the approved performance standards and monitoring
protocols presented in this mitigation plan which have been developed in compliance with the USACE
October 2016 Guidance, USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines (April 2003 and October 2005), and 2008
Compensatory Mitigation Final Rule. Monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of seven years
with the final duration dependent upon performance trends toward achieving the Project goals and
objectives. Specific success criteria components and evaluation methods are described below.
8.1 Streams
Stream Hydrology: Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring
period. The bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue
until four bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
Stream Profiles, Vertical Stability, and FloodplainAccess: Stream profiles, as a measure of vertical stability
and floodplain access will be evaluated by looking at Bank Height Ratios (BHR). In addition, observed
bedforms should be consistent with those observed for channels of the design stream type(s). The BHR
shall not exceed 1.2 along the restored Project stream reaches. This standard only applies to restored
reaches of the channel where BHRs were corrected through design and construction.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Page 38

Stream Horizontal Stability: Cross -sections will be used to evaluate horizontal stream stability. There
should be minimal changes in cross-section geometry during the monitoring period. If measurable changes
do occur, they should be evaluated to determine if the changes represent a movement toward a more
unstable condition (e.g., downcutting, erosion) or a movement towards increased stability (e.g., settling,
vegetation establishment, deposition along the streambanks, decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross -
sections shall be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification method and all monitored cross -sections
should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
Streambed Material Condition and Stability: After construction, there should be minimal change in the
particle size distribution of the streambed materials, over time, given the current watershed conditions
and anticipated upstream sediment supply. Since the stream substrate and supply is predominantly fine
particles (sand), significant changes in particle size distribution and excess channel aggradation are not
expected.
Jurisdictional Stream Flow: The restored stream systems must be classified as at least intermittent, and
intermittent streams must exhibit 30 days of continuous flow for some portion of the year during a year
with normal rainfall conditions. A post restoration flow gauge will be installed on 5300, 5100 and 5101.
Photo Documentation: Photographs should illustrate the Project's vegetation and morphological stability
on an annual basis. Cross-section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the
banks. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of persistent mid -channel bars or vertical incision.
Grade control structures should remain stable.
8.2 Wetlands
Wetland Hydrology: The performance standard for wetland hydrology will be at least 12 percent
throughout hydric soil areas proposed for wetland re-establishment (HS01, HS02). These hydroperiods
are based on the suggested wetland saturation thresholds for soils taxonomic subgroups provided by the
LSS and IRT. The proposed success criteria for wetland hydrology will be when the soils are saturated
within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 12 percent (27 days) of the growing season on WETS data
table for Davidson County, NC. The saturated conditions should occur during a period when antecedent
precipitation has been normal or drier than normal for a minimum frequency of 5 years in 10 (USACE,
2005 and 2010b).
Precipitation data will be obtained from the NOAA Clemmons 6.5 SE Station (GHCND:USINCDS0013),
which is approximately 3.4 miles north of the Project and a rain gauge will be installed on site. If a normal
year of precipitation does not occur during the first seven years of monitoring, WLS will continue to
monitor the Project hydrology until the Project has been saturated for the appropriate hydroperiod. If
rainfall amounts for any given year during the monitoring period are abnormally low, reference wetland
hydrology data will be compared to determine if there is a correlation with the weather conditions and
site variability. WLS has installed five wetland gauges prior to restoration to document baseline hydrology.
Two gauges are in HS01, one gauge located in both HS02 and HS03, and there is one gauge in the verified
wetland W01 (see figure 8).
For the first year after construction, it may be realistic to expect a shorter hydroperiod. The deeper soil
horizons will likely need time to become fully saturated and establish a high groundwater table across the
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 39

floodplain. For at least the first year after construction, it may be reasonable to expect a hydroperiod
range between 9 and 12 percent.
8.3 Vegetation
Vegetative restoration success for the lower Project during the intermediate monitoring years will be
based on the survival of at least 320, three -year -old planted stems per acre at the end of Year 3 of the
monitoring period; and at least 260, five -year -old, planted stems per acre that must average seven feet in
height at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period. The final vegetative restoration success criteria will
be achieving a density of no less than 210, seven -year -old planted stems per acre that must average 10
feet in height in Year 7 of monitoring.
8.4 Invasive Species
WLS will treat invasive species vegetation within the project area and provide remedial action on a case
by -case basis. Common invasive species vegetation, such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), kudzu
(Pueraria montana) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) will be removed to allow native plants to become
established within the conservation easement. Invasive species vegetation will be treated by approved
mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any control methods requiring herbicide application will be
performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. If necessary,
these removal treatments (i.e., cutting and/or spraying) will continue until the corrective actions
demonstrate that the site is trending towards or meeting the standard monitoring requirement.
9 Monitoring Plan
In accordance with the approved mitigation plan, the baseline monitoring document and as -built report
documenting the mitigation activities will be developed within 60 days of the completion of planting and
monitoring device installation at the restored Project. In addition, a period of at least six months will
separate the as -built baseline measurements and the first -year monitoring measurements. The baseline
monitoring document and as -built monitoring report will include all information required by the USACE
Stream Mitigation Guidelines, issued in April 2003 and USACE Guidance for Compensatory Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District dated October 2016.
WLS will conduct mitigation performance monitoring based on these methods and will submit annual
monitoring reports to IRT by December 315Y of each monitoring year during which required monitoring is
conducted. Project success criteria must be met by the final monitoring year prior to project closeout, or
monitoring will continue until unmet criteria are successfully met. The following subsections summarize
the monitoring methods and linkage between the goals, parameters, and expected functional lift
outcomes. Figure 10 illustrates the post -construction monitoring feature types and location.
9.1 Stream Monitoring
Hydrologic monitoring will be conducted for all of the Project stream reaches. For reaches that involve a
combination of Restoration (Rosgen Priority Level I and II) approaches, geomorphic monitoring methods
will be employed to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices. Visual monitoring will be
conducted along these reaches as described herein. For the Project reaches involving an Enhancement
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 40

Level II approach, monitoring efforts will focus primarily on visual inspections, photo documentation, and
vegetation assessments, each as described herein. The monitoring of these Project reaches will utilize the
methods described under visual monitoring.
9.1.1 Hydrologic Monitoring
The occurrence of four required bankfull events within the monitoring period, along with floodplain access
by flood flows, will be documented using pressure transducers and/or photography. The pressure
transducers will be installed in pools and correlating sensor depth to top of bank elevation. Recorded
water depth above the top of bank elevation will document a bankfull event. In addition to the pressure
transducers, traditional cork gauges will be installed at bankfull elevation and will be used to document
bankfull events with photographs. Corresponding photographs will be used to document the occurrence
of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during monitoring site visits. This hydrologic
monitoring will help establish that the restoration objectives of restoring floodplain functions and
promoting more natural flood processes are being met.
9.1.2 Geomorphic Monitoring
Pattern: A planimetric survey will be conducted for the entire length of restored channel immediately after
construction to document as -built baseline conditions (Monitoring Year 0). The survey will be tied to a
permanent benchmark and measurements will include thalweg, bankfull, and top of banks. The plan view
measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, meander width ratio will be taken on newly
constructed meanders during baseline documentation (Monitoring Year 0) only. These measurements will
demonstrate that the restored stream channel pattern provides more stable planform and associated
features than the old channel, which provide improved aquatic habitat and geomorphic function, as per
the restoration objectives.
Dimension: Permanent cross -sections will be installed and surveyed at an approximate rate of one cross-
section per 20 bankfull widths or an average distance interval (not to exceed 500 LF) of restored stream,
with approximately 50% cross -sections located at riffles, and 50% located at pools. Each cross-section will
be monumented on both streambanks to establish the exact transect used and to facilitate repetition each
year and easy comparison of year-to-year data. The cross-section surveys will occur in years 0 (as -built), 1,
2, 3, 5, and 7, and will include measurements of bankfull cross -sectional area (Abkf) at low bank height,
Bank Height Ratio (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring survey will include points measured
at all breaks in slope, including top of streambanks, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the
features are present.
There should be minimal change in as -built cross -sections. Stable cross -sections will establish that the
restoration goal of creating geomorphically stable stream conditions has been met. If changes do take
place, they will be documented in the survey data and evaluated to determine if they represent a
movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down -cutting or erosion) or a movement toward
increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the streambanks, or decrease in
width -to -depth ratio). Using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, all monitored cross -sections should
fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Given the smaller
channel sizes and meander geometry of the proposed steams, bank pin arrays will not be installed unless
monitoring results indicate active lateral erosion at cross -sections occurring in meander bends or an
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 41

increase of greater than 15% in cross -sectional area, or when visual monitoring indicates potential bank
instability.
Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross-section. Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the streambanks. Photographs will betaken of both
streambanks at each cross-section. A survey tape stretched between the permanent cross-section
monuments/pins will be centered in each of the streambank photographs. The water elevation will be
shown in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of the streambank as possible will be included in each
photo. Photographers should attempt to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Profile: A longitudinal profile will be surveyed for the entire length of restored channel immediately after
construction (Monitoring Year 0) to document as -built baseline conditions. The survey will be tied to a
permanent benchmark and measurements will include thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low
bank. Each of these measurements will be taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the
maximum pool depth. The longitudinal profile should show that the bedform features installed are
consistent with intended design stream type. The longitudinal profiles will not be taken during subsequent
monitoring years unless vertical channel instability has been documented or remedial actions/repairs are
deemed necessary. Bank height ratios will be measured along the restored reaches using the results of the
longitudinal profile.
9.1.3 Flow Duration Monitoring
Jurisdictional Stream Flow Documentation: Monitoring of stream flow will be conducted to demonstrate
that the restored stream systems classified as intermittent exhibit surface flow for a minimum of 30
consecutive days throughout some portion of the year during a year with normal rainfall conditions. To
determine if rainfall amounts are normal for the given year, precipitation amounts using tallied data
obtained from the NOAA Clemmons 6.5 SE Station (GHCND:USINCDS0013), which is approximately 3.4
miles north of the Project, and a rain gauge will be installed on site. If a normal year of precipitation does
not occur during the first seven years of monitoring, monitoring of flow conditions at the Project site will
continue until it documents that the intermittent streams have been flowing during the appropriate times
of the year.
The proposed monitoring of restored intermittent reaches will include the installation of flow devices
(continuous -read pressure transducers) installed in pools and correlating sensor depth to the downstream
top of riffle elevation. If the pool water depth is at or above the top of riffle elevation, then the channel
will be assumed to have surface flow. The devices will be installed in the upper one-third portion of the
reach. In addition, photographic documentation using a continuous series of remote photos overtime may
be used to subjectively evaluate and document channel flow conditions throughout the year. More
specifically, the longitudinal photos should indicate the presence of flow within the channel to illustrate
water levels within the pools and riffles. The photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five
feet to ensure that the same locations (and view directions) at the Project site are documented in each
monitoring period and will be shown on a plan view map. The devices will be inspected on a quarterly basis
to document surface hydrology and provide a basis for evaluating flow response to rainfall events and
surface runoff throughout the monitoring period.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 42

9.2 Wetland Monitoring
Hydrology: Approximately 8 automated groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to document
hydrologic conditions of the restored wetland areas to determine hydrologic success criteria are achieved.
Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to record daily groundwater levels in accordance with the
USACE standard methods described in "Technical Standard for Water Table Monitoring of Potential
Wetland Sites" (ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2, June 2005). The objective for the monitoring well data is to
demonstrate that the Project exhibits an increased flood frequency as compared to pre -restoration
conditions and on -site reference conditions.
9.3 Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation -monitoring quadrants or plots will be installed and monitored across the Project in accordance
with the CVS-EEP Level I & II Monitoring Protocol (CVS, 2008). The vegetation monitoring plots shall
comprise approximately 2% of the proposed planted portion (41.8 acres) of the Project site with
approximately 33 plots established randomly within the planted riparian buffer areas. The sampling may
employ annually located quasi -random plot locations, which may vary upon approval from IRT. Any
random plots should comprise no more than 50% of the total required plots, and the location (GPS
coordinates and orientation) will be identified in the monitoring reports. The size and location of fixed
plots will be 100 square meters (i.e., 10m X 10m or 5m X 20M) for planted stems and may be adjusted
based on site conditions after construction activities have been completed. No monitoring quadrants will
be established within undisturbed wooded preservation or enhancement areas, however visual
observations will be documented in the annual monitoring reports to describe any changes to the existing
vegetation community.
Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall each required monitoring year, prior to the loss of leaves.
Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings
and the current year's living, planted seedlings. Data will be collected at each individual quadrant and will
include specific data for monitored stems on height, species, date planted, and grid location, as well as a
collective determination of the survival density within that quadrant. Volunteer species will be noted and
if they are on the approved planting list and meet success criteria standards, they will be counted towards
success criteria. Other species not included on the list may be considered by the IRT on a case -by -case
basis. The presence of invasive species vegetation within the monitoring quadrants will also be noted, as
will any wildlife effects. At the end of the first full growing season (from baseline/year 0) or after 180 days,
species composition, stem density and survival will be evaluated. For each subsequent year, vegetation
plots shall be monitored for seven years in years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, and visual monitoring in years 4 and 6,
or until the final success criteria are achieved.
9.4 Visual Assessment Monitoring
WLS will conduct visual assessments in support of mitigation performance monitoring. Visual assessments
of all stream reaches will be conducted at least twice per monitoring year with a minimum of five months
in between each site visit throughout the monitoring period. Photographs will be used to visually document
system performance and any areas of concern related to streambank and bed stability, condition of in -
stream structures, channel migration, active headcuts, live stake mortality, impacts from invasive plant
species or animal browsing, easement boundary encroachments, cattle exclusion fence damage, and the
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 43

general condition of pools and riffles. The monitoring activities will document and quantify the visual
assessment throughout the monitoring period.
A series of photographs over time will be compared to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation (bar
formations) or degradation, streambank erosion, successful maturation of riparian vegetation, and
effectiveness of sedimentation and erosion control measures. More specifically, the longitudinal profile
photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or excessive increase in channel
depth, while lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks.
The photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five feet to ensure that the same locations
(and view directions) at the Project site are documented in each monitoring period and will be shown on a
plan view map. The results of the visual monitoring assessments will be used to support the development
of the annual monitoring document that provides the visual assessment metrics.
Table 20. Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary
Improve Base Flow
Duration and
Overbank Flows (Le
channel forming
discharge)
Reconnect
Floodplain / Increase
Flood prone Area
Widths
Improve Bedform
Diversity
Pressure transducer,
regional curve,
regression equations,
catchment
assessment
Bank Height Ratio,
Entrenchment Ratio,
Crest gauge
Pool to pool spacing,
riffle -pool sequence,
pool max depth ratio,
longitudinal profile
Maintain seasonal flow on
intermittent streams for a
minimum of 30 consecutive
days during normal annual
rainfall.
Maintain average BHRs <_1.2
and ERs >_2.2 and document
out of bank and/or significant
flow events using pressure
transducers or photographs &
crest gauges.
Increase riffle/pool
percentage and pool -to -pool
spacing ratios compared to
reference reach conditions.
Create a more natural
and higher functioning
headwater flow regime
and provide aquatic
passage.
Provide temporary
water storage and
reduce erosive forces
(shear stress) in
channel during larger
flow events.
Provide a more natural
stream morphology,
energy dissipation and
aquatic habitat/refugia.
Cross -sections and
Decrease streambank erosion
Reduce sedimentation,
Increase Vertical and
longitudinal profile
rates comparable to
excessive aggradation,
Lateral Stability
surveys, visual
reference condition cross-
and embeddedness to
section, pattern and vertical
allow for interstitial
assessment
profile values.
flow habitat.
Within planted portions of
CVS Level I & II
the Project site, a minimum
Increase woody and
Protocol Tree Veg
of 320 stems per acre must
herbaceous vegetation
Establish Riparian
Plots (Strata
be present at year three; a
will provide channel
Buffer Vegetation
Composition Vigor
minimum of 260 stems per
stability and reduce
and Density), visual
acre must be present at year
streambank erosion,
five; and a minimum of 210
runoff rates and exotic
assessment
stems per acre must be
species vegetation.
present at year seven.
Note: Level 4 and 5 project parameters and monitoring
activities are not proposed and are not required to
demonstrate success for credit release.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Page 44

10 Long -Term Management Plan
The Project will be protected in perpetuity by a recorded conservation easement. The conservation
easement will allow for annual monitoring and maintenance of the Project during the monitoring phase.
Upon final site approval and project closeout, the Project stewardship will be transferred to an approved
long-term stewardship program. WLS has partnered with Broad Water Innovations (BWI) as the long-term
steward for the Project site (See Appendix D for conservation easement template and engagement letter).
Broad Water Innovations
Attn: Tee Clarkson
4525 East Seminary Avenue
Richmond, VA 23227
This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will
conduct periodic inspection of the Project to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation
easement are upheld. Any endowment funds for the conservation easement and deed restrictions shall
be negotiated prior to transfer to the responsible party. Funding will be supplied by the responsible party
on a yearly basis until such time and endowments are established. The use of funds from the Endowment
Account is governed by NC General Statue GS 113A-232(d) (3). Payments and interest gained by the
endowment fund may be used only for stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land
transaction costs, if applicable. The management activities will be conducted in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the approved UMBI as agreed to by WLS, USACE, and the IRT.
11 Adaptive Management Plan
The Sponsor will conduct post -construction monitoring activities and routine maintenance as needed for
the duration of the monitoring period. The Sponsor will notify the USACE immediately if monitoring results
or visual observations demonstrate that performance standards cannot be achieved. In the event the
Project site or a specific component of the Project site fails to achieve the performance standards as
specified in the mitigation plan, the sponsor shall notify the IRT and develop a corrective action plan and
facilitate remedial actions. The Sponsor is responsible for providing any necessary permits to implement
the corrective action plan that describes the extent and nature of the work to be performed. If the USACE
determines that the Bank is not meeting performance standards, or the Sponsor is not complying with the
terms of the instrument, the USACE may take appropriate actions, including but not limited to holding
credit sales, utilizing financial assurances, and/or terminating the instrument.
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site will take place at least
once a year throughout the post -construction monitoring period until performance standards are met.
These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance.
Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 45

12 Financial Assurances
CONFIDENTIAL
The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of casualty insurance or a performance bond
that is acceptable to the USACE and sufficient to assure successful completion of all mitigation bank
activities, reporting and monitoring, and any remedial work required pursuant to the approved Mitigation
Plan and/or UMBI. The insurance policy or performance bond will be submitted for review and approval
by the USACE. The financial assurance will cover the cost estimates for providing the mitigation bank
activities such as site mobilization and construction, annual monitoring, and reporting as outlined in Table
21 and broken out by annual cost below. There will be a financial assurance for the construction phase in
the amount of $1,058,400 and that financial assurance will be retired following completion of construction
and planting. Then a monitoring financial assurance in the amount of $220,000 will be provided to assure
completion of seven years of monitoring and reporting, and any remedial work required during the
monitoring period.
Table 21. Financial Assurances
Site Earthwork, Amenities, & Planting
$1,058,400
Monitoring Activities and
$104,000
Annual Reports through 7 years
Land Management and Routine Maintenance
$42,000
Contingency / Remedial Action
$74,000
The annual monitoring costs for Table 21 are itemized below and each item includes direct costs.
Annual Monitoring Costs
Gauge downloads/maintenance
Vegetation Plot Measurements (33 plots)
On -site Physical Measurements (19 XS)
Data Processing and Analysis
Report Preparation
TOTAL ANNUAL MONITORING COSTS
Annual Maintenance Costs
Invasive Species Vegetation and Annual Maintenance
Price Per Task
$3,500.00
$4,357.00
$ 2, 500.00
$ 2, 000.00
$ 2, 500.00
$14,857.00
Prira Par Tack
The monitoring financial assurance will be reduced following approval of each annual monitoring report
as provided in the financial assurance policy; however, monitoring years 1 through 3 will keep the full
contingency amount of $74,000 and the contingency will be reduced starting in monitoring year 4. The
monitoring financial assurance will be retired in total following official notice of site close-out from the
IRT. Financial assurances shall be payable to a standby trust or other designee at the direction of the oblige
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Page 46

or lender. Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the USACE in the event of default by the
Bank Sponsor are not acceptable. The USACE shall receive notification at least 120 days in advance of any
termination or revocation. In the event of Sponsor default, BWI has agreed to receive the endowment
funds and will ensure the mitigation work is successfully completed.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 47

13 References
Doll, B.A., D.E. Wise -Frederick, C.M. Buckner, S.D. Wilkerson, W.A. Harman, R.E. Smith, and J. Spooner.
2002. Hydraulic geometry relationships for urban streams throughout the Piedmont of North
Carolina. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38(3): 641-651.
Dooley and Maschhoff, 2003. Functional requirements and design parameters for restocking coarse
woody features in restored and enhanced wetlands.
Dunne, T. & Leopold, L.B. (1978): Water in Environmental Planning W.HG. Freeman Co., San Francisco,
818 pp.
Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB). 2013. Recommendations for Estimating Flows to
Maintain Ecological Integrity in Streams and Rivers in North Carolina.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream corridor restoration:
Principles, processes and practices. National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA.
Griffith, G.E., et al. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina. Reston, VA. United States Geological Survey.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A function based
framework for developing stream assessments, restoration goals, performance standards and
standard operating procedures. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands,
Harman, W., R. Starr. 2011. Natural Channel Design Review Checklist. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD and US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands Division. Washington D.C. EPS 843-B-12-005.
Hey, R.D. 2006. Fluvial Geomorphological Methodology for Natural Stable Channel Design. Journal of
American Water Resources Association. April 2006. Vol. 42, No. 2. pp. 357-374. AWRA Paper No.
02094.
Johnson, P.A., and T.M. Heil, 1996. Uncertainty in Estimating Bankfull Conditions. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 32(6): 1283-1292.
Leopold, Luna B., 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Mass.
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team, 2015. "NC Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM)
User Manual". Version 2.1, August 2015.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team, 2010. "NC Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM)
User Manual". Version 4.1, October 2010.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, 2019. "DWR Surface Water Classifications."
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2010. "Methodology for Identification of
Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins", v 4.11.
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 48

Scherrer, E. 1999. Using Microtopography to Restore Wetland Plant Communities in Eastern North
Carolina.
Simon, Andrew. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms. Volume 14, Issue 1, pg 11-26.
Sweet, W.V. and J.W. Geratz. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Recurrence Intervals
for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water Resources Association
39(4):861-871.
United States Geological Survey. 1998.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, MS.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical
Note VN-RS-4.1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, MS.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Wilmington District.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Notification of Issuance of Guidance for Compensatory
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District, October 2016, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources;
Final Rule dated April 10, 2009 of the Federal Register Vol. 73, No. 70.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil
Survey Division. 2021. Soil Survey, Davidson County, NC.
United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Threatened and Endangered
Species in North Carolina (County Listing). Davidson County. 2021.
Weaver, J.C., Feaster, T.D., and Gotvald, A.J., 2009, Magnitude and frequency of rural floods in the
Southeastern United States, through 2006-Volume 2, North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report, 2009-5158, 111 p.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Page 49

Figures
Figure 1—
Project Location Map
Figure 2 —
Geographic Service Area Map
Figure 3 —
USGS Topographic Map
Figure 4 —
NRCS Soils Map
Figure 5 —
LiDAR Map
Figure 6 —
FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 7a
—1961 Aerial Photograph
Figure 7b-1993
Aerial Photograph
Figure 8 —
Existing Conditions Map
Figure 9 —
Proposed Mitigation Map
Figure 10
— Proposed Monitoring Features

Legend
Proposed Conservation Easement HUC-8
C Project Location 5-Mile Aviation Zone
Parcel Boundary NC Counties
Existing Stream Davidson County
Airport
0 75 �150
Miles
Project is located in: qr
HUC8 - 03040101 r" vouniz L.
HUC12 - 030401011502
creek F�
�,aWagon Rd
'F
N
n
3001 Dr Reedy CreeK�'a
Shady Hane
Daryl Dr
CYnoi Ln
W
lrrvilla 1, J./
Forsyth County,
= Lewlsville
-I
Clemmons
r.
Vlk5villARPK-6NC8
e
Davie.County T" ag, l
L �ringtoh
s'
f
Davidson County f
o sf \ 10
Miles
Reedy Creek Rd
Q7
ce
h ce
7
Dlw
S = 4Z�
o a
How I Hdro c r
MI'-. 8
ip C
C �
V 4
❑ m
Bari" A,v n
T Y
� 3
L
o
S tell Dr m
s a
V
z o N
l /
Butterfly YDrip
0 1,600 ax Ct 3,200
Feet
Figure
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Project Location
WATER & LAND
HUC8 Upper Yadkin 03040101
Davidson County, North Carolina
Map
1
SOLUTIONS
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plane_ NC_FIPS_3200_Feet
Date: 4/26/2022
Service Layer C,e di : Sources: E ,,, HERE, G.—., USGS, ht—.p, INCREMENT P, NRCan, E ,, Japan, METI, E ,, China (Hong Kong), E ,, Korea, E ,, (Thailantl), NGCC, (c)
OpenSt,-tMap contributors, antl the GIS User Community

'�� • - � ���. x',:•. .•,:ram � ►i,r 'ram
Will
• Site Location
t .. , '�`� y : ;:
-
Service Area - Upper Yadkin - 03040101
Hs4l11e
_-
PMFICk
SpartA
ily
Wr It L arc
!_ Toast Flat R �
v1
Mt Airy
Ir �
Jefferson �
� .
west
Jetlercon
_.
'�
TFnrrmond +
1
Hays
Pleasant Hill
MUIberrp
Elkin
Boonyllle
1� Mlliers Creek
IJ
a_i Cricket
rth Wllke%boro
ce nr'o
-
Yadrinville
. —
-. -- Level sville
piston -Safe
%r $'
Site Location
I IN
Eli
_r
. . • - - ` r_ _ - . ,�. Taylorsville
L air -Thorn—
® ockidAlQ _au,
ii,=
••t�[IYIQtOn
-
st ilre
I'
Morganton
�
�4
32t
lal
ton;
_ r
EJ
t •Alal [fen
r- I i 101 f
• �-�
��-
•� MaereaYlllr
Chl a Cxwe
r
I-xv l l'
r �
1
ii
1
a rr•;.'ule d
I 'i -
Huntersville
0 6 12 24
Miles\1
1 inch = 12 miles
N
Figure
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Service
WATER & LAND
HUC8 Upper Yadkin 03040101
Davidson County, North Carolina
Area Map
2
SOLUTIONS
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plan e_N orth_Carol in a_F I PS_3200_Feet
Date: 9/15/2021
Service Ley,, Cretlirs_ Saur.es_ Esri, HERE, G,,—, USGS, Int —p, INCREMENT P, NRCe Esri Jepen, METI, Esri Chine (Hong Kang), Esri
Karae, Esri (Theilwd), NGCC, (,) Open St,-Mep ...R,b-,,, e,d the CIS User Community

S101 DA (61.8 ac) "
Qo S300 DA (89.7 ac)
3y�ao'.
1. iN
TI I ','12 � . I. � . •.1•.
IF
S100' DA (119.7 ac)
_ I
0
-. Keay Creek -
e.
Reedy Creek DA
(5504.3 ac; 8.60 sq mi)
fit•.=: rna r '�+
- 7
4 ,
4 r
4
c
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
HUC8 Upper Yadkin 03040101
Davidson County, North Carolina
USGS
Topographic Quad
Welcome
Figure
3
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plan e_N orth_Carol in a_F I PS_3200_Feet
Date: 1/5/2022
Service Layer Cretlits: USGS The Nation al Map: National Bou ntlaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information
System, National Hytl.ag.aphy Dataset, National Lantl Cave. Database, National Structures Dataset, entl Natiana l Trens pa.tatian Dataset;

Figure
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
NRCS Soils
WATER & LAND
HUC8 Upper Yadkin 03040101
Davidson County, North Carolina
Map
4
SOLUTIONS
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plan e_N orth_Carol in a_F I PS_3200_Feet
Date: 4/19/2022
Data sources - Soils data source: USDA. Imagery data source: NC One Map

Q Proposed Conservation Easement
- Existing Stream
Q Parcel Boundary
LiDAR Elevation (ft)
High : 807.952 Low + 689.467
Elevation
Kendlebrook Farm ' •
S100
Elevation
712. ft ti
S101
S300
S200 Reedy Creek
Upper
Reedy Creek
Lower
•
••-aj'
0 300 600 1,200
Feet\1
1 inch = 600 feet N
Figure
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
LiDAR
WATER & LAND
HUC8 Upper Yadkin 03040101
Davidson County, North Carolina
Map
SOLUTIONS
V5
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plan e_N orth_Carol in a_F I PS_3200_Feet
Date: 4/19/2022

Figure
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
FEMA
WATER & LAND
HUC8 Upper Yadkin 03040101
Floodplain Map
SOLUTIONS
Davidson County, North Carolina
6
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plan e_N orth_Carol in a_F I PS_3200_Feet
Date: 4/20/2022
Data sources - Soils data source: USDA. Imagery data source: NC One Map

Iri
W
Al
INO111HY # Gr 1F•134 7
YEAR. gn
- 500'
FOR
0 300 600
1 inch = 600 feet
1,200
� Feet �\1
N
'• _ Q Proposed Conservation Easement
Q Parcel Boundary
df
r r
r
t
i
Figure
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
1961 Aerial
WATER & LAND
HUC8 Upper Yadkin 03040101
Davidson County, North Carolina
Imagery
7 a
SOLUTIONS
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plan e_N orth_Carol in a_F I PS_3200_Feet
Date: 3/15/2022
Imagery data source: EDR

r.
�fk
'r
r
z
7:t
,t
r
41
t ' s 1
t1. '�• ' 4r
0 300 600 1,200 ` hp: .
Feet\1
1 inch = 600 feet N
Q Proposed Conservation Easement
Q Parcel Boundary
J
Kendlebr6o
--mom ilk
x,
. 1,
Figure
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
1993 Aerial
WATER & LAND
HUC8 Upper Yadkin 03040101
Davidson County, North Carolina
Imagery
7 b
SOLUTIONS
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plan e_N orth_Carol in a_F I PS_3200_Feet
Date: 4/19/2022
Imagery data source: Google Earth

F_~
f
I GW-1 ,
WG-1
iW-21R*
/
1
Q Proposed Conservation Easement % S i 071 '� ~
�� t
— Existing Stream
Existing Ditches
O Baseline Well 6 +►
Existing Wetland
Existing Hydric Soils } 0 300 600
Q Parcel Boundary
1 inch = 600 feet
1,200
� Feet �\1
N
Figure
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Existing
WATER & LAN DM
HUC8 Upper Yadkin 03040101
Conditions Map
SOLUTIONS
Davidson County, North Carolina
8
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plan e_N orth_Carol in a_F I PS_3200_Feet
Date: 4/26/2022
Data sources - Soils data source: USDA. Imagery data source: NC One Map

Q Proposed Conservation Easement r��
Existing Utilities
Stream Mitigation
Restoration
Enhancement I i 1.
Wetland Mitigation
Wetland Re-establishment _
Parcel Boundary.
Davidson County Parcels
l ��Ica , •-• - �
i Reedy Creek.
Lower 5101
c�
HS01 — HS03
HS02
�' Reach ID Mitigatior Stream (ft) Ratio Credits J
Reedy Creek Upper Restoration 619 1:1 619
Reedy Creek Upper Enhancement 1 189 1.5:1 126
Reedy Creek Lower Restoration 3987 1:1 3987
S100 Restoration 1469 1:1 1 1469
S101 Restoration 572 1:1 572 bI
S300 Restoration 201 1:1 201
7037 6974
Wetland ID Mitigation Wetland (ac) Ratio credits
HS01 Re-establishment 6.02 1:1 6.02
HS02 Re-establishment 1.22 1:1 1.22
HS03 Re-establishment 0.61 1:1 0.61 0 300 600
7.85 7.85
1 inch = 600 feet
P
L
1,200
� Feet �\1
N
Figure
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Mitigation
WATER & LAND
HUC8 Upper Yadkin 03040101
Davidson County, North Carolina
Concept Map
9
SOLUTIONS
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plan e_N orth_Carol in a_F I PS_3200_Feet
Date: 4/28/2022
Data sources - Soils data source: USDA. Imagery data source: NC One Map

Figure
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Proposed
WATER & LAND
HUC8 Upper Yadkin 03040101
Davidson County, North Carolina
Monitoring Map
10
SOLUTIONS
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plan e_N orth_Carol in a_F I PS_3200_Feet
Date: 4/22/2022
Data sources - Soils data source: USDA. Imagery data source: NC One Map

Appendix A- Design Plan Sheets
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project

,
: ,
e :
y
%
=q
memw�� 9Nmm
!:
Noni gN�?�
z
LU
-
®
9`)
_���
u
11
0,
ry
�
�
a
n
0
3
<
0 co
U C?
z=
o
//\
-
?\\
\
9a
Sg
> /
(
�
_
lu
\\\:\\:\
\ /
:` }
f g 2
i
g
::§:§://`
U \
0°
O \
o _
3
,
«
\ (Z
G
LU
}}}-}
200
{
\ `
) \
\
}(})\
_ ;
o
2«-\
t,
)
0
}j}}j}(

CB6L-d -ON 3SN3OIl Nd tl
cacaz aN '3lllAaA"' as saNiads ulna s
aNMAANIa N3 SlM
S310N 1V103dS'8 IVa3N30
snonniosPne„a eM
oa I LS'6 L9(6 L6)
SL9LZ JN .alea
avns'�ra ��e sLzcc
tlN n0aMJ—ON'A1NnW
103POad N011tl°J IlIW
NOS —
SMOOtl3W
N
°JNIIIOa
SNainiOS
cir
S 2131VM
z
pow -
==p r°
a
r
=wo
N
-
sp m
-
o
wwmm
wo a - --
- s LLJm =
o ,-H -
-
po`-
o
mWamo
__
'so
-
=� m �awwa
Nw=w
w�=°�
paps
w°=� - -
a-om
=a�°o_ooa
- -
��a
°
- w°=� m��>�
- aa�_ -
as
a��
__omo
-
_
a
_o��=w
_ o��o
y -- -m
_ ao �
i
-
wsa
w9
pQ
- - - a
sg-g on— -
za
sN w�
p moo eases
N - _
-
- _ "z9pa�o 0_
°
-
0
soo =
-
pQy�o
w°o
s=�N _ -
>saWZQ
°a
-_ woos -
o�pwNaJa
- -
=gas So
To-
-- pg =
- - -
N-
pms p-
- 0 9°p
maosp=
- =000
pso oQ
- -
-
Ws ao
-0.-
- p m zzomm_op
=_ -
'- -
-
- oQ rmo =
- -
a N=oo�� �
0
_
oa =
s m yo`°
- ws�yo
'o��
- -
aLL lQ
opW�=o o�1�°
lm w - -
gpp=
- N
8
=m°mo°°pwm
aQ -
oo=
a po
> m=
-°pp
opp w> o" s
�p �ma m
-- - oss
= om
oa
om-8= as
=o o a =_
o
s= ps
-
a
sJo apo�p
os - °oa
s=a=
- =ppwpa
-
a°
w �a
m."<,opwwsw
-oso
°o'Wp��
ER°
p
p
o,=
° ga�=p�p=pmp�w
--�pp�a�Q"omaawwWJr
-swpoQ
o'ooQ
�wwp- p
--�
s
-
opsa
=
oAwsoro
-
-w
sad
wpo<>
�N
pa�
p wQyaow°a.W-0
Qao
op
wowoo°
p
mo
s-0o�X-
wJw
p,
o
po Toomo
Q op o o °�
p
-
- p=N�
°aw
o,Q
a�p��N�a-aomo��ab
�No_-N-
>"Qo a
oy �°pQ o°�-
l
aa°
saQa
ag
o�apaJO
Q
-0 1 -LL� =°
Qaoppawpao
o
p»owo w
as
-
-ooAz
h_o-
°a
-
5
- aT.0
p-s5�_oa
o
oJw- °
N==o-
wo
��s
-
o
.pp8
�
0 0
aoW
w
�p
�LL
a"Q��o°p
_--p
o
za
0
o
o
_
�_�m
- .s�
�_
o��-
0g
W
_��o
po-�
p°
- Oa�oo
-
NO
o�
-
��
X-,-Q
p- - -
082—.;ypO
- -
-�=wo-
os�o
s
.—o
�p
_w
-ww
=
aw
°°o0
0
z
i
z�0
w
-
- m. -off _
0009—§2
2.00
�o -off
- o
b —
-
-°°
Asa_°�
_ ws ogo
w� - w =o
w o��
>��
'0
_
Aso
- ,aa==
w w�o ��
- _- --
�
-
�- - o5
�waa
-
_�
m'-
_-_--
_-
ooOS s
""2E�
�- �
ogo
�
°E=,Ew m�Q
� -
s�
_
ffi_
--_
-
o -
Q��
0-,2wo
o
-
OQoza
w
-
WNOWs
QO= -
vi vi 'w�
- -_ - _
Opo_ Oar-
-- - -
Q �a
-tt
o Opium.
uwiN u�i
-
J zO0
_-pew
- - w?i
z>p�z¢z�
00
w� tt
¢pg
_
-_
\_ _
-
i�eswoo=
tto
-Osz
xO�a°°�
p°'p�ao
°Q�
- - -
-
z
-
- - w ! —.T
pgr ° - vaiSoLL�m> pog�m
w - u=i� vi
y ou LLuJ �oz 4a
ppm�r ° Jzg --
rz
Q -
_
awpui y�wN�o
_
wiz
_
4a�
-
__ - - -
�O
0 0 -
�gQ�o mzwOiJ
-tics -
w
ao -
FFo
a�5°�,
wQa -
82T z°�w
_°�t�
-
- -OZQO� -O�
s� o�� dap -
-- -
- _
-_ - �`=i
woo s sso
=°���Qo
�aaam�a
��°aa°°°
�o"o�w�o0
�°o°>w=°�
--
mks
_ -
�°�>� �>°_° ��waaaw a aa_
-
- - -
aws�o°=
.a�
oQOQo0
0�9�= Qa=°�aw
wHm=
��o
o
���a _
_000
Qw S
- -
-
gQ-
w-
-a-�a
-
_--E;
�
25-w
-
2.2i
-=
_
- oo
o ws s
- °
H�
w°-
p-a=- Q
-
16
m
0
y
apab
-o-
o s -'2 -
-
_swpg-ao
d
g os
a
_E�
-
N
w
o
°
ppo
-Oo�po
-
s- p
=
pg
-
p
01 w-
so
�o
-
�
°-
po
l
-a
��
- m o -
oo
�m°s w
-
oz
-
s
-_- -
_ -
-m
-
-_°-E�
o
oo-
-o_sw
>_
-
--
o
--a�--��
�s
4w
-
ohss9
=
o °a
-
°p
o
-
---
-
-�---
o
°�
-
-
�
°�o
o=�_s-
-
- _Hs
-
o og-�a-- -
_
g�- �
�° -�
w°a°
sa=
o.
RqT,�,
ab
js� o�a
moo WE
°i
�
_
asap
��°goosHH°�oo
_-
1-,-
�
o
=
s-
om
ors w
=Q
s_>s�a
o
-
-
oos=
s
-
�_� -
-_----
w wsz
E
�Jo----
1=aa°
Im
a<,
°_-
=
o° °
�--
a°

CB6L-d -ON 3SN3011 Wa tl
LaLaz DN'3lllAa3". as snNiads�nnas ON3031 S3af11Of1a1S 03SOdOad'8 dVWA3N 1331'021d
011d ONIa33NION3 SlM
ePalemM
L6)�.aleae sLZGlO3POadNOIltlOIlIW SMOOtl3W °JNIIIOac;mmI'8 2131VM
olo
`° U
0
z
W
(7
W
J

)§
|
:
)
(_(:
::
>)(
_
r/rt(/(®�)r
}:
}}:,;
}\j��}�\\\\\\\�\\\\

CB6L-d-ON3SNA aWilH
L8L8Z ON '3llI�i1A"' Oil SONd tllO09
`a NR133NI`JN3 SlM
S3l8Vl AOOIOHd?JOW MMliS
�y� u
©y
suopnlosPuel memLO
Oa LL LS'6 L9(6 L6)
dv
SL9LZ JN '4�.aleUdV
awns'�-e s
L—
IlOO1d NOIlNIl0ra
VOILA SMOOV3 W J
d
SNOI1f1lOS aNVI S 2131VMv
N I IN
to
!IF
e�
�O
U W a
iNN
o
F �
o w o
z
y K
y
10
T
i
—
J
E
T �
e�
�O
U W a
-No
o w o
z
y K
F
y
T
a
Jr
E
—
T �
G
e�
O
U W a
N N
o
�
o w o
o
y
T
i
NN
Jr
E
e �
g
f
g
g
�
6
ID
f
�
6
ID
g
- f
o

CB6L-d-ON 3SNA I Wiltl
L8L8Z ON '3llI�i13Atl3M' Oil SONIild5 tllO09
011d ONIi133 NIO N3 SlM
uePalem6 L6)�.alea,oi s LZLGG:mVI'S 2131VM
I
� I
I I
I I
y
' / t
I /
I
��nois is ws�ai °�
\ n o \^uooez
ono ono lII
o \ np i II
T
Of
LL)
a
Y
LL)
uj
Of
U
}
uj
W
Of
n / 311j0 Jd ONV NVId 1
1\�
_ \1J
IoZlroLId NOimilINW SMOOV3 W ONIIIOLl
muo

`y.. T
Of
w
O
Y
/ W
K
O
}
0
w
w
Of
L
3z
LQ
t L9(6 L6)SL9LZ JN4�6f LaL9,"O nliSNoiiniOS GNVI
I
I
as
1� 1�
1
r�
°I
\F
O
7
/
w
\ -NN
�
IIrI
I
�
wIf
a „
�Lij
�dy
i
i
1ozlll d Z771 l'Vq SMOOtl3 W ONM,,O
muo

woanonniosPnei,aLeM
L L LS'6 L9(6 L6)
S L9LZ JN '4�.alea
oeL avns'ra obi sLzcc
SNOI1f1lOS aNVI'S 2131VM
111111�1�� 1
I11111 1111�1 � ,� i
111 j 11111 `'b<s�s
11111 lull
ll11
jjll 111 �
Y�ll� llll�
��11 11
11 1
�Illllllll
11
Yi llll
103f'OLId NOIltlZl'vq SMOOtl3 W �JNIll021

CB6L-d -ON 3SN3011 Wil tl
L8L8Z ON '3llI�i13". Oil SONIild5 tllO09 311JMJd ONV NVId
011d ONIi133 NION3 SlM
uePalem
(6 L6)�.alea�e saGlU3PO21dNOIltlOIlIW SMOOtl3W °JNI11021
c;mVI'S 2131VM C ) L
0
IuII �
0
mdo

woanonniosPnei,aLeM
LLLS'6L9�6L6)
S L9LZ JN'4�.alea
oeL avns'ra��e sacs 103 POLld NOIltlOIlIW SMOOtl3W °JNIll021
SNOI1f1lOS aNVI'S 2131VM
-i
D

woa suopn'osP""Z'm
LL LS'6L9�6L6)
- UNI N—.
S L9LZ JN'4eU
v az.�J Of L a1�$ "PU nPoi S LZLL
o 'ia
d (SNoiiniOS GNVI S 2131VM
� �� d llll 11 �llllllllll1 l��,lll��l 1111111111111
;F` � i 1111 �1111111 ��1� 1 �111��� 1111111111
� lullli� Illl 11�� i
� lllli illll 11 �
i 111 �111 lil 1 rill 111 1111 �
i lid��11 illllll� 11� 1
�111 11111 11111 111
l l`
��11111111111� 111�11111111 � 1��
� l�l 11111 11111 111�
Il 1 1 11
lli 111111111111111 1 � 1111111111111111111
lli Illll 1 11111 1111
1l l l � ���1 l l � 111111111111
Illlllllll illlllll 1111111
Illl Illy
1111�11 111 � � 11
111111��11111<<11111
� lll� 111
11 11
T 11 � 11 �11 1111� 111
LU
�llll
olllll 1111
W
W OfLU
lllllll illlll 11 � 1 11 1
� � Illllll Ill�ll 111
11 � 11111 1
11 � I llllllllll l l l,�llllll � s
Il 1111�1111Y�11111
1 11�1�1 1111 i
1111 �11111
ld � 11 1
11�1111 Il.l�111���11
11i�1 111 1111 Ill�ll
1 �l 1111 l�` 11 l� 11
� 1111111 11 1111
� 11111111111111111111111 � a,� lh ���
?)i 111
00111111 %il 1111111111111111�1 111111111
Il
1��I1111P��11111111 � 11�111111 111�
l,�l�l111>l,�lll t l Il�rll 11 �l>l,l.l
=�a
o a
1�3f'OLId Z,7,'Zl'vq SMOOV l W �JNIll021
m10
0

CB6L-d-ON 3SNA I Wiltl
L8L8Z ON'3llI�i13Atl3M' Oil SONIild5 tllO09
011d ONIi133NION3 SlM
woanonnlosPnel,aieM
LLLS'6L9�6L6)
S L9LZ JN'4�.alea
oeL avns'ra�I�i $LZLL
SNOI1f1lOS aNVI'S 2131VM
`pa
o
w
lllllhll������lll
lll���� �llllll" i�
���lll
l�lllll�
}
o
l l
a / 311j0 Jd ONV NVId 1
1\� J
N
lO3f'OLId NOimilINW SMOOV3 W ONIIIOLl
�u Y
odo

CB6L-d-ON3SNA aWiltl
L8L8ZON'3llI�i1A"' Oil SONd tllO09
011d aNMAANION3 SlM
311JMJd ONV NVId
©y
suo4njosp,epme lk
oa LLLS'6L9�6L6)
SL9LZ JN'4�.aleU
oeL awns'ra �-j SaLG
CSNoiin
(o
103POLId N011tl°JIlIW SMOOtl3W °JNI11021
d
O aNVI S 2131VM
I
FP �4
I
1
� 8
3
/
1-0t6S b1b1S
\
31H� b3�
►F �l_
h9 �. cp
U
w
w
m
m
Of I
�)
y T
w m
o
w
U
�
w
zm
w

woosnonniosPnei,a�eM
r u isri9csis�
Sl9a JN'4�.aleU
oeauras'ras��e s¢cc 103PONd Z771Zl,Vq SMOOtl3W °JNIll021
d (SNoiinitos aNVI'S 2131VM
7)
� a I
10
A I I =
� I I
/ /jv/
I 1
-
I
-
I
V \ OE
10
0
/ o
J_ / o0

CB6L-d -ON 3SN3011 Wil tl
L8L8Z ON'3llI�i13ntl3M' Oil SONIild5 tllO09 311JMJd ONV NVId
011d ONIi133NION3 SlM
y w 1^ (. suo, 'Pu "P 'm Y J
oa L L LS'6L9�6L6) Md�l(RItlJ rvILON'/,Lrvnm N�IntlO
S L9LZ JN'4�.alea �
`'-oby�� .�ydzoU _ _ oeL awns' Pa �I�e s aLG 103POLId NOIIVOIlI W SMOOtl3 W °ONI11O2l
CSNOIIflIOS aNVI S NAIVM
a \
� as
\ as as
S
L
I vv
� v a
p
I Iw
o° vv �I����II111 v
� I /
V A A �t8 11111j1 I /
\\ \\ \\ � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
III I I I I
� � II�IIIIIIII
44133HS�3S I I II II I II II I I II I
\ V llllllll I I
\ \ \ v III III I
\ \ I
V �I

CB6L-d -ON L8L8Z ON '3011llI�di1O3ANtlIi1333M3SNN30
GW
tllO09 % 3W�
Id.O311JMJd ONV NV
IOiNSNMtld103POLId OIltlOIlIW SMOOtl3W JNI1101
NOco
2131VM
i
i
�o-sa
a 111A

CB6L-d -ON 3SN3011 Wil tl
L8L8Z ON'3llI�i13Atl3M.Oil SONIild5 tllO09
311JMJd ONV NVId
011d ONIi133NION3 SlM
% 3W�
uePalem
6L6)r�.aleae
saG1D3POLld
NOIltlOIlIW SMOOtl3W °JNI11021c;mI
S 2131VM
REEDY CREEK LOWER z.
— L oo.oz

CB6L-d-ON 3SNAO Wiltl
L8L8Z ON'3llI�i13Atl3M.Oil SONIild5 tllO09 NVId `JN�CM?J`O
Ol'- ONRAgION3 SlM
i3wv�
eya a�+ w �y� suopnlosPuePalem 00 oa LtS , L916L6)
S L9LZ JN'4�.alea 2
_ _ oeL awns' Pa e s aLG 1...
ONd Z,7vJIlI W SMOOtl3 W °ONIll021
d CNOIiniOS CINVI'S 213IVM
/ lllllllllll fill �D E2 —1.VN
4,M A
it i` lllitNi \
liiiii
—____-- yT_ iiiilii till _�Ti ------MMTM------T \ 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 l \\11 1 1 \ 6L M.M.T-M OM-
itiiii itiii / iiiiiiiiiiV lli
iiii iIol f laulluiii\tti
it iii'vii 4miiiliiii�i \iiiiTb
J iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
ltt
� o
NNNNiiiiH ii d
iiiiiiiiiiiilii itm
it ll llllll l 2git
z
iiii hi 0-2
Yiiiti �i 1 g
o Z
thmiltill \\
it NQltllll \i
X\V `�
1
hilt \
it i iiiiIIiiiii \�\ o o i L
iiNiii
�wSpHilittill
0o� lliiili iiiiilii
10 ii hilt l lilt
� lttl lllllllltt
1 i�' tllllttllllll l�lllttlli�l
iiillimill 11i4tt\\, i
Niiiiuiii
li tllllttl olttlllll � I'I j I
�� -- LU Bill iNiii WMJIMi I qli
- o lilt i MIMIUiNliiil (�
--- w uilldllttllllllll°� ��
LU
} lllulluull lIlulllllItLU
LU oliiIMMIMI 'iiilllliiti
y iiiiliiittiiiill ttliQiliii Ali
Milittillll ittlii���iiii
lllllllt�llllllI ttilllllllttii
i ii�liiiquiiliii iliiilimu
I I
iliii 011iiiliiiiiiitt'iiIII liiiMiiiit i� \
N t 111111ttlylllllttlll N l l
�iliiiiilii)ii� INI I ��
dog iliii ii iiiiliiiliiiiiliii1iiiiiliiiil �I I I li
g�=o *lliiiii iiiiiiiii N liiil�li m ilp 1�1
iittliq I
llttl ttllllllllttlllllllllttlll � I��I I I I I III
iiliiiiiiittiiiili�iiili 11 1 1 1 1 II
��_ i� iiliiiliiiiiliiilil ii I I I I I I I I I
iiliiiliiiiiliii I I hI I I I I IIi
till
--

LBLBZ "Id 9NI-AN1`JN3 SNP tllNO 9 1
NVId SNIOM?J`J
,�_ oasuopnlospuel�aLem
LLLS'6L9�6L6)
S L9LZ JN'4�.alea
oeL avns'pa �1,oi s Lzcc
SNoiin OS aNVI Q HAIV11
uuuuuum�v _
� �
��' � lllllllillllll Vi
� ll��illllllll ��
oe
0
\ 1 �l 1 d, � 1 iitliiiilii � N�m
\ i A�� I l a l liiiilii o��a
I I \ l�i iiliii
I J
A {i
N lO3'OLId NOIlM0111W SMOOM3 W EJNIll02I
oz iJ3Ns 3Js=JNnNivw
0
z
0
c7
a�
lllill
Hilt \
liiiti liltt \
giiitiii�� Hiliil \\
liiiiiiiii iiiiiiiilii a
iillllillliilluilllly v ��
iiiiiiiiili itiiii \ \
i�°kttll litiiit\ \
Mill tillitliiii` \
Mill it
illicit t iiitiiii ll / \
\liiiiiiiillii i iHIM �
p1miliilill iiiiiill,
>111 tiiittliiit iii l
vlllitilittilliti m t i
IIIIHI lll lit i it IOU
1,1111 iiiiil lit i IIAtlii
lttitttittl lit l HI lull tt \\ �
iiitiiittl lit liil` iiitlNi
iiitiiitt lilt liiitiilitill
I i L liiitiii�ltlii � \
ltlil it�it illilililtvllli
lilt m/11 tdmmm\m
it lttpll ttily milltiv>v1

O961-d'ON 35l WMId
LBLBZ ON'3llI VA-AM"N3OIOM SONIMdS tllNO9
NVId`SNICMJ0
011d ONI-ANION3 SVA
w uopnlospuel�a�em
oal l lSbl9csls>
0
N
S L9LZ ON'4�.aleU
oei auns'3�I'e saLL
103 POLld NOIltlOIlIW SMOOtl3W °JNIll021
SNOI1f1JOS a S 2131VM
i VAVA\\VAVA�AvO��Owwv %A\��\\VAS _ _ =
h till/it ��ovvA���; �AVAAVAAVAAVAVAVAVA\�—
i i i l l i'l i i
z ��` v �v�� �� \VAVAAVA VA VA VAVAVA�
\o=\\\\ \\ \ \\ \ \\
\VAVA�A�AV���
i i i Ul i i 1 a\VA�A�VAVAVAAV�VAv������
v iiii iiiv v A v �vv�� _
�s � iiii i iiii `v v v�v 3 v �N��w� � y_ ii_==-=
\ %/
/,I//llllllllllllllll1l11lll�l/IlM
I l II/lll�llllllll/l//IlI/IC�Iw���
\ \\\ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \\\\
%o z
z
c�

,
oj� Sim
a _S3]gVi m:d
,» 2!
!: %
xm^
d-ORMOS
} �
° mew�� ONmm
N�e6VAA
c >\ (:
z g Q;-
j (E WE.
\
)\q
MO jo
: -[ : -
Z \§: __
§ §t: : _
zcE SO �:
-ma
6§ »
§§:: \: - N
WSW
}<» w A. 1_}\wAT-60}}
j}
~
\\ \\ \\\\\\\�\\ \\
\ol
\
c
E
\
\
:::,::,:::::

CB6L-d -ON 3SNAOIl Wa tl
LacaznN'a���naanvaM'aa snNiads�nnas NVId eNIlNVId
Ol'- ONIa33 NION3 SlM
eya a�+ w —QniosPaeM N
oa LLLstLBcsls) N
ddv
S L9LZ ON'4ea
oeL av�s'ra�'e sLzcc 103 POLId N011tl°JIlIW SMOOtl3W °JNIll021
d CNOI1f1lOS aNVI'S NAIVM
w �
I_
— zo
wo
-0"6, adz
J
Wa
Q
20
38�
— — It Ax
�0
fy
\
/ ova
/
/
9/
/
/ �wm
/ EZ 133HS33S3NHHO1VW \
/ III

EZ
NOLIANDSACI
rAVHCI
NOISNALI
0814 1 ON 3SN30I1 W91 H
L8186ON'311 I9913Atl3M 091 SON INdS V100 9
011d ONIUIINION3 S1M
uo3' uopnlos1..1.1em
L L LS-61.9(61.6)
S LW ON'4&0lery
99L0109"08.1.J x!s LZLL
SNOI1l1OS GNV1'2 2131VM
ZZ 133HS 31S 1NI1 HOOVIN
PLANTING LEGEND
l'J
N
MIONSV
AIN
am
3,0
AU NAAVH0
NVId `JNILNVId
VN 133H5�
N Lo road NOI LVOIlIW SMOGV3 W ONI11O1
Ikrk
ik14$
isy
ki014,41)11::::141140
Aitht
SIS
L,
*CAN 1
ti: \sAi\iii4:\
;110‘‘ ..
ie`
tLt, mkittv
i.,,...,..).•,... 0,
4 Skik sktsive
40
0**
1 - Akk"s vel

CB6L-d-ON3SNA aWiltl
L8L8ZON'3llI�i1A"' Oil SONd tllO09 SllV1303an1ona1S
011d aNMAANION3 SlM
IIIp 1ZKPwel)alem
o'LLLstL9csls)ock tlN90--NlLON'AINNW N—
I N
S L9LZ JN'4�.aleU
oeL-M ra�l�e saLG 103POLId NOimilIW SMOOtl3W °ONMOl l
CSNoiinios cir S 2131VM
o, w LL
it o -0 o ol Ii
JT p J o 0 o ow
o
08
&
p -
?? °oaoap _ °32
o
p oI
Rio - - - o
9 N 9 -
5w w - Q -
�o
z
ffi w�
8O i
- w .O _F'
o o
oo--opaptt� �
�LL®
w
oQ,Do ❑
ZwG❑
o
QQ
a o
mm >
�o paLU ' ow& 7
�Jo
o o° cs pr_mU)
,0
GO o
-0.,
pF C
0-
000
- °� zp�r z
NQFW o
o
- o9a _ =pm w000 boa°omw °oow o
�l -- omopo - o =- o00 0mpmoo
x p_ Is oo- m p°p p-
o� aw woloa>a—�w_�_w s�==oo�
z �m ewm �ww - �� oma
,' r (, r - ooVOU
--
0.
ol
09 0 .m z l ,� %N % w °'o°
%w pro io yo
d a xoli ��,� - - mo
a1 , imo ,T\� �ww�i o°o - oFo�
o wlo� opoo o
0
- - z me w
kl ��
0.- LTG
wo z- o
w a w o� iLL O
o0,
o -� p
x.
w ooNw I ; o
co O
o a
oo po 5 - LU
aw LU z
J of
_ o ¢ paQ LL� m - <O
°
�o '00 CL
m�o>o o So
oa� —
✓ o10
00 �p9gw- gyp e
NbE rvV3alsio Sol o o m Q W
NbE rvV3alsiod w.gJ oa� w
w W R x
-a�xugm
zo moa oao wax

woanonniosPnei,aLeM
LLLS'6L9(6L6)
S L9LZ JN'4�.alea
oeL avns'ra�bi sLzcc
SNOI1f1lOS aNVI'S 2131VM
MIMI/o
L o
o
-ry--o
o -
�o p _ o
Q Tp
w�'
v
wr �x
o
o `
o.
J
wu1�
LU
zo
po
ao
a
WQo
o
po
o
e ow
ma.
Lu
o
- Aso
LU
o z
ma `�LU
o
w
o - Wg
oo
ow5o Q
o
-Q3j Q
ED
z o 5 o
o
1�3f'OLId Z,7,'Zl'vq SMOOtl3 W �JNIll021
ol
ap
o
m
�o� C\> s a -
y � p
-
\ N o
9w
y LL
o e eP e� \
y �JV 0 y- o
P
f/
\pout
o
o
o
o
o' o
ao
o
16-
oo
-
Ol
3a ¢ r= o
�I
w pop
s-0. Q>
w 3a 3z

CB6L-d-ON3SNA aWiltl
L8L8ZON'3llI�i1A"' Oil SONd tllO09 slIVi303anlonalS
011d aNMAANION3 SlM
eya a�+ wON L-
(. - suopnlosPuePalem oa LL 4njL sls) N
©y SL9LZ JN'4�.aleaA. 0
oeL awns' Pa �l�e s LZLG 103NO POLId l;0IlI W SMOOtl3 °O W NIll021
d CS
Noiin O aNVI S 2131VM
s
4
p p o
_ LL 1_ 9 s
< ill
Ill
�\�u -
Q' wa, o o p o
wa, y \ o8 2 _ 9
LLogspzQ tt
0.
°�� y o�w m��`, _ ww Y
p =w
0
- -
os -
w - 0.0 aao_ 0o �s� -w
\ 9wp�p sx t�r papo-pQ Q° N� w8a - o- _ g
1 0." �p-a�Qog wNa > o= JoQ�
o ws o�gp spp=== Oo-pos ow (7 �- \m o _ j '
op�9oso �zo?0 Z
- a
ww= _ \ O
aspp wspa w �� w _ s s pa Ua
80
o - wN
ospsQ app8, 9 -,o aW p To
o -
o w op o w - -_ os2 ag _ °
------ �� _ -off - sss - -
- - a �s a� - -
aa �? w�=- _- r -_
,Io m
1. o�g�sos
p s�o w�oo,oap9 poia po�p=mQa o=m aa poo -
�o oow s-
o apoop pN= o
a
z _mme _oaW °9Q> wa ryaag wp Pawa Na a w wp
s°
--opo- Qo
> = w
.:: 0 - 0 _ -
�e �w���°
ss <
o
opw oyz o
yQaoa ®® ® ® Q tillorz� O
°� O
-z r
a=\ w a w�l
w w �wJl 9wm999 r-� - w
a Y\ -
so - z al `\\; - r mll Qows
w / \
w� al..
-
o
o
r -
/A
w y ; _-- w
yy w - ---- , �o
,v/
yy, - . o� ® DV
+� l r�
w'f \ z
w yy
Op
\ /
a\
�
o a u y \ \\
5

CB6L-d-ON3SNA aWiltl
L8L8ZON'3llI�i1A"' ail SONd tllaa9 SllV1303anlOnalS
011d aNMAANION3 SlM
- oeL oagwSavLm-s�9Lu
sLLLZ'sJtLB
ow o
-
-m
L -
w
a
-
Nopjl p,epmem IPOLId Z11VOlW SMOOtl3W ONl01pd�-e -S 103
NoiiniOM CS
I
10
=sF o
lo
022
If
0oLL
pw
LL LL I w
I w
3
I g
z l w g'
w o 1 �
al z
0
i p¢a O LLoap W
uwmil
oo
QO o�m0.
-
o� fg
ml r p�1` - o w
z w, ° wI
� �� _ m i 1,1 -
�E g> ow (n If
° '� °wow -
o
z10
- '°�, r al Ili v ago p b - LUo
=I `o �o
= O
w 3� °o��o L¢ =wa Yid ui;
Molj— zo gN boo aapo
.. .. .. _ / mm m - o0-- -
- >ao.Jo0gQ. x o o
s°ooaow o 0
p pw °woJoo -
- aom
>Q��wJ -
woo _ -
- -o0o
--- _----� 5LL=0J9 owaa p=
n>o mp=��JarmQ ow o- ------ Nm_=°a�;°Q>mo>op°pooa Nm=wa>
o 0o=ao=�W>ow�w
�ms
oo
oO >
°wo offa °Qwow;w -
0�-
V,,�w -- a �> _ z
m° z
w
8/ d I U J
w
O
LU
yp o a
o., o —8 as
mo >�
- - m 5o > ap -
w —Mo, zoFQ
o
opoa oa°� CO
CO
?? LU
pox
>
>rrsJ_ao
l :
s
-m wam
wwgws
JU)�
/
-
i
i
y w�
--
mo°o
g
o - oraJ
y
o
Ooo oo io 80- >z o �� ow W
o
pa
owo p
o oJzp0.
�a0
22
a
�LL�o0 a
o>J`v ms g
>so
w
w 9� o8 8po oomp
\ gpwJw
w za >>>60
�oo.!,oa-,-2- > > o
8 8 3
aw g<o = m z me
z m eww
m w

0
`°o
o r
s
oa Qo
Od� -
o
oo
a- o
o
woanonniosPnei,aLeM
LLLS'6L9�6L6)
S L9LZ JN'4�.alery
6f L aLn$ "Pry sryioi xS LZLL
SNOI1f1lOS aNVI'S 2131VM
og
o
o
o
oQ
-o 00
Ja
�L
lo
�o o
p o
oo
o
o
-
Qo
l
6MH
i /\, i s
6 �sj j
-
3 0
1
=
'o'i
�zo
\ sj
/\Jo- -z3o
y - -
-
o 18
o
o
Jp�9
p=
Qo
1ozlll d Z771 l'Vq SMOOtl3 W
ONM,,O
s
-
a9 9
m J
o
0
9�
o
o' 9 Jo
=o
o -
lo
r/
_o
o
o� -
o�m oo
m
p o,oa
_'-o
sa
xo
aa
z
po
z xoo o=m=i <
FY
w
r
a
U)
ry
oo
LU
Q o p
O~ w
oo3a 0
O w
gwo
o � wJ w
a w p, o� s a� w p J
0
,
� ��
g gJ om
gN
w
Asa p _ ga=
ao,o _
w Jps o allo >>
w=' a
o-
owxo w _
°3w? m3?uQio ga°
H
w
o z
ROSSI `owo,o
oo
m of Jyo - w� - 0
o m�=S a _ w
==wN= a
y =a° o�oo w 'o °om m
=s y 1 -- Q w - sp
g� o
os _ -shoo �aNQPz s
v sN=s Epp° p °8oQop°o,osJ s-R-H
1 \ y w l > go s sasNosssa p m=aa -asp o
o
_ e

Appendix B- Existing Conditions Data
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Existing Cross -Section Data
Particle Size Distribution
Hydric Soils Report
Pre -restoration Gauge Data (W01 wetland, Hydric Soil Areas HS01, HS02 and HS03)
NC DWR Stream Identification Forms
Archaeological Survey Report
FEMA Limited Detail Study
BANCS Method Calculations

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name:
Reedy Creek
Reach Name:
Reedy Creek
Cross Section Name:
xS-1
Survey Date:
03/22/2021
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 100 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 100 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
4.4
195.6
LEP
10
4.21
195.79
27
3.9
196.1
LB
29.5
5.1
194.9
32
6
194
35
8.81
191.19
35.9
9.92
190.08
LEw, wS
39
10.65
189.35
42
10.72
189.28
Tw
46
10.64
189.36
49
10.52
189.48
52.2
5.28
194.72
BKF
56
4.64
195.36
57
3.72
196.28
RB
70
4.25
195.75
80
4.5
195.5
REP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
201.32
201.32
201.32
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
195.3
195.3
195.3
Floodprone width (ft)
80
-----
-----
Bankfull width (ft)
21.33
16.33
5
Entrenchment Ratio
3.75
-----
-----
Mean Depth (ft)
4.52
4.15
5.72
Maximum Depth (ft)
6.02
6.02
5.96
width/Depth Ratio
4.72
3.93
0.87
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
96.43
67.84
28.59
wetted Perimeter (ft)
28.41
24.27
16.06
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
3.39
2.8
1.78
Begin BKF Station
28.67
28.67
45
End BKF Station
50
45
50
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left side Right side
Slope 0 0 0
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

r a
(4) u01;en913

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name:
Reedy Creek
Reach Name:
Reedy Creek
Cross Section Name:
xS-2
Survey Date:
03/22/2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 100 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 100 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
5.05
194.95
LEP
16
4.7
195.3
26
4.92
195.08
LB
29
7.55
192.45
32
8.35
191.65
34
11.35
188.65
LEw
38
11.33
188.67
41
11.41
188.59
Tw
46.3
11.38
188.62
REw
49
7.47
192.53
50
6.33
193.67
53.5
5.82
194.18
58
5
195
BKF, RB
64
5.14
194.86
75
5.27
194.73
REP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
201.41
201.41
201.41
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
195
195
195
Floodprone width (ft)
75
-----
-----
Bankfull width (ft)
21.19
40.5
4.5
Entrenchment Ratio
3.54
-----
-----
Mean Depth (ft)
4.36
3.81
6.4
Maximum Depth (ft)
6.41
6.4
6.41
width/Depth Ratio
4.86
10.63
0.7
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
92.38
63.58
28.8
wetted Perimeter (ft)
30.3
25.81
17.28
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
3.05
2.46
1.67
Begin BKF Station
0
0
40.5
End BKF Station
45
40.5
45
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left side Right side
Slope 0 0 0
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

N
}I) U01;ene13
O
U
C
O
0
O
N
O
S

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name:
Reedy Creek
Reach Name:
Reedy Creek
Cross Section Name:
xS-3
Survey Date:
06/10/2021
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 100 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 100 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
6.75
193.25
LEP
14
6.55
193.45
25
6.11
193.89
40
5.4
194.6
50
5.75
194.25
54
6.27
193.73
LB
58
8.22
191.78
BKF
61.5
10.5
189.5
63
12.5
187.5
REw
65
12.4
187.6
73.5
13.2
186.8
Tw
77.3
13.05
186.95
LEw, wS
81
7.9
192.1
85.5
5.4
194.6
89
4.3
195.7
RB
96
3.45
196.55
111
3.1
196.9
120
2.88
197.12
REP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
196.88
196.88
196.88
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
191.84
191.84
191.84
Floodprone width (ft)
110.14
-----
-----
Bankfull width (ft)
22.94
11.51
11.42
Entrenchment Ratio
4.8
-----
-----
Mean Depth (ft)
3.69
3.24
4.15
Maximum Depth (ft)
5.04
4.65
5.04
width/Depth Ratio
6.22
3.55
2.75
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
84.69
37.31
47.38
wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.18
17.88
18.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
3.12
2.09
2.55
Begin BKF Station
57.88
57.88
69.39
End BKF Station
80.81
69.39
80.81
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left side Right side
Slope 0 0 0
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

}I) U01;ene13

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name:
Reedy Creek
Reach Name:
5100
Cross Section Name:
xS-4
Survey Date:
06/10/2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 100 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 100 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
6.45
193.55
LEP
15
6.75
193.25
33
6.37
193.63
35
11.07
188.93
LB
38.5
12.4
187.6
40.5
13.9
186.1
LEw
42
14.31
185.69
Tw
45
14.05
185.95
REw
46.5
12.9
187.1
BKF
50
9
191
54.8
6.8
193.2
RB
58
5.3
194.7
70
2.6
197.4
80
0.05
199.95
REP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
188.51
188.51
188.51
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
187.1
187.1
187.1
Floodprone width (ft)
11.66
-----
-----
Bankfull width (ft)
7.33
3.55
3.78
Entrenchment Ratio
1.59
-----
-----
Mean Depth (ft)
0.98
0.98
0.98
Maximum Depth (ft)
1.41
1.41
1.35
width/Depth Ratio
7.48
3.64
3.86
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
7.18
3.47
3.71
wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.12
5.29
5.53
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.88
0.66
0.67
Begin BKF Station
39.17
39.17
42.72
End BKF Station
46.5
42.72
46.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left side Right side
Slope 0 0 0
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name:
Reedy Creek
Reach Name:
5101
Cross Section Name:
xS-6
Survey Date:
03/22/2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 100 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 100 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
2.51
197.49
LEP
6
3.1
196.9
11
3.2
196.8
LB
12
5.4
194.6
15.8
8.15
191.85
LEw
17.2
8.4
191.6
Tw
18.5
8.11
191.89
REw
20.5
5.05
194.95
BKF, RB
25
5.35
194.65
35
5.11
194.89
45
4.9
195.1
REP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
197.7
197.7
197.7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
194.65
194.65
194.65
Floodprone width (ft)
45
-----
-----
Bankfull width (ft)
8.33
8.22
0.1
Entrenchment Ratio
5.4
-----
-----
Mean Depth (ft)
1.89
1.92
0.08
Maximum Depth (ft)
3.05
3.05
0.16
width/Depth Ratio
4.41
4.29
1.25
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
15.78
15.77
0.01
wetted Perimeter (ft)
10.8
10.77
0.35
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.46
1.46
0.02
Begin BKF Station
11.98
11.98
20.2
End BKF Station
20.3
20.2
20.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left side Right side
Slope 0 0 0
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

�i
}I) U0I}ene13

weighted
percent
of
particles
in range
n o
M M
n
N
o
N
n
o 0 0
LO O O
N
N
U
O
0
C)
�
(CI
iZ
O
N
0
o o 0
O
O ~ _
>+ -0O O N
CO = > -
C. N CO 0 7
N i) U 0
0
O
d
O
U
O
O
O
i
pLO CO CO
M �,
C) a)Cu
r U
L
(D
IQ
Cu N N
0 CO O (n
N E L C
�
0-1I
--- - �_ Y
� N
-
-
-
-
-
Q
CO
O
O
Q
�
a�
2
Q
CO
I
CO 0') CO 00 N
C)
CD CD CD CD CO
R7
(/) N
L
'N
3
Cu
I
I
LO CD LO LO
N- M LO 0 M M
W 0 0 0 0 0 0
o
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
0
0OR 0 0
C)
0 1010 0
C) CD CD
O to CO
CD
C-
CD
(0
C)
Cn
C)
T
C)
M
C) C) C)
N
ueuj
JaulI
Juaojad

weighted
percent
of
particles
in range
N
N
U
o n
M N
o
N
n
o
0 0
LO O O
O
O
O
�
(0
Q
O
I
N
o o 0
(2) LO LO N O O
O
O ~ _
"a O O 0)
E- > 2
N CO 0 7
N O) U 0
O
d
O
O
O
o_
i
i
E
E
Cu
O
N
L
p CO O 0
O N O O
V -2
N
Cu N C C N
0 m O fn
NE�,C
L Y
Q
CO
O
Q
(/) N
L
O
O
c
a�
2
Q
'N
1
T
Cu
I
_ i
r- r- LO N
O O O
N- M LO 0 M O
�000000
_
O
777
i
\ \
0
\
0
\
0
\
0
0
\ \
0 0 0
O
\ \ \ \
0 0 0
O O
O d7 00
O O
r-
O
O
O
LO
O
T
O O O O
M N
ueuj
JaulI
Juaojad

weighted
percent
of
particles
in range
N
N
U
o n
M N
C)
N
n
C)
0 0
(n O O
O
O
O
�
(0
O_
�C
O
I
N
o o 0
N LO m O O
O
O ~ _
"a O O N
C > 2
N CO 0 7
N 0) U
�
U
>,
0
a
O
o
O
O
IY
i
E
0
Cu
N
O N CD CD
CN
G
E
Q N C C N
0 m O 0
N E O C
—
—
—
—
------
O
I
I
Q Y
Q
CO
O
Q
O
—
(/) N
C)
0')
c
(D
2
Q
«�
s
'N
Cu
U)
I
I
CO N CO M LO
C) C) O O N (.070
E
LO CD LOI LO
N_ - CO LO (O CCO 0')
W 0 0 0 0 0 0
o
I%-
I
0
0
0
0
0
0OR 0 0
0
0 0 0
O O
O O CO
O O
r-
O
(O
O
LO
O
'T
O O O O
M N
ueuj
jauiil
juawad

FINAL
Detailed Hydric Soils Study
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site
Davidson County NC
Prepared for:
Catherine Manner
Water & Land Solutions
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
Prepared by:
George K Lankford Soil Scientist, LSS 91223
George K Lankford, LLC
238 Shady Grove Rd
Pittsboro, NC 27312
August 2021
Soil Scientist Seal
This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site in Davidson County,
NC. Any subsequent transfer of the report by the user shall be made by transferring the complete report, including figures, maps,
appendices, all attachments and disclaimers.

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
DRAFT- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site
Study Objectives and Scope
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the site soils and delineate the extent of riparian hydric soils
potentially suitable for hydrologic restoration and mitigation. The potential for hydrologic restoration of
hydric soil is evaluated considering both historic and existing land use, current conditions, and the
potential for creating a hydroperiod suitable for its landscape setting and soils.
This evaluation focuses on the potential to use practical technical solutions to support reestablishment of
natural hydrology. The potential for hydrologic restoration assumes an appropriate design and ability to
construct site modifications necessary to restore adequate hydrology. Practical modifications suggested
generally take advantage of available natural hydrology and may include, but are not limited to surface
drainage modifications such as plugging drainage ditches, removal of fill materials, and microtopographic
alteration such as surface roughening or enhancing existing depressions. Recommendation for wetland re-
establishment follows the Principles of Wetland Restoration (USEPA 2000) that promote successful
development of a functioning wetland community by restoring ecological integrity through
reestablishment of natural structure and function.
This report presents an evaluation of the subject property based upon a detailed field investigation for the
purpose of confirming the presence of and delineating the extent of hydric soil. This report describes
these findings, conclusions, and recommendation for wetland reestablishment at the Rolling Meadows
Mitigation Site. The site is assessed for the suitability of soils for wetland mitigation. The observations
and opinions stated in this report reflect conditions apparent on the subject property at the time of the site
evaluation. My findings, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations are based on professional
experience, soil morphology, drainage patterns, site conditions, and boundaries of the property as evident
in the field.
Project Information and Background
The project is located in Davidson County approximately 7 miles northwest of Lexington, NC and east of
Hoover Road (SR 1468) and west of Link Road (SR 1477). The area to be evaluated is approximately 30
acres on the floodplain of Reedy Creek (Figure 1). The land use of the contributing watershed community
is rural with agricultural farmland and areas of undeveloped forest land (Figure 2). The hydric soil
delineation and site evaluation includes areas of jurisdictional wetlands within the project boundary.
NRCS Soil Mapping
A Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) soil mapping unit consists primarily of soils having
similarly defined soil properties and physical characteristics with similar management criteria base upon
these properties. Mapping units are useful for planning by indicating the types and ranges of soil
characteristics that may be found within a landscape. The map units often correlate closely with soils at a
location, but have limitations because a site's soils represent the natural conditions and gradients
influenced by local geology, slope, and past land management practices. These soil map units provide
useful information for interpreting soil within a landscape and inform potential management decisions.
General characteristics of mapping units for the Rolling Meadows site are summarized in Table 1.
The NRCS map units cover large areas and naturally include smaller areas of dissimilar soils not
discernable without a detailed site evaluation. Map units may be made up of one or more soil series and
may contain small inclusions of dissimilar series. The properties described for these map units provide the
background for interpreting the range of soil properties that may be encountered within the landscape at a
site. The characteristics of these map units are a starting point for this soil evaluation (on line NRCS Web
Soil Survey 2021). Although map units are useful for general planning, due to the large extent they cover
an on -site evaluation is necessary to determine soil characteristics specific to a site.
August 2021
Page 2 of 11

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
i
DRAFT- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site
The NRCS soil survey shows a single soil map unit within the floodplain of the project limits and is
surrounded by upland soil units mostly varying by slope (Appendix D). Found along drainage ways and
on floodplains, the Chewacla soil is frequently flooded. The Chewacla map unit may also contain
inclusions of Wehadkee and Riverview. The poorly drained Wehadkee soil is found in depressions and
lower elevations of the floodplain and well drained Riverview is on the higher elevations including the
stream levee. The surrounding upland soils adjacent to the site are well drained Pacolet soils with
moderately high to high permeability.
Table 1. NRCS Soil Map Units at the Rolling Meadows Mitigation Bank Site
Taxonomic
Drainage
Hydric
Landscape setting (down
Series
Class
Class
(Hydric Rating)
across)
Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (ChA) (Consociation) Prime farmland if drained
Parent material - loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Depth to water table — 6 to 24 inches
Flooding — frequent to none Pondin - none
Chewacla (90%)
Fluvaquentic
somewhat
No
D strude is
poorly
(13/1))
-linear
u
Wehadkee (5 /o)
Fluvaquentic
poorly
Yes
Endoa ue is
(B/D)linear
Riverview (5%)
Fluventic
well
No
D strude is
B
Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes (PaE) (Consociation) Not Prime Farmland
Parent material - saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist
Depth to water table — greater than 80 inches
Flooding — none Pondin - none
Pacolet (85%)
Typic
Fell
No
(B)
linear - convex
Spartanburg (8%)
Kanhapludults
Bethlehem (5%)
No
C
Highlighted soil series is classified as hydric
Source-NRCS Web Soil Survey (2021 June)
The Chewacla soil is an alluvial floodplain soils formed from deposition of erosional material derived
upland soils of the contributing watershed. It is somewhat poorly drained with the natural ground water
table elevation expected to be between 6 inches and 24 inches below the ground surface for much of the
year. A Wehadkee soil is poorly drained with the water table between 0 and 12 inches for a significant
portion of the growing season. Drainage capacity of the most limiting layers of these soils is moderately
high to high, providing adequate internal drainage to allow ditching to be effective. Due to wetness, these
soils are usually drained for agricultural use. The Chewacla soil is not classified as hydric, but the
Wehadkee is classified as hydric by the NRCS.
Project Approach
The mitigation approach is to restore a natural hydroperiod to a drained hydric soil and reestablish the
biological functions common to natural wetland systems. A restored hydrology should sustain
hydroperiods appropriate for the landscape and hydrology sources. A small portion of this site retains
adequate hydrology and has been mapped as a jurisdictional wetland (Figure 2). An official concurrence
with the Corps of Engineers is being sought to verify the jurisdictional resources. The hydric soils outside
of the wetland are suitable for reestablishment due to lack of adequate hydrology.
August 2021
Page 3 of 11

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
DRAFT- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site
Methodology
The detailed hydric soil investigation for the Rolling Meadows Mitigation Bank Site was completed in
June of 2021. A series of approximately 148 soil borings were performed across the site to described and
verify the presence and estimate the extent of hydric soil (Figure 2). The boring observations do not
contain adequate detail for classifying these soils to a soil series. Soils were evaluated using morphologic
characteristics to determine hydric indicators and evaluate current hydrology and using criteria based on
"Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (USDA, NRCS, 2018, Version 8.2). Relict
morphology follows Vepraskas (1994). Hydric soil indicators used are valid for the Regional Supplement
to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Version 2.0 within Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 136 (Southern Piedmont) and Land Resource
Region (LRR) P- South Atlantic and Gulf Slope Cash Crops, Forest, and Livestock Region. A
hydroperiod success criteria is proposed based upon Corps mitigation guidelines (US Army Corps of
Engineers 2016) along with specific site conditions where appropriate. Soil boring locations examined
during the field evaluation were approximately located using the Terrain Navigator Pro smart phone
application by Trimble and figures were produced from the same software. Boundary points were located
using EOS Arrow 100, a submeter GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) by WLS staff. All
boundaries shown are based on the detailed field evaluation.
Hand auger soil borings were used to evaluate and described current soil characteristics and determine the
extent of soil suitable for reestablishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement. Hydric indicators typically
occur within the upper 18 inches, but some borings extended to greater than 30 inches in depth. The
current hydrologic condition was evaluated by an assessment of the existing drainage modifications (both
anthropogenic and natural), the visible pattern and presentation of soil color and mottles, existing
vegetation, and the current water table where observed. In some areas, borings are placed beyond the
proposed project boundaries to evaluate the wider range of site conditions. Representative profiles are
described to document the range of characteristics observed (Appendix A).
The presence of hydric soil indicators does not assume current hydrology. Potential restoration areas are
determined by the presence of hydric indicators, including soils that appear to exhibit relict or historic
hydric indicators found where drainage and tillage have altered the historic condition. Constraints on
stream restoration may limit the extent of potential hydrologic restoration shown. Removing extensive fill
material is not necessary or recommended. General conditions and patterns representative of this
floodplain were noted. Selected photographs of soils and the landscape are shown in Appendix B. The
discussion describes relevant soil characteristics, current hydrology, and land management with observed
modifications that may affect potential hydrologic restoration.
Results and Discussion
Landscape Setting
This project site is within the Southern Outer Piedmont (45b) ecoregion of the Piedmont physiographic
region. This ecoregion is mostly low hills with irregular plains. It has gneiss, schist, and granite rock
covered with deep saprolite and mostly red, clayey subsoils. Geology within the project and surrounding
area is intrusive granitic rock of the Charlotte Belt. Parent material of this geologic formation consists of
megacrystic to equigranular. Churchland Plutonic Suite (Western group) consisting of Churchland,
Landis, and Mooresville intrusives. The upland residual soils on top of this parent bedrock are composed
of clayey soils underlain by sandy silts and silty sands.
This site is along the floodplain Reedy Creek approximately 3.9 miles upstream of the confluence with
the Yadkin River. Both Reedy Creek and the Yadkin River in the vicinity of the project are classified
Water Supply IV (WS-IV) watershed. Land use in the contributing watershed consists of small farms,
residential homes and small towns. Agricultural activities, including livestock grazing, row crops, and
August 2021
Page 4 of 11

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
DRAFT- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site
silvicultural land are dominant land uses within the watershed (Figure 2). At the project site, land clearing
and conversion to agricultural fields have removed the shallow depressions and low hummocks typical to
a floodplain landscape.
Site Conditions
Reedy Creek is a larger third order channel flowing from east to west. In addition to Reedy Creek, there
are three small unnamed tributaries within the project. Two tributaries enter from the north and one
channel enters from the south. These tributaries are located in the eastern portion of the site. The channel
of Reedy Creek lies on the right side of the floodplain and appears moderately incised with steep banks
and low sinuosity. To the left of Reedy Creek, the floodplain has a sandy levee with the floodplain behind
it sloping to a depressional surface feature paralleling the stream. The floodplain is currently maintained
herbaceous with a ditch network draining the site. A small wetland is located where one small tributary
enters the site, spreading out with the low flows dissipating into the soil above a drainage ditch (Figure 2).
The wetland loses hydrology above the field edge and Hydric Soil area 3. The wetland boundary has been
delineated and Corps concurrence is being sought. The ditches drain generally westward before turning to
the Reedy Creek. Although the current incision of Reedy Creek limits overbank flooding, there is
evidence of overbank events with scattered, larger, woody debris present on the floodplain. Shallow
surface erosional features are located near the upstream end of the Hydric Soil 1 area. Some areas in the
floodplain exhibit thin or absent darker surface horizons and appeared to have been scoured. Inside the
woods line at the edge of the field spoil berms are along ditches with evidence of older shallow ditches
outside to the field.
The historic soil disturbing activities included tree clearing and grubbing, most likely relocation and/or
straightening of Reedy Creek, crowning or contouring in the field to improve surface drainage, and other
activities associated with agricultural operations. These types of disturbances create a more uniform
surface, smoothing the transition in elevation from higher elevations to lower elevations and removing
typical landscape features of shallow depressions and hummocks. The observed modifications resulted in
a long-term reduction of surface organic content due to increased soil oxidation, increased soil
temperature, and reduce organic inputs. Increased oxidation from drainage and the occasional input from
iron rich floodwater allow free iron to `stain' the depleted soils, impacting hydric indicators.
Site Soils
The soils within this project have experienced various impacts due to manipulation and management.
Relative to a natural condition, the floodplain has been timbered and stumps/roots removed, drained with
a ditch network, and graded or crowned to improve surface runoff to conform the landscape for
agricultural use. These modifications have altered the site soils by disturbing the soil structure and profile,
removing hydrology, and altering the chemical process of soil formation. Three areas of hydric soil were
delineated and mapped within the maintained field along with a wetland outside of the maintained field in
a forested area (Figure 2). Within the field, all areas of hydric soil appear to have lost hydrology due to
the drainage network and stream incision.
The observed soil surface is mostly fine textured soil with loamy textures ranging from sandy loam to
clay loam to sandy clay loam. Typical of depositional environments, the subsoil textures are variable,
with hydric soils typically a silty clay, clay loam, or sandy clay loam. Soils near the edge and outside of
hydric soils are sandier textured and outside of the delineated hydric map units, the soils are sometimes
underlain by a thick coarse sand. The coarse sand appears more prevalent in the upstream portion of the
project. These sandy soil horizons appear to be currently draining groundwater toward the incised Reedy
Creek.
Project soils are within the observed range of characteristics corresponding to the NRCS mapping unit
descriptions of Chewacla with the hydric soil similar to inclusions of Wehadkee. Representative soil
August 2021
Page 5 of 11

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
DRAFT- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site
profiles are shown in Appendix A. The presence of hydric indicators within 12 inches of the surface are
typical of Wehadkee soils. Soils observed across the project area were found to have multiple horizons.
Multiple horizons are a combination of depositional events with the historic variation in water table depth
subdividing these layers further. The lower elevations and depression landscapes exhibit multiple hydric
indicators. The hydric indicators are more common in the concave landforms, toe of slopes backwaters,
and depressional areas of the downstream portion of the project. The right floodplain of Reedy Creek and
higher elevations lack hydric or relict hydric indicators.
There is some evidence that a loss of topsoil has altered the position of hydric soil indicators. Areas that
exhibit surface erosion may have exposed subsoil horizons containing hydric indicators. The row crop
and potential tillage management likely promoted soil loss from larger flood events.
Hydric Soil Indicators
The soil evaluation found hydric indicators throughout large areas of the floodplain. Based on recorded
profiles, the most common hydric soil indicators are F3-Depleted Matrix and F8-Redox Depressions. Soil
underlain by a depleted matrix having distinct or prominent redoximorphic concentrations meet the
criteria for the F3-Depleted Matrix. Where the redox concentrations exceed 5 percent and occur within a
depressional landscape meet the F8-Redox Depressions indicator. Many areas contain more than 20
percent distinct or prominent redox concentration near the surface and meets the criteria for the F19-
Piedmont Flood Plain Soils. The F-19 indicator is currently a test indicator within this MLRA region, but
appears to be an appropriate hydric indicator at this site. Generally, the soils lack sufficient organic
content for indicators requiring dark or black soils surfaces to be present. Clearing, drainage, and tillage
increased aeration and soil temperature, allowing accumulated organic matter to rapidly oxidize. The F2-
Loamy Gleyed Matrix was only observed within the wetland and is an indicator where saturation exists
for very long periods.
Current Hydrologic Alterations
Current conditions suggest the site has been effectively drained. Observed hydrologic alterations
impacting local groundwater include ditches and surface contouring to improve site drainage. No spoil
was observed adjacent to ditches within the field, indicating the spoil and the surrounding soil was graded
to facilitate surface drainage.
The ditch network intercepts upland runoff and any toe of slope seepage and drains existing low
elevations and depressional features. Reedy Creek appears very straight, suggesting it was moved and
straighten in the past. Currently, Reedy Creek is moderately incised with overbank flooding limited to
larger storm events, but evidence is present that flooding does occur. The drainage network within the
floodplain can rapidly concentrate and remove flood water once the channel recedes. Areas with
underlying sand horizons may improve subsurface drainage to the incised Reedy Creek.
For the early April site visit, rainfall was above normal for two of the preceding three months. For the
June site visit, rainfall was above normal for only one of the three months with rainfall below normal for
the remaining two month. Ground water was observed during the early April site evaluation near or in all
three hydric map units and within the jurisdictional wetland. In the western half of the H1 hydric soil unit
a water table was observed in early April near the toe of slope and near the central ditch, but during the
June site visit, no water table within 24 inches of the ground surface was observed in this area. In the H2
hydric soil unit, a water table at 24 inches was observed and again in June. This water table is associated
with a deeper sand horizon containing the water table. It was noted the water table extends beyond the
hydric soil unit in the sand horizon toward Reedy Creek. This sandy layer was mapped throughout the
central portion of the floodplain from the H2 map unit eastward or upstream. No water table in the H3
map unit was observed during either evaluation date. The jurisdictional wetland (unverified) had a water
table during both early April and again in June, with minimal change in elevation. The hydrology of this
August 2021
Page 6 of 11

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
DRAFT- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site
wetland drops below 12 inches upslope of the field edge ditch, but this wetland was historically was
connected to HS-3 map unit.
Finer texture surface soils are prone to compaction, lowering infiltration rates and promoting erosion. The
ditch network with smooth, compacted, and contoured surfaces provides more rapid removal of surface
hydrology and significantly reduce hydroperiods of these soils.
Natural hydrology appears to be from a high water table. When Reedy Creek is restored to a more natural
elevation, it will raise the water table and allow more frequent flooding. Improved retention and longer
hydroperiods will maintain the wetlands. The observed sandy horizons will hold water and likely conduct
it toward the restored wetland areas, depending on the final bed elevation of Reedy Creek.
Potential Hydroperiod for Restored Soils
The hydric soils in the floodplain of this project reflect characteristics of the NRCS map units, most
notably the Wehadkee soil. Based on mitigation guidance for Piedmont soils (US Army Corps of
Engineers 2016), the Wehadkee series (Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts) is expected to have a natural
hydroperiod of between 12 and 16 percent during the growing season where the water table is within 12
inches of the surface (Table 2). The Chewacla soil is not considered hydric, but may have areas with a
natural hydroperiod of between 10 and 12 percent during the growing season. A Riverview type soil may
have hydroperiods of 7 to 9 percent, but are not expected to meet those criteria at this site. Upland soil
surrounding the floodplain are not included in the Corps guidance and are not anticipated to have
significant hydroperiods.
After restoration, due to natural variation in local topography and internal drainage of soils in the
floodplain, a local hydroperiod slightly higher or lower than this guidance is expected. Depressional areas
should exhibit longer hydroperiods, potentially exceeding 16 percent, depending on local topography, the
project design, and construction. The final location and elevation of Reedy Creek will significantly impact
final hydrology of the surrounding landscape.
Table 3. Rolling Meadows — Potential Success Criteria for Compensatory Wetland Mitigation
Mapping
Taxonomic
Seasonal
Topographic
Drainage
*Hydroperiod
Unit/Series
Classification
High Water
Slope Setting
Class
Range
Table
(down/across)
Chewacla
Fluvaquentic
6 to 24 inches
somewhat poorly
10-12%
D strude is
linear - linear
Wehadkee
Fluvaquentic
Endoa ue is
0 to 12 inches
poorly
12-16%
Riverview
Fluventic
36 to 60 inches
well
7-9%
D strude is
*Hydroperiod follows US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update. North Carolina Interagency Review Team - October 24, 2016
For the first year after construction, it may be realistic to expect a shorter hydroperiod if rainfall patterns
are below normal as deeper soil horizons becomes saturated and a higher groundwater table becomes
established across the floodplain. These suggested hydroperiods are subject to factors related to stream
design and frequency of flooding, construction accuracy, local topography, and local drainage after
construction.
Functional Uplift from Hydric Soil Reestablishment
The stream and wetland reestablishment proposed will raise local groundwater, restoring a more natural
hydrologic cycle to the floodplain with an associated functional uplift. The watershed is primarily
agricultural with potential sediments, nutrients, and pollutants entering Reedy Creek. The presence of
August 2021
Page 7of11

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
DRAFT- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site
hydric soil indicates a potential to restore the natural biological processes and chemical transformations
found in floodplain wetlands.
Successful hydrologic restoration at this site will provide numerous functional uplifts related to soils and
water quality. These include, reestablishment of natural oxidation-reduction cycling, improved nutrient
and chemical transformations (especially nitrates), and potential immobilization of phosphorus. With
establishment of an appropriate wetland vegetative community, potential benefits include lowering soil
temperatures, increasing organic carbon sequestration, and increasing diversity of beneficial microbial
and fungal populations important for soil health. Healthy microbial populations in wetlands provide the
important biochemical transformations of complex organic substances such as ammonia, molecular
nitrogen, nitrite and nitrate. Large scale benefits are peak flood control, increased and diverse wildlife
habitat, and connectivity of the natural aquatic communities along Reedy Creek.
Summary Observations
The Rolling Meadows project is located within a suitable landscape position on the floodplain of Reedy
Creek. At the project site, land clearing and conversion to agricultural fields have smoothed the surface by
removal of shallow depressions and low hummocks typical in a floodplain landscape. The NRCS soil
mapping shows a high potential for the occurrence of hydric soils within the floodplain. Soils observed
across the floodplain are within the range of characteristics corresponding to the NRCS Chewacla
mapping unit. Areas of hydric soil located in the depressional areas and backwater landscape are similar
to the Wehadkee inclusion.
The most common hydric soil indicators observed are the F3-Depleted Matrix and F8-Redox
Depressions. The test indicator F19-Piedmont Floodplain Soils is also present within many areas of the
site and appears to be a valid indicator for this site. These indicators suggest historic hydrology was wet
for long periods of the growing season. Natural hydrology appears to be a high groundwater across the
floodplain due to frequent overbank flooding with significant floodplain storage. Areas along the toe of
slope are supplemented slope discharge and seepage. These hydric soils are suitable for reestablishment
with a high potential for hydrologic restoration.
Observed hydrologic alterations impacting local groundwater include the deeply incised Reedy Creek and
a ditch network. The ditches extend to the toe of slope to intercept upland runoff and slope seepage. The
floodplain appears to have been smoothed and crowned in the past to improve surface drainage. Spoil
berms are present from constructing and maintaining these ditches. No spoil was observed adjacent to
ditches within the field, indicating the spoil and the surrounding soil was graded to facilitate surface
drainage. Thicker sand lenses in the upstream portion of the site appear to provide subsurface drainage of
the backwater areas to the incised Reedy Creek. Groundwater was observed in an early April visit in the
lower elevations of the hydric soil units, but during the June site visit, was only observed within a deeper
sandy horizon below 30 inches and within a wetland. For the first site visit, rainfall for the two of the
preceding three months was above normal, and for the second site visit below normal for two of the
preceding three months. The wetland had a water table within 10 inches during both evaluation periods.
Summary Recommendations
Recommendations
This site has high potential to restore a more natural hydrology to this landscape and provides
opportunities for Wetland Reestablishment. Practical methods of hydrologic restoration and enhancement
would include relocating and raising the stream bed to raise local ground water table and plugging/filling
the ditch network. Additional modifications include removal of the spoil berms, establishment of a more
natural, rough surface with small storage depressions, and planting an appropriate vegetative community.
No significant areas of fill were identified. Based on the soil's similarity to the NRCS mapped units, a
August 2021
Page 8 of 11

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
DRAFT- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site
general success criterion of 12 to 16% may be expected. Despite the drained condition, all heavy
equipment and construction schedules should be limited to dryer periods or the use of tracked equipment
to limit loss of soil structure. Due to the past agricultural uses, shallow ripping to 12 inches along the
contours is strongly suggested to improve infiltration and improve planting survival. The wetland and
stream design should promote storage of hydrology inputs.
Due to the current drainage modifications and the sandy soil subsoil horizons, it may take up to a year for
the site to become completely saturated and reach the target hydroperiods. For at least the first year after
construction, it may be reasonable to expect a hydroperiod between 9 and 12 percent, depending on final
construction timing and rainfall (assuming at least average seasonal rainfall, antecedent conditions, and
over bank flow frequency).
Conclusions
At the Rolling Meadows mitigation site, the topographic setting and presence of hydric soil is appropriate
for a successful hydrologic mitigation project. The hydric soil indicators observed across this floodplain
reflect historically wet conditions. Stream restoration should raise the local water table and provide
opportunities for more frequent or naturally occurring overbank flooding events to support wetland
hydrology. This project can restore lost and degraded aquatic resources to provide functional uplift,
establish natural habitat, and support connectivity across the larger Rolling Meadows floodplain.
Given the observed soil characteristics and presence of hydric soil indicators within a favorable landscape
position, this site is suitable for hydrologic wetland reestablishment of degraded aquatic resources. Based
upon this detailed study of soils and current conditions observed at this site, this appears to be a site with
appropriate conditions for Wetland Reestablishment.
This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site
in Davidson County, NC. Any subsequent transfer of the report by the user shall be made by transferring
the complete report, including figures, maps, appendices, all attachments and disclaimers.
References
NTCHS. 2003. Technical Note 13: Altered Hydric Soils. Deliberation of. National Technical Committee
for Hydric Soils.
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
Web Soil Survey. Available online at the following link: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.
Accessed [July/2021].
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update. North Carolina Interagency Review Team - October 24, 2016. SAW-2013-00668-PN
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Version 2.0, ed. J. F. Berkowitz, J. S.
Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-12-9. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center.
USDA 1985. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Soil
Survey of Davidson County North Carolina. July 1994)
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Field Indicators
of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.).
USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
August 2021
Page 9 of 11

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
DRAFT- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site
Vepraskas, M. J. 1994. Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions. Tech. Bulletin 301.
North Carolina Ag. Research Service, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, North Carolina.
USEPA. 2000. Principles for the Ecological Restoration of Aquatic Resources. EPA841-F-00-003.
Office of Water (4501F). United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 4 pp.
(https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/principles-wetland-restoration).
USEPA. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina. G. E. Griffith et. al. EPA, USDA, NRCS Regional
collaborative. Available online at https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-state.
August 31, 2002.
August 2021
Page 10 of 11

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
DRAFT- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site
FIGURES
APPENDICES
Appendix A Soil Boring Log
Appendix B Photos
Appendix C NRCS Web Soil Survey Report
August 2021
Page 11 of 11

❑ t� O G- O
��JL !D n
_ fie, L
Reds Greek co O ni }
, Ch
� i
\ aX -n
r A7f,
_ 1'a'
• r ,
[
y
R ad
Old�lagon ° KellysCourt A'
Reedy Creek c "
Wwhite
°off 1 a,�e �� out a�
_ t' } .
Shady Hanes Roads
Da I Drive
Creek- 11 .-. �� _' r`/
>////////%%%%%%//CCC f f �� //////// �\ . may'-• �// -. `} � 5'.
On - =� �F
r, l a 4 ' t '' + dead°
171 !_5�' �tr I i z/cU. .
�oI 96,
r Q
Ba
bryq � i ,; cn, '
V
enUe.,0J 1 r
CAD
`��� - =- i - •Q - -f
Q) n
, ' 2 c
-- -Stella Drive°' ^\'zf o
LL
cz
Butte
- _ y� 0,
Baby.Bear'Lone.
i
Declination p O 5
* / '��sP�r�{
N Lane,' ap��Je f so
_ dad ``-.
Norman Leonard -Lane - �``'sCD
.
o�� _ P
Legend
GN 0.40° E F Project Area (Parcel Boundary)
MN 8.22' W
m,. S r (CjCopyryght 2016, Trimk avigatipn Limite , peraeetMap contr 4LA9rV
\lap Name: WELCOME
Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 ft.
Figure 1. USGS Vicinity Map
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site
Davidson County, INC
SCALE 1:24000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Feet
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Miles

t
\\ K' l _ Illiiilfl!! i O
•.,1% O w
W
_ J
.. U
_ in
i OR
U -
T
rc
I , o
fwi ids isJ.
T7F ry.,,
� 3
z �
o y
(n
ai
bL
1'P' Mir
J
C
* �`y
ms>_
Ffi�F�
'*. _° - .,_,<-s - •'� Ill N
W o o 0 0
A a�i m o L o o aai a=
o S o o a` a` o a` 0
1- aa�==a=z

Appendix A
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Bank, Davidson County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
Representative Soil Profiles at the Rolling Meadows Mitigation Bank Site (Grouped by map unit)
Depth
Color
Mottle Percentage
(Location*)Texture"
Notes
(inches)
Matrix
Mottle
SB 04 - (HS 1)
March 2, 2021
Hydric Indicators WT -3"
F3-Depleted Matrix -relict
F8-Redox Depressions
F19-Piedmont Flood lain Soils
0-5
10 YR 5/3
10 YR 4/6
5% (PL)
CL
relict F3
5-10
7.5 YR 4/3
7.5 YR 4/6
10 YR 2/2
25% (PL)
5%(PL)CL
relict F3
10-19
10 YR 511
I O YR 4/6
25% PL
SiCL
19-26
7.5 YR 4/6
10 YR 5/3
15% PL
SiL
26-32
1 10 YR 4/1
7.5 YR 4/6
20% (PL)
Sic
SB 13 - (HS 1)
March 2, 2021
Hydric Indicators WT -21"
F3-Deplete Matrix
0-13
10 YR 4/2
10 YR 4/6
5% PL
SCL
13-23
10 YR 5/3
5 YR 4/6
25% (PL)
Sic
23-26
10 YR 5/2
10 YR 3/4
20% (PL)
Sc
26-32
10 YR 2/2
10 YR 5/8
20% PL
Sc
SB 17 - (HS 1)
March 2, 2021
Hydric Indicators WT -10"
F3-Depleted Matrix
0-5
IO YR 4/1
10 YR 3/6
5% (PL)
SCL
plow layer
5-10
10 YR 4/6
10 YR 2/2
8% (PL)
SL
soft Mg nodules
10-20
10 YR 5/3
7.5 YR 4/6
5% PL
C
20-26
10 YR 511
5 YR 4/6
5% PL
Sc
SB 147 - (HS 1)
June 17, 2021
Hydric Indicators WT Not observed
F3-Depleted Matrix
F8-Redox Depressions
F19-Piedmont Flood lain Soils
0-5
10 YR 3/3
SL
5-22
10 YR 4/2
7.5 YR 4/6
25% (PL)
CL
22-26
10 YR 511
7.5 YR 4/6
15% PL
CL
26-29
10 YR 6/1
7.5 YR 4/6
30% PL
CL
Appendix A
Page 1 of 3
June 2021

Appendix A
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Bank, Davidson County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
Representative Soil Profiles at the Rolling Meadows Mitigation Bank Site (Grouped by map unit)
Depth
Color
Mottle Percentage
(Location*)Texture"
Notes
(inches)
Matrix
Mottle
SB 148 - (HS 1)
Hydric Indicators WT Not observed
June 17, 2021
F3-Depleted Matrix
0-6
10 YR 4/2
10 YR 4/6
3% (PL)
CL
6-11
10 YR 4/3
10 YR 5/6
5% (PL)
SCL
10 YR 3/3
2% PL
11-19
10 YR 4/6
cS
19-24
10 YR 5/2
7.5 YR 3/6
20% (PL)
SCL
relict mottles with distinct
10 YR 3/2
2% PL
boundaries
SB 146 - (HS 2)
Hydric Indicators WT Not observed
F3-Depleted Matrix
June 17, 2021
F8-Redox Depressions
0-4
10 YR 3/3
SL
4-11
10 YR 4/2
10 YR 4/4
10% (PL)
SL
10 YR 4/6
5% (PL)
11-21
10 YR 5/2
7.5 YR 3/4
15% (PL)
SL
10 YR 4/6
5% PL
21-27
10 YR 6/1
10 YR 5/2
20% PL
Sc
SB 127 - (HS 3)
Hydric Indicators WT Not observed
June 17, 2021
F3-Depleted Matrix
F19-Piedmont Flood lain Soils
0-8
10 YR 4/3
CL
8-11
10 YR 4/2
5 YR 4/6
25% (PL)
CL
11-22
10 YR 5/2
5 YR 4/6
25% (PL)
SCL
22-27
10 YR 4/2
2.5 YR 6/2
15% (PL)
SCL
10 YR 6/2
10% PL
Hydric Indicators WT -9"
SB 142 - wetland data point
F2-Loamy Gleyed Matrix
June 17, 2021
F3-Depleted Matrix
F19-Piedmont Flood lain Soils
0-4
10 YR 3/3
10 YR 4/4
10% (PL)
SiL
4-11
2.5 Y 4/2
10 YR 4/6
20% (PL)
CL
11-24
N 4/-
10 YR 3/4
25% PL
SCL
Appendix A
Page 2 of 3
June 2021

Appendix A
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Bank, Davidson County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
Representative Soil Profiles at the Rolling Meadows Mitigation Bank Site (Grouped by map unit)
Depth
Color
Mottle Percentage
(Location*)Texture"
Notes
(inches)
Matrix
Mottle
SB 143 - upland data point
Hydric Indicators WT Not observed
June 17, 2021
No H dric Indicators
0-3
10 YR 3/3
LS
3-23
10 YR 4/4
LS
23-28
10 YR 3/2
7.5 YR 3/3
5% PL
SL
»Indicators valid for NRCS Land Resource Region 136 (Southern Piedmont) and Land Resource Region P.
WT = observed apparent water table
*PL more lining, M = matrix, UCSG = uncoated sand grains
**Texture (follows USDA textural classification)
S = sand, L = loam, Si = silt, C = clay 0 SOIL
f = fine, c = coarse (textural modifiers for sandy soils) - A
Appendix A
Page 3 of 3
-Nor.—Ine
p/ ZZ
� NGR1kt G%/
Soil Scientist Seal
June 2021

Appendix B
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Bank Site — Davidson County, NC
Photo Log
June 2021
1. Hydric profile. Meets the F3-Depleted Matrix, F8-Redox Depressions, and F19-Piedmont Floodplain
Soils indicators. S13404.
2. Landscape looking across floodplain toward Reedy Creek. SB#04.
1
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix B
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Bank Site — Davidson County, NC
Photo Log
3. Hydric profile. Meets the F3-Depleted Matrix indicator. Sl3#148.
4. Landscape looking down floodplain with central ditch to left. S134148.
2
June 2021
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix B
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Bank Site — Davidson County, NC
Photo Log
June 2021
5. Hydric profile. Meets F3-Depleted Matrix and F8-Redox Depressions indicators. S139127.
6. Landscape facing along edge of floodplain below wetland. Ditch located inside tree line. SB#127.
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

(6
C
Q
(U
75
O
U)
M „8Z,6T .08
006IZ6£
006bL6£
En
En
OO9bL6£ OOEVZ6£ OOObL6£ OOL£LE
009bL6£ OO z6£ OOObL6£ OOL£L6£
Z
En
OOb£L6£
M „9£,LT .08
g
T
N
_
U
'o
U
�
o
�
0 0
U Q
o
U
�
m
O
�
m
Z
Ll
—
W
X
Q
Q
_
O
EL
O
�
�
Q
o
i fN
O.
C
N •0
N +�
>
p
p
L
_
L
� N
ziiijc
ZU
OOb£L6£
En

m
C
Q
m
75
O
U
0
Z
/W
V
W
J
a
O O �
7
U O O
U (n N
U O O
O) E
Q O m
U O C E C
U) E m y 3
y O) O O
U)
m m O O C
= U) E y
> .L.-O O a)
C >
-0 O L
a) _0
-O U) 6
> L m o
m
E o-a)m
m o
m E N
O C m N y
U a) m E o)
C
E a) (U '
m y
E `m 3 a 2 6
U) a) m m
wE UU))
O O
L
U)
U7
O
U
N
U
UU) ('U'
m� o
m_
U)CL
O
C 0
O
o
N
A)
00
y 7
O
m
E
a)
.N E.
'O U) ,� -O
��—,
U)O
N
E
(6
Q
(p
ap
_ U a)
O
O
ON
a
n
E
-0N O
L
mm
af
U
o
O
)
U)
a)
O
Z
E u)
a)-0 U) m
Q
OON
p_0!E
E
a)md
U w
m"w
U)i
Z
aao)CL
mE
U
N
a)
m
0 Q
a0)
O
N
U o
Q
O
oL
Q .— m
uj
mQE
U
O
a
o
my
a)
'am
O
C C
-
E a)
U m
US
(6
(n a) a) E y
Q
w '6
a)
(n o
N
m o% m
L -co:
U)a)
_ .o �_
U)n
3
m
O EJ na)QO
Q(
Nm
2
U)
LO
N
a)
Z
m
aaci a)
m
a)
rn
oa)
O
,-"
a
rnm
-O
m
a)
O 0T
C y
Q a) j,
a) m m 7
,U)
C
a) Q
y (6
O -6 m 0-
O a)
3
m
Q m
C
`o
L O N E
E
_ U u�
O
E m o
D O a) a) a)
n
O a)
Q
O_ O
U7 W
o m
L -O O
(mn N
O C
U U) �6
'n U C
>
Q>
(n N
m O
E O
y 0
N
0 .Q N C
m m
a) a)
L o
09 O
Q .U? a) 0
m O n �_
y�
L
= L
O 7
= O
O N
°?
m
a) E m 55
FL E
U�U
U
2 QoQ m
H o
UU
U—
o
0.ELn
y
� y
4 O U1 Q
L
Q (i O L
>. 0
a) Q O J R a) U) O O r
Q U) O Q R U1 p m d
U) O N N N y m
O O R
O N L y a U
U) in > O U")'2 in g S v Q
� R C
R � �
a)
* R 4 R5 R
F m
y
C O
O y Q
0 .� U)
a° a° N c N a
CL
ay oQU >C >C >C a) a R o w 3 R >> aO
Q Q O ° ` oW
Y Qo
aon O o m >. a)O Q E O a) UQ)y 3
R O > o
—oo 0 0 O O >
n n n m o o m R o o
o
U) U) U) in U) U)
w a
R
cun
Q y
2
N w
O O
N N
a)
00 O)
m
d
m
Z

Soil Map —Davidson County, North Carolina
Rolling Meadows Site
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
ChA
Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, frequently flooded
220.9
25.6%
PaB
Pacolet sandy loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes
275.6
32.0%
PaD
Pacolet sandy loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes
156.7
18.2%
PaE
Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25
percent slopes
59.8
6.9%
SfB
Sedgefield sandy loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes
10.0
1.2%
VaB
Vance sandy loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes
82.1
9.5%
VaD
Vance sandy loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes
8.7
1.0%
W
Water
3.3
0.4%
WeB
Wedowee sandy loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes
21.0
2.4%
WeD
Wedowee sandy loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes
23.5
2.7%
Totals for Area of Interest
861.6
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/6/2021
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

Groundwater Gauge Data — Rolling Meadows- Pre -Construction
Rolling Meadows WG-1 (WO1)
5
6 — —
o -20
C7
-25
36
..._.
.. -
..
_ _.
■■_
. ..
.. JL.
...
.
....
r-I
ri
ri
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
rn
O
r"
r�-I
W
�-I
W
N
N
6_7
Z
P
O
.ir
M
O
n
f M
O
n
N
M
O
r-I
N
N
r-I
r-I
N
N
N
r-I
N
rn
r-I
r-I
N
N
N
r-I
r-I N
67
67
r-I
O
r-I
O
r-I
O
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
N
r-I
N
r-I
N
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
N
N N
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII3ainfall Groundwater Depth Ground Level 12" Below Surface Growing Season
Rolling Meadows GW-1 (HS03)
6".
o -20
C7
25
-all
■_
■ ....
i
■ ■■ _
%
■"L
■
_6
_ III.
■ ■■
■
ON ■ ■
■■■
■ _
■ .■■■
ri
ri
ri
r-I
ri
ri
r-I
r-I
ri
ri
r-I
ri
ri
r-I
r-I
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
_rn-
N
N
N
N
N N
rn
O
n
1
W
r�-I
W
N
N
6_7
M
O
O
n
f l
O
n
N
rn
r-I
N
N
r-I
r-I
N
r-I
N
rn
r-I
N
N
r-I
r-I N
67
67
r-I
O
r-I
O
r-I
O
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
N
r-I
N
r-I
N
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
N
N N
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII13ainfall Groundwater Depth Ground Level 12" Below Surface Growing Season
3.5
3
2.5 -Ui-
47
L
C
2 _
C
1.5 �
a
m
1 ❑
0.5
0
3
2.5 -Ui-
47
L
C
2 _
C
1.5 �
a
m
1 ❑
0.5
fl

Rolling Meadows GW-2 (HS02)
5
o -20
C7
-25
-36
�..�
-.�._
..
..
.._
..
....
...
...
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
ri
ri
ri
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
ri
ri
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
rn
O
r"
r�-I
W
�-I
W
N
N
6_7
Z
P
O
'.i�
M
O
n
M
O
n
N
rn
r-I
N
N
r-I
r-I
N
r-I
N
rn
r-I
N
N
N
r-I
r-I N
r-I
r-I
r-I
rl
r-I
rl
r-I
r-I
r-I
N
N N
Rainfall Groundwater Depth Ground Level — 12" Below Surface Growing Season
Rolling Meadows GW-3 (HS01)
6".
6
o -20
L9
oil
-30
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
ri
ri
r-I
r-I
r-I
ri
r-I
ri
ri
r 1
ri
ri
r-I
r-I
r-I
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
rn
O
r,
r�-I
W
r�-I
W
N
N
6_7
M
O
_rn-
O
n
f l
O
n
N
rn
r-I
N
N
r-I
r-I
N
r-I
N
rn
r-I
N
N
r-I
r-I N
6_7
ri
ri
r-I
rl
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
Rainfall Groundwater Depth —Ground Level 12" Below Surface Growing Season
3.5
3
2.5 -Ui-
47
L
C
2
C
1.5
a
m
1 ❑
0.5
6
91161
3
2.5 -Ui-
47
L
C
2
C
1.5 �
a
m
1 ❑
0.5
0

Rolling Meadows GW-4 (HS01)
6".
0
25
r-I
N
r-I
N
r-I
N
r-I
N
r-I
N
r-I
N
r-I
N
r-I
N
r-I
N
r-I
N
r-I
N
r-I
N
r-I
N
r-I
N
r-I
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
N N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O CD
N N
ro
OO
n
r�-I
N
r�l
r-I
r-I
u�'y
N
N
Q_i
CAD
r-1
M
N
O
ro
CAD
n_7
r-I
OO
N
r
N
m
C
r-I
n
r-I N
p�j
p�j
O
O
O
r-1
r�l
r�-I
r�l
r-I
r-I
N
N
N
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
Rainfall
Groundwater
Depth
Ground
Level
12" Below
Surface
Growing
Season
9161
E
2.5 -Ui-
47
L
C
2
C
1.5 �
a
m
1 ❑
0.5
0

Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Stream
— — Existing Ditches
Existing Wetland (unverified)
Existing Hydric Soils
Pre-existing well locations
r
Parcel Boundary
Reedy Creek
�- P
T—
T
- z
m
€ <� �{
a
0 285 570 X 1,140 Feet
" h�u 1 inch = 570 feet N
Proposed
Figure
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
WATER & LAND
HUC8 Upper Yadkin 03040101
Davidson County, North Carolina
Pre-existing Well
Locations Map
SOLUTIONS
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlan e_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Date: 9/20/2021
Data sources - Soils data source: USDA. Imagery data source: NC One Map

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Versinn 4.11 QP.A.i r..P.Y
Date: t0 / 1 O jl20 Z1
ProjectfStte�okeaQo+•�$
Latitude:35, q 013
Evaluator: ��'� _ -rp i/, 4
County:-�AU 1a 5 p,J
Longitude: --gob. SO4 Is
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent qo S
Stream Determination (circle )
Other VJCkLomp I
if 19 orperennial if 3o" r
Ephemeral Intermittent erenN I
e g. Quad Name:
NC
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = oh,'D)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool.
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
es =
amnciai aucnes are not rated; see discussions In manual
B. Hvdroloov iSubtotal = ?. a i
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
IV
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
dQ
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
s = 3
I•91-in . • tIM,6tnl=1�-��•
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
057
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
CIP
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 O er =
"perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
f„_
Sketch: � � �} v(p �4
-Ild r�

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 [ cl 1 nri
Date: �ItiOrZ0Z R
ProjecVS(te: 9O�tir Mlt7t&u S
Latitude: 5� L�'i 3-
Evaluator: D^F 7- f iL'
County: 'DaV j aso n
Longitude:
S0. 30.qLFq
Total Points:
Stream !sat least intermittent
Stream Determination (ci a one
Other W e1 CdVnnl_,
if? 29 or erennial if z 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent eerenn(a
e.g. Quad Name: N [,
%­7 r__
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
I 7r,;L)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Str
1 a, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2, Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3- In -channel structure; ex. riffle -pool, step -pool.
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5 Active/relict floodplain
0
C!2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
®
2
3
B. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0 5
1
i J.
10. Natural valley
0
05
1
1.
11- Second or greater order channel
o - 0)
Yes = 3
ariumai onenes are not rated. see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal = 0, r i
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
i
CP
3
14. Leaf litter
15
05
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0-5
1
15
16. Organic debris lines or piles
D
gr
1
1 1 5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es =
U. t $IOIOQV (Subtotal = `7 i
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21- Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
1.5
23 Crayfish
05
1
1.5
24 Amphibians
0
0
1.5
25. Algae
0
%IV
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; O L =
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See In 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch 50
P ot'q

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: I O Z
Project/Site: �vl 11„ MtS�awS
Latitude: 3 .91 374�
Evaluator: Y-ra DPI
County: '�] c> v d S e n
Longitude: _go, .30
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent ff��
Stream Determination (circle
Other W e j GO me. i
if z r9 or perennial if � 30' ' V
Ephemeral Intermittent erennia
e.g. Quad Name: N C.
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = • O)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1)
2
3
3 In -channel structure: ex_ riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
ci5
3
5 Active/relict floodplain
0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
B. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0 Pp
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
_5
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0
Yes = 3
aniauai oimnes are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = .
12_ Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13_ Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
05
0
15. Sediment an plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0 5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
3
C. Biolo Subtotal = L . D
1 B. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
a
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1 5
23 Crayfish
05
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
05
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
05
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75; OBL = 1 5
Other
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes;
Sketch:
Sac it aq tea, c S.. a ; Is ,
fh._ `os i t7'- y 0 AM
w Csdd►tFtY,r

Archaeological Survey Report
Rolling Meadows
Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022
Terracon Project No. 70227103
Prepared for:
Water & Land Solutions
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Terri Russ, RPA
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604

Archaeological Survey Terracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
This report presents the findings of an intensive archaeological investigation for Rolling Meadows,
a proposed wetland restoration project located along Reedy Creek in Davidson County, North
Carolina. This investigation was conducted by Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) of Raleigh,
North Carolina, on behalf of Water & Land Solutions (Corps Action ID Number SAW-2021-01538).
Work was performed in accordance with procedures and policies established by the North
Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) for compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended.
The goal of the current investigation was to identify and assess the significance of cultural
resources (archaeological sites) that may occur within the areas of proposed ground disturbance
(herein "project area"). "Significant" cultural resources are those meeting the criteria of eligibility
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as defined in 36 CFR 60.4 and in
consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO; ER 22-0175). The following report
was prepared in accordance with federal and state guidelines.
Field methods used during the investigation included pedestrian inspection and shovel testing.
Field investigations were conducted from February 28 to March 3, 2022 by Terri Russ (Field
Director and Principal Investigator), Becky Sponseller (Crew Chief), and Kristin Doshier.
As a result of the investigation, 176 shovel tests were excavated and one new archaeological site
was recorded within the project area (Table A). Terracon recommends this site as Not Eligible for
the NRHP.
Terracon recommends that the project be granted clearance to proceed without concern for
impacts to significant archaeological resources. Should the proposed project area be expanded,
additional coordination with SHPO should occur to ensure that these actions do not adversely
affect significant archaeological resources.
Table A: Summary of Site Data
Site Cultural Affiliation Site Type Recommendations
31 DV769 Precontact: Lithic; Woodland Limited Activity Not Eligible; NFW*
* NFW.- No Further Work

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY........................................................................................................i
1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1.1
2. ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND................................................................................2.1
Physiographyand Geology..................................................................................................2.1
Hydrology.............................................................................................................................2.1
Soils.....................................................................................................................................2.1
Wildlife.................................................................................................................................2.2
CurrentLand Use.................................................................................................................2.2
3. CULTURAL BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS..................................3.1
Pre -Clovis Period (???-10,000 B.C.)...................................................................................3.1
Paleoindian Period (10,000-8000 B.C.)...............................................................................3.1
Archaic Period (8000-1000 B.C.).........................................................................................3.2
Woodland Period (1000 B.C.—A.D. 1000).............................................................................3.6
HistoricPeriod......................................................................................................................3.9
HistoricalMaps...................................................................................................................3.11
Archaeological Potential and Expectations.........................................................................3.12
4. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS........................................................................................4.1
5. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY.................................................................5.1
Background Research..........................................................................................................5.1
FieldMethodology................................................................................................................5.1
LaboratoryMethodology.......................................................................................................5.1
Curation...........................................................................................................................5.2
Archaeological Site Descriptions..........................................................................................5.2
Archaeological Site Definitions and Evaluations...................................................................5.2
6. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS....................................................................................6.1
31 DV769..............................................................................................................................6.2
7. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................7.1
REFERENCES CITED............................................................................................................
R.1
APPENDIX A: PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN ..............................................
A.1
APPENDIX B: ARTIFACT PHOTOGRAPHS.................................................................B.1

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
LIST OF FIGURES
Following
Page
Figure 1.1:
Project Vicinity.................................................................................................
1.1
Figure1.2:
Topographic Map............................................................................................
1.1
Figure 2.1:
NRCS Soils.....................................................................................................2.1
Figure 3.1:
Historical Maps................................................................................................
3.11
Figure 3.2:
Aerial Photographs..........................................................................................3.12
Figure 6.1:
Shovel Test Locations.....................................................................................6.1
Figure 6.2:
Archaeological Site Location...........................................................................
6.1
Figure 6.3:
Project Area Photographs...............................................................................
6.1
Figure 6.4:
Project Area Photographs...............................................................................
6.1
Figure 6.5:
Project Area Photographs...............................................................................
6.1
Figure 6.6:
Project Area Photographs...............................................................................
6.1
Figure 6.7:
Representative Shovel Test Photographs.......................................................
6.1
Figure 6.8:
Archaeological Site Plan.................................................................................6.2
Figure 6.9:
Archaeological Site Photographs....................................................................
6.2
Figure 6.10:
Archaeological Site Photographs...................................................................6.2

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table A: Summary of Site Data..............................................................................i
Table 2.1: NRCS Soils........................................................................................2.1
Table 4.1: Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within
One Mile of the Project Area..............................................................4.1
Table 6.1: Site 31 DV769 Artifacts.............................................................................6.3
Table 7.1: Summary of Site Data...........................................................................7.1
iv

Archaeological Survey Terracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings of an archaeological investigation of the areas of proposed
ground disturbance for the Rolling Meadows wetland mitigation and restoration project located
along Reedy Creek in Davidson County, North Carolina. The project site consists of an
approximately 51.8-acre proposed mitigation area and conservation easement encompassing a
portion of Reedy Creek and associated tributaries (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). Although the
surrounding conservation easement encompasses an approximately 51.8-acre area, the
proposed areas of subsurface disturbance are limited to the drainageways and adjacent floodplain
proposed for wetland re-establishment (see Appendix A for proposed wetland restoration plan).
This archaeological investigation was conducted by Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) of
Raleigh, North Carolina, on behalf of Water & Land Solutions to comply with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 1966, as amended). Fieldwork was designed to comply
with guidelines established by the Office of the Secretary of the Interior of the United States and
in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Office of State Archaeology
(OSA; ER 22-0175).
The goal of the archaeological investigation was to identify and assess the significance of cultural
resources (archaeological sites) that might occur within the project area. "Significant" cultural
resources are those meeting the criteria of eligibility for listing on the National Registerof Historic
Places (NRHP), as defined in 36 CFR 60.4 and in consultation with the SHPO. Section 106 of
NHPA requires that the effect of a project on significant cultural resources be considered on all
projects involving federal funding or permitting. The guidelines for fulfilling the provisions of
Section 106 are contained in the implementing regulations 36 CFR 800.
Prior to the initiation of fieldwork, background research was conducted, including a search of
archaeological site files by OSA staff on behalf of Terracon. Field methods employed by Terracon
during the investigation included systematic visual (pedestrian) inspection combined with shovel
testing. Areas of clear visibility were inspected for historic structures, artifacts, and other signs of
precontact or historic period cultural activity. Shovel tests were excavated at 25-meter intervals
within the proposed areas of disturbance in well -drained, level areas of poor surface visibility and
undisturbed soils. No shovel testing was conducted within active wetlands or areas of standing or
surface water.
A total of 176 shovel tests were excavated during the investigation. Shovel tests measured
approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and were dug to one meter, the water table, or sterile
subsoil. Field investigations were conducted from February 28 to March 3, 2022 by Terri Russ
(Field Director and Principal Investigator), Becky Sponseller (Crew Chief), and Kristin Doshier.

Pa Run
N
\
Advance
/
/
r
\
Welcome
�
Q
�
a
\
N
l
`
'I r52
ti
1 W us H,ghWay 64
Legend
QConservation Easement Boundary
�F
y'ehy,oy
SourcesgEsri, HERE, •G-armin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, 6.
Esri Japan METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),
NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 1.25 2.5
i Miles
5
Drwn: MM
_�
Project Vicinity
FIGURE
Ferracon
Chkd:
TR
.
Rolling Meadows
Mitigation Project
g 1
1.1
Project "
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27604
Davisdson County, North Carolina
Date:
March 2022
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

C-� �•�` �. � Jr- � �' 1, �,�� � Lam' , �'' l \� .: � �
IJ
-14--
L--:f
-_ ' 4 , ..`/ J/� - _ J = _•-_ _ ���� � r. _ \ 1, r.
1
Copyright:© 2013 Natiolnal Geographic Society, i-cubed
Legend Miles
QConservation Easement Boundary 0 0.25 0.5 1
Drwn: MM
Topographic Map
FIGURE
rerracon
Chkd:
TR
.
Rolling Meadows
Mitigation Project
g 1
1•2
Project N
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27604
Davisdson County, North Carolina
Date:
March 2022
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
2. ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND
Physiography and Geology
The project area is located within the Piedmont physiographic province. The landscape of the
Piedmont region consists of gently sloping to rolling topography with low ridges. Low mountains,
including the Uwharrie Mountains and South Mountains, are also situated within the Piedmont
province (NCDEQ 2015). Elevations within the proposed conservation easement range from 695
to 762 feet above mean sea level (amsl).
The project area falls between areas of the Charlotte Terrane and is mapped as an area of
Paleozoic intrusions (NCDEQ 2016). These formations generally consist of granite and
granodiorite extruded during the formation of the Appalachians 280 to 320 million years ago.
These intrusions contain quartz, feldspar, and mica (all of which were observed during the current
investigation).
Hydrology
The project area is located within the Yadkin -Pee Dee River drainage basin and includes Reedy
Creek and associated tributaries.
Soils
Soil development is dependent upon biotic and abiotic factors that include past geologic activities,
nature of parent material, environmental and human influences, plant and animal activity, age of
sediments, climate, and topographic position. A general soil association contains one or more
mapping units occupying a unique natural landscape position. The map units (soil series) are
named for the major soil or soils within the unit but may have minor inclusions of other soils. The
soil map for Davidson County shows six soil units occurring within the proposed conservation
easement (NRCS 2021; Table 2.1; Figure 2.1). Only approximately 47 percent of this area is
mapped as having well drained soils. The remainder of the conservation easement consists of
somewhat poorly drained and frequently flooded Chewacla loam.
Table 2.1: Project Area Soils
Code
Name
Slope
Landform
Drainage
ChA
Chewacla loam, frequently flooded
0-2%
Floodplains
Somewhat poorly
PaB
Pacolet sandy loam
2-8%
Interfluves
Well drained
PaD
Pacolet sandy loam
8-15%
HiIlslopes on ridges
Well drained
PaE
Pacolet sandy loam
15-25%
HiIlslopes on ridges
Well drained
VaB
Vance sandy loam
2-8%
Interfluves
Well drained
WeB
Wedowee sandy loam
2-8%
Interfluves
Well drained
2.1

SfB,
A
IF
VaDr'
NYa
' ChA
} VaB
t
SfB ! W
A
a6 -
WeB PaB
PaE
We'D �� Mr
WeB WeD' j
WeD
� P1,
PaB
Soil Mapping Units
ChA Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
PaB Pacolet sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
_ PaD Pacolet sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
PaE Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
SfB Sedgefield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
VaB Vance sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
VaD Vance sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
WeB Wedowee sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
` PaB WeD Wedowee sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Legend
Conservation Easement Boundary i Meters
0 125 250 500
NRCS Soil Boundary
Drwn: MM
NRCS Soils
FIGURE
ferracon
NO.
Chkd:
TR
�r
Rolling Meadows
Mitigation Project
g J
2.1
Project N
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27604
Davisdson County, North Carolina
Date:
March 2022
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Wildlife
The following wildlife descriptions are summarized from Martof et al. (1980), Hamel (1992), Rohde
et al. (1994), and Palmer and Braswell (1995).
Mammals expected to occur in and around the project area include raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginanus), and Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana). Reptile species expected include, but are not limited to, black racer
(Coluber constrictor), eastern box turtle (Terrapene caroling), green anole (Anolis carolinensis),
rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), ground skink (Scincella lateralis), and rat snake
(Pantherophis obsoleta). Terrestrial or arboreal amphibians expected to occur in and around the
project area include such species as southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia) and spring peeper
(Pseudacris crucifer). Avian species expected include blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), American
crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), and various warblers
(Dendroica spp.), among others.
Current Land Use
The conservation easement consists of agricultural fields, fallow areas, and forested areas. The
northern portion of the conservation easement consists of active agricultural fields, with wooded
areas along the drainageways. The southern boundary of the conservation easement is primarily
hardwood forest, with beech and oak observed along the steep side slopes. The remaining
portions of the conservation easement consist of fallow former agricultural fields. These areas are
currently overgrown with various grasses, briars, and weeds. Larger saplings were observed
along the numerous ditches running through the fields. Representative project photographs can
be seen in Chapter 6.
2.2

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
3. CULTURAL BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
Pre -Clovis Period (M-10,000 B.C.)
Claims of pre-10,000 B.C. human occupations in the New World have been met with considerable
skepticism in the past. However, there is growing evidence of human populations in the Americas
prior to the Clovis peoples. A number of sites in both North and South America apparently contain
pre -Clovis evidence. The Meadowcroft Rock Shelter in Pennsylvania contains a reportedly pre -
Clovis occupation (Adovasio et al. 1990), as does the Cactus Hill site in Virginia, where quartzite
tools were recovered stratigraphically below a Clovis level (McAvoy 1997). Monte Verde is
perhaps the most famous of the possible pre -Clovis sites in South America, with an average
reported 14C date of 12,500 B.P. (Dillehay 1997).
It has been hypothesized that pre -Clovis populations in the Americas were relatively small,
resulting in low archaeological visibility. Additionally, a large problem with documenting pre -Clovis
occupation of the Americas is that large areas once open to occupation are now under many
meters of ocean. It is also theorized by some researchers that these peoples were quickly overrun
or absorbed by Clovis people (Fiedel 1999; Morrow and Morrow 1999:225).
Paleoindian Period (10,000-8000 B.C.)
At present, the earliest definitive evidence for human occupations in the southeastern United
States dates to the Paleoindian Period. During the Early Holocene (10,000-6000 B.C.), the
Southeast underwent a transition from a patchy boreal forest with open areas of savannah
(favorable to large game) to a more homogeneous oak -hickory forest, a transition basically
complete by 8000 B.C. (Watts et al. 1996; Delcourt and Delcourt 1985, 1987). Seasonal
fluctuations in temperature, which were relatively small during the late Pleistocene when
compared to present day, became more extreme at the Holocene onset (Delcourt and Delcourt
1985, 1987). Surface water was likely somewhat scarcer in this environment as compared to
modern conditions. The topographic environment during the Early Holocene of the southern
portion of North America, including the Southeast, was characterized by wide and deep valleys
and broad plains (Schuldenrein 1996:3). During the terminal Pleistocene, sea levels were on
average 70 meters below present day levels. Massive return of water to the oceans from retreating
ice sheets caused sea levels to rebound to within a few meters of present levels by ca. 7000 B.C.
(Delcourt and Delcourt 1985, 1987).
Due to massive reworking of the landscape during the Early and Mid -Holocene, a vast percentage
of Paleoindian archaeological sites have been either severely eroded or are deeply buried under
large amounts of Holocene sediments (Schuldenrein 1996:3). As such, our knowledge of the
Paleoindian Period in the Southeast is limited. Sites containing Paleoindian artifacts are located
in a variety of inland ecological and topographic settings.
3.1

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Anderson and colleagues (1990) have divided the Paleoindian tradition of the Southeast into three
subperiods based on diagnostic stone point types, since fluted and other lanceolate projectile
points and thumbnail endscrapers tend to be the only indisputable indicators of Paleoindian
activity. The Early Paleoindian (ca. 10,000-9000 B.C.) is characterized by Clovis points; the
Middle Paleoindian (ca. 9000-8500 B.C.) is characterized by points such as Cumberland,
Suwannee, Simpson, and Clovis -like variants; and the Late Paleoindian (ca. 8500-8000 B.C.) is
characterized by Dalton, Hardaway, and Hardaway -Dalton. Archaeological evidence from Florida
suggests that bone pins, stone knives, lithic scrapers, and atlatls were also used by Paleoindian
hunters.
Current theory holds that these early people likely maintained a generalized hunting and gathering
technology that enabled them to utilize a diverse range of micro -environments (Carbone 1983;
Anderson et al. 1990). It is well documented that Paleoindian populations coexisted with
Pleistocene megafauna such as mammoth, mastodon, giant ground sloth, and bison, although
the extent to which southeastern Paleoindian peoples exploited these now -extinct species is
unclear. The emergence of Dalton projectile points during the Late Paleoindian may indicate an
emphasis on hunting smaller game such as deer (Goodyear 1982). In general, limited data are
available for this early period, but it is suspected that settlements were small and briefly occupied,
and that material possessions were light and portable. Paleoindian assemblages consisted of
heavily curated tools of high-grade Iithic materials. Several researchers have suggested that high
quality stone quarries were a primary factor influencing Paleoindian settlement, with free -roaming
groups "loosely tethered" to a primary stone source (Dunbar and Waller 1983; Goodyear et al.
1989; Anderson et al. 1990).
No in situ archaeological remains of these earliest inhabitants have been recorded in North
Carolina. Evidence does exist, however, in the form of isolated examples of fluted points
recovered as surface finds. Some attempts have been made to compile distributions of these
early tools across the state. The first effort was made several decades ago by Perkinson (1971,
1973); a second study occurred at a larger regional level by Anderson, who attempted to elicit
interaction data from the known distribution of Paleoindian projectile points (Anderson 1990,
1995). Based on these and other investigations, site location and attribute data have been
recorded for several hundred fluted points found throughout North Carolina.
Archaic Period (8000-1000 B.C.)
The Archaic sequence of the Carolina Piedmont and adjacent areas was defined as a result of
excavations along the Yadkin and Pee Dee Rivers near Morrow Mountain State Park. These
excavations were conducted by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at the Hardaway,
Doerschuk, and Lowder's Ferry sites (Coe 1964). The stratigraphy revealed at these sites allowed
construction of a temporal sequence from a "hodgepodge of projectile point types" previously
known only from surface collections and shallow plow zone deposits (Coe 1964). On the basis of
3.2

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
distinct artifact (mostly lithic) assemblages, archaeologists have divided the Archaic period into
three sub -periods: Early, Middle, and Late.
Early Archaic (8000-6000 B.C.)
The environmental conditions of the Early Holocene persisted into the Early Archaic Period. Sea
levels continued to rise at an appreciable rate as glacial conditions hastened their retreat,
apparently reaching levels within only a few meters of modern levels by 7000 B.C. (Delcourt and
Delcourt 1985, 1987). Additionally, oak -hickory forests continued to dominate the landscape. The
Eastern Woodlands experienced a trend of desiccation during the Early Holocene (Schuldenrein
1996:23). Early to Mid -Holocene dryness appears to have been more pronounced in places such
as Florida and the Georgia Coastal Plain than in the Carolinas (Watts et al. 1996:31).
There seems to be strong continuity between Early Archaic and previous Paleoindian lifeways in
that the earliest Archaic populations exhibit settlement and subsistence practices similar to those
of their Paleoindian predecessors. With the emergence of more numerous and diversified
ecological settings during the Early Archaic, regional specialization increased and promoted
greater interregional variation. Early Holocene populations are generally viewed as composed of
small, nomadic bands that followed seasonal rounds on the basis of resource abundance,
therefore occupying disparate geographic resource extraction locales throughout the year (Smith
1986:16-18). Familiarity with a specific region probably resulted in seasonal reuse of the same
resource locale. Settlement during the Early Archaic is often held to be primarily logistical, with
the use of winter base camps (Anderson and Hanson 1988; Cable 1992).
Three models have been developed in attempts to explain Early Archaic settlement patterning in
the Southeast: Effective Temperature/Technological Organization (Claggett and Cable 1982);
Wallace Reservoir (O'Steen 1983); and Band/Macroband (Anderson and Hanson 1988).
Similarities are greater than differences between the three models, which all interpret Early
Archaic lifeways as adaptations to factors such as environmental conditions and resource
allocation. These models likely cannot be applied to the Southeast as a whole, but instead to
different ways of life practiced by spatially and temporally spaced peoples. Within the Carolinas,
however, there is some debate about the nature of Early Archaic settlement. While some
researchers suggest that individual bands moved seasonally between the Piedmont and Coastal
Plain along major drainages (Anderson and Hanson 1988), others have proposed that group
movement was not confined to drainages and was more variable across the Piedmont and upper
Coastal Plain (Daniel 1998).
Artifacts of the Late Paleoindian and Early Archaic represent a transitional period in terms of the
stone tool assemblage, with projectile point shape shifting from lanceolate forms to notched
varieties. Early Archaic components are generally distinguished through the presence of distinct
projectile point types, specifically the Palmer Corner Notched and Kirk Corner Notched points,
3.3

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
with St. Albans, Le Croy, and Kanawah bifurcate based points occurring in lesser amounts (Coe
1964). Based on the degree of observable tool wear, it seems that Early Archaic tools underwent
extensive modification and reuse, characteristic of a high degree of curation (Amick and Carr
1996:43). After projectile points had outlived their utility as viable spear points, they were
frequently reworked into smaller tools such as drills, end scrapers, burins, and spokeshaves
(Smith 1986:10). The production of formal tools is seen as a response or adaptation to high rates
of residential mobility (Anderson 1990), while a proliferation of different projectile points during
the Early Archaic is seen as evidence of increased regional specialization.
Early Archaic technologies also included several unifacial tool types represented by a variety of
end and side scrapers. Some of these unifacial tools are fairly distinctive and share technological
similarities with Paleoindian assemblages (Coe 1964; Daniel 1998).
Although plant processing tools such as nutting stones, manos, metates, and cobbles have also
been recovered from Early Archaic contexts within South Carolina and Georgia, ground stone
artifacts from Early Archaic contexts are rare in North Carolina (Anderson and Schuldenrein 1983;
Goodyear et al. 1979:103-104; Daniel 1998).
Middle Archaic (6000-3000 B.C.)
The Middle Archaic Period occurred during the Mid -Holocene, a time period during which the
post -glacial environment of the southeast began to stabilize, eventually reaching nearly modern
conditions (Schuldenrein 1996:3). The major climatic event of the Middle Archaic is the Altithermal
(also known as the Hypsithermal and the Climatic Optimum), a warming and drying trend that
affected not only the Southeast, but also the continent as a whole. Pollen records from the
southeastern coastal plain and Florida evidence a replacement of the Early Holocene coastal
plain oak and hickory forest by pine and swamp forests during the Mid -Holocene (Watts et al.
1996:29), though this event was staggered across the region. Data concerning changes in
vegetation communities in the Piedmont regions are sparse; however, changes likely consisted
of an increase in the hardwood diversity of the forests.
Compared to the Early Archaic, during the Middle Archaic period, the scale of land use decreased,
use of local raw materials increased, technology became more expedient, and residential mobility
increased (Amick and Carr 1996:53). These changes are attributed by some to possible increases
in population densities (Sassaman et al. 1988). Middle Archaic cultures continued to exploit
upland terrestrial resources, but gradually added the procurement of interior riverine resources to
their subsistence schedule. At this time, some groups were also exploiting the abundant
resources of the Atlantic coastal estuaries (Russo 1992). The shift to the use of aquatic resources
(both riverine and coastal) is generally attributed to climatic change and sea level rise associated
with the warmer temperatures of the Altithermal (Smith 1986:22), which is seen by many as the
major event affecting human adaptation to environmental stress (Schuldenrein 1996:26). At this
3.4

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
time, there may also have been a concomitant decline in upland resource yields due to the lack
of rain (Smith 1986:22).
The Middle Archaic has been noted by many archaeologists as "a time of major technological
innovations having significant socioeconomic impact" (Smith 1986:18). At that time, there was an
increase in the kinds and numbers of ground stone tools in use, e.g., atlatl weights, axes,
pendants, and pestles (Coe 1964; Griffin 1967). The proliferation of grinding tools may signal a
rise in the importance of plant foods, although the recovery of botanical remains dating to the
Middle Archaic is limited. Compared to the Early Archaic, the scale of land use during the Middle
Archaic decreased, use of local raw materials increased, technology became more expedient,
and residential mobility increased (Amick and Carr 1996:53). These changes are attributed by
some to possible increases in population densities (Sassaman et al. 1988).
The primary indicator of Middle Archaic activities in the Piedmont regions includes Stanly
Stemmed, Morrow Mountain, and Guilford projectile points (Ward and Davis 1999). Each of these
point types is associated with a regional Middle Archaic phase. Besides morphological changes
in projectile point types over time, additions to and changes in the artifact inventory of the Middle
Archaic period are also evident. For instance, the finely crafted unifacial tools that were part of
Early Archaic assemblages were supplanted by informal flake tools (Coe 1964). Simplification is
seen as the major trend in lithic technology during this time, with tools being produced on more
of an ad hoc basis, with a concomitant decrease in quality (Blanton and Sassaman 1989). This
form of lithic technology is thought to reflect a subsistence regime based upon foraging and high
residential mobility. Most Middle Archaic sites in North Carolina appear to represent temporary
encampments and occur without any noticeable preference for particular environmental or
topographic locales (Ward and Davis 1999:63).
Late Archaic (3000-1000 B.C.)
By the beginning of the Late Archaic, climatic regimes across the Southeast had become
essentially modern, signifying the onset of the Late Holocene. Several substantial innovations
occurred during the Late Archaic and promoted vast changes in the daily life of southeastern
Indians. Archaeologically, these changes are manifest as four noticeable trends: the appearance
of several cultivated plant species; the manufacture of stone and fired clay containers; the
accumulation of large, thick midden deposits; and an increase in evidence for long distance trade
(Steponaitis 1986:373). Of these trends, however, only the presence of stone (steatite or
soapstone) vessels has been recorded for Late Archaic deposits in the North Carolina Piedmont
(Ward 1983).
In general, Late Archaic components are much more prevalent throughout the Southeast than are
earlier Archaic and Paleoindian components. Sites dating to the Late Archaic are found in a wide
assortment of ecological settings, and significant occupations of floodplains first occurred during
3.5

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
this time. Entrenched mobility can be used to describe Late Archaic settlement and subsistence
patterning, whereby a series of sites are systematically reoccupied (Graham and Roberts 1986).
It can be viewed as a response to decreased mobility in areas with high population densities and
may be an outgrowth of the increasing specialization of Middle Archaic groups (Amick and Carr
1996). The Late Archaic experienced a move from highly expedient tool making to an increased
degree of curation and logistical procurement of raw materials.
For the inland river valleys, the general settlement model envisions a dry season base camp,
articulating with a variety of task -specific sites associated with subsistence and raw material
resource procurement. The semi -permanent base camps were situated strategically in areas that
provided easy access to both aquatic and floodplain plant and animal species, while smaller short-
term sites were dispersed throughout the river valley and interriverine uplands (Smith 1986:31).
A generalized hunting -gathering and fishing subsistence strategy was employed, although a few
plants such as gourd, squash, sunflower, and chenopod were cultivated in some areas of the
Southeast (Steponaitis 1986:373).
Savannah River points are the main typological marker of the Late Archaic (Ward and Davis
1999:64). Artifacts common during this period included ground stone axes, celts, adzes, pestles,
atlatl weights, and beads; lithic projectile points, cruciform drills, scrapers, and knives; and
grinding slabs and fire -cracked rock. Small containers or bowls carved from soapstone (steatite)
were widely distributed throughout much of the interior Southeast during this time (Sassaman
1993). In addition, artifacts made of exotic materials such as copper or whelk/conch shell are
found in sites at great distances from their source(s) of origin, implying widespread exchange
networks.
Woodland Period (1000 B.C.—A.D. 1000)
With trends toward increased population and greater settlement stability established during the
Late Archaic, the emergence of small river valley "villages" has been noted throughout the
Southeast during the Woodland period (Smith 1986; Steponaitis 1986). Also occurring at this time
was a stronger commitment toward horticulture, although hunting, fishing, and gathering remained
the primary means of subsistence. Maize may have been first cultivated in areas of the Southeast
sometime between A.D. 200 and 400, but its use in the Piedmont was somewhat limited until
around A.D. 1000, although even then "maize agriculture was not particularly important" (Coe
1964:51; Ward 1983:73; Scarry 1993).
Early and Middle Woodland (1000 B.C. — A.D. 1000)
Excavations at Woodland period sites in the nearby Yadkin River drainage have provided much
of the framework for understanding Early to Middle Woodland chronology in the project vicinity
(Coe 1964; Claggett and Cable 1982; Ward and Davis 1999, Woodall 1990). Excavations at the
3.6

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Doerschuk site revealed two ceramic series: Badin and Yadkin (Coe 1964). Although originally
thought to be sequential (Badin predating Yadkin), later research suggests that there is not a
clear-cut developmental relationship between the two series (Webb and Leigh 1995:29). It is
possible that the two types developed somewhat simultaneously in different regions across the
Piedmont (Ward and Davis 1999:86). A survey in the Sandhills region of Marlboro County, South
Carolina recorded numerous sites yielding Yadkin -like ceramics alongside Savannah River
projectile points, suggesting at least some continuity of environmental preferences between the
Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods (Ward 1978).
Badin ceramics are generally well made, sand tempered wares with either plain, cord, or fabric
marked surfaces (Coe 1964:27). The associated Badin Triangular point is large and crudely
made. While it is generally thought that the Badin type predates the Yadkin projectile point type
(Coe 1964:45), it has also been suggested that Badin may simply be a preform for Yadkin
(Sassaman et al. 1990:164). The Yadkin ceramic series includes plain, cord, and fabric marked
as well as check -stamped pottery that was tempered with crushed quartz (Coe 1964:30). The
Yadkin Large Triangular is a finely made, thin point with a concave base; "eared" varieties of the
Yadkin have also been described (Coe 1964:45, 47).
Stemmed points, however, do not disappear entirely with the onset of the Woodland period. The
decreased size in stemmed points evident during the latter part of the Late Archaic appears to
continue into the Woodland, as some small and often crudely chipped stemmed points have been
recovered in Early Woodland contexts with triangular points. A small stemmed point subsumed
under the name Gypsy Stemmed was been identified in the Badin zone at the Doerschuk site
(Oliver 1981:185).
In the North Carolina Piedmont, there appear to be fewer Badin and Yadkin sites compared with
the number of Late Archaic sites, suggesting that the Piedmont was not a preferred location for
settlement during these Early and Middle Woodland periods (although Yadkin sites are more
numerous than Badin sites, particularly in the southern Piedmont and South Carolina; Ward and
Davis 1999:83, 85). Subsistence information from these periods is rare, but it is thought that Badin
and Yadkin peoples continued following a mainly hunting and gathering subsistence pattern, with
possibly a limited use of horticulture. Some Yadkin sites do contain evidence of long-term
occupation, such as at the Town Creek Site (Coe 1995).
Late Woodland to Contact (A.D. 800 — 1740)
The Uwharrie phase is the earliest Late Woodland phase in the North-Central Piedmont
archaeological region and dates from approximately A.D. 800 to A.D. 1000 (Coe 1952; Ward and
Davis 1999:100). The type site is 31 MG14, located at the confluence of the Uwharrie and Yadkin
rivers. It was discovered by Doerschuk but was never excavated (Ward and Davis 1999:100).
Pottery of the Uwharrie phase followed the same tradition of the earlier Badin and Yadkin styles,
3.7

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
with crushed quartz used as a temper. Decoration moved from fabric impressed to net impressed.
Incised lines along the rim were also used, and vessel interiors were often scraped (Coe
1952:308). The main vessel type of the phase is a large conical jar, which, according to Woodall
(1990:82), was ideally suited to food storage.
Uwharrie villages were small, but more sedentary that those of the Middle Woodland (Coe 1952).
Uwharrie sites are more numerous than Early and Middle Woodland sites and show evidence of
intensive occupation. They are often found in floodplain settings and are the foundation of the
riverine, nucleated settlements of the later phases of the Piedmont Village Tradition (Woodall
1990:83, 91). Although subsistence still relied on hunting and gathering, horticulture became more
important through time. Uwharrie sites often contain storage pits that were used for the storage
of surplus crops (Coe 1952; Woodall 1990). Flexed burials in oval pits are typical of the phase
(Ward and Davis 1999:101).
The Uwharrie phase is generally considered ancestral to the ceramics from the subsequent Dan
River and Saratown phases (Ward and Davis 1999:100-118). Although there are distinctive
ceramic attributes for each of these later Woodland phase ceramic series, there are no explicitly
stated temporal or spatial boundaries for these phases. The ceramics from these subsequent
phases exhibit a decrease in the amount of crushed quartz temper and a corresponding increase
in the use of finer sand temper. Similarly, fabric or cord impressed surface treatments decline in
popularity and net impression, stamping or burnishing become more prevalent.
One of the better-known Late Woodland sites along the Yadkin River is the Donnaha Site
(31YD9). Excavations at Donnaha, the Hardy Site, and the McPherson Site by WFU in the 1980s
and 1990s revealed a settlement pattern of larger settlements spaced at 6 to 12 kilometers apart
from one another with smaller hamlets between them (Woodall 1990). Similar settlement patterns
are seen along the Dan, Haw, and Eno River drainages (north and east of the project area;
Simpkins and Petherick 1985).
Occurring after the Uwharrie phase is the Dan River phase (A.D.1000-1450), known from
excavated sites including the Powerplant Site, William Klutz Site, and Lower Saratown (Ward and
Davis 1993). During the early portion of this phase, settlements consisted of scattered households
with associated pit features and burials. Substantially larger villages appear at the latter end of
the phase. Subsistence remains indicate a mixed economy of hunting, gathering, and agriculture.
The Dan River phase is followed by the Saratown phase, known from components at the
Powerplant, William Klutz, and Lower Saratown sites, as well as excavation from Early Upper
Saratown and Upper Saratown (Wilson 1983; Ward and Davis 1993). In contrast to the more
numerous small hamlets of the Dan River phase, early Saratown phase sites are fewer in number
but larger in size. These include palisaded villages that have been found on the banks of the Dan
River near the mouths of the major tributaries. Numerous features including storage pits, earth
ovens, shallow basins, and hearths are all found in these villages. A mixed hunting, gathering,
3.8

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
and agricultural subsistence economy is in evidence during the Saratown phase, with an apparent
increase in the importance of agricultural production.
In contrast to the Dan River Saratown developments, significant cultural changes took place
during the period in the Yadkin -Pee Dee drainage. In the Southern Piedmont, a new culture
developed that is known archaeologically as Pee Dee. This new tradition was a variant of the
Mississippian maize -based agricultural economy that exhibited a complex social organization and
highly developed ceremonialism (Coe 1952; Ferguson 1971).
The Pee Dee lived in stratified societies with warrior, priest, and chiefly classes that organized
and controlled the lives of the masses. Elaborate temple mounds were built that served as
ceremonial centers where mortuary rituals were practiced. The most notable such site is at Town
Creek, which is located on a bluff overlooking the confluence of Town Creek and Little River in
Montgomery County. Town Creek included a platform mound and temple, living quarters for
priests, and mortuary areas. Pee Dee culture lasted until about A.D. 1600 (Oliver 1992). By the
latter part of the seventeenth century, European introduced diseases such as influenza, smallpox,
and measles ravaged the aboriginal populations of North Carolina (Dobyns 1983). Settlements
became less centralized, and tribes either dissolved or merged as settlers moved further into the
Piedmont. By the early 1700s, much of the area had been abandoned by the native tribes.
Historic Period
European exploration of the Piedmont of North Carolina began in the mid -sixteenth century. A
Spanish exploration party led by Hernando de Soto traveled through the state in 1539, followed
by Juan Pardo in 1566 and 1567 European trading parties began traversing the Piedmont during
the seventeenth century, evidence of which can be found in archaeological sites of the Saratown
phase in the Dan River valley. John Lederer, who was commissioned to explore west of the
Virginia colonies by Governor Berkeley, traveled into the North Carolina Piedmont in 1670. During
his explorations, he visited various native villages along the Dan, Eno, and Haw rivers, as well as
the Sara along the Yadkin. Siouan -speaking Tutelo and Saponi Indians occupied the region when
the first settlers arrived (Davis and Ward 1991:40). These Siouan groups largely abandoned the
area by 1710, moving to join with the Catawba and settling near Fort Christanna on the Meherrin
River in Virginia (Merrell 1987:26). These Siouan -speaking groups briefly returned to occupy the
upper Yadkin area of the Piedmont in 1728 but had returned to Virginia or further north by 1732
(Merrell 1987:26).
Davidson County was formed from portions of Rowan County in 1822 and was named for
Revolutionary War general William Lee Davidson (North Carolina State Library 2004). Early
settlers to the region were Scots -Irish and Germans, who settled along the Yadkin River (Howell
2000). Throughout the Historic Period, subsistence farming dominated Piedmont lifeways.
Settlers attempted to grow all the crops they were familiar with, including indigenous crops such
3.9

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
as corn, beans, peas, and tobacco. A lack of reliable transportation limited access to markets,
thus inhibiting statewide communication and further entrenching farm life. Lacking the benefits of
modern land management practices, eighteenth and nineteenth century farming practices
contributed greatly to soil erosion and nutrient depletion in the Piedmont (Trimble 1974; Powell
1989:249).
While farming remained the primary livelihood in the Piedmont during the late eighteenth century,
a few other occupations existed that supported farmstead operations. Such specialists included
blacksmiths, tanners, coopers, weavers, and wagon makers. Additional services were supplied
by gristmill operations that sprang up throughout the region powered by numerous shallow
streams. The Scottish -Irish and Germans were particularly skilled at building and operating
gristmills, having imported this technology from their homelands (Powell 1989:132).
Davidson County was one center of activity for the ill-fated Regulator movement of the 1770s,
during which backcountry farmers took up arms to protest the levying of burdensome taxes but
remained relatively quiescent during the American Revolution. The town of Lexington was named
in honor of the famous clash in Massachusetts that signaled the onset of the war. It had a
population of 83 by the time of the first United States Census in 1790 (Sellon 1980).
Between the American Revolution and the Civil War, the biggest political change for the area
came in 1822, when Davidson, previously part of Rowan County, was established with its own
county government. Although rural farm life in the Piedmont changed little over the first half of the
nineteenth century, the discovery of gold in the Uwharrie Mountains figured prominently in the
economy of the region. In 1825, "Barringer's Lode" was discovered in what is now Stanly County,
and a gold rush began. Prominent among the mines opened in Davidson County was the Silver
Hill Mine discovered around 1838 and located 10 miles southeast of Lexington (Nitze and Hanna
1896:61). Other mines, including Emmons, Cid, Silver Valley, and Conrad Hill, were established
during the nineteenth century and continued in operation until the 1890s (Nitze and Hanna
1896:60-74).
During the early years of the Civil War, Piedmont counties were centers of shelter for refugees
fleeing the military strife in the Coastal Plain (Powell 1989:358). During March and April 1865,
Union General William Sherman marched through North Carolina, taking city after city and
heading for Raleigh. After General Lee surrendered at Appomattox on 11 April 1865,
representatives of the North Carolina government met with General Sherman to ask that Raleigh
be spared the destruction that had accompanied the fall of Atlanta, Columbia and other Southern
cities. Two days later, on April 13, Sherman had established his headquarters in Raleigh. The
Davidson County Courthouse was built in 1858; however, a fire in 1866 attributed to Union troops
damaged the building and destroyed many records.
3.10

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
The era of Reconstruction brought many changes to the North Carolina Piedmont. Chief among
them was the removal of the slavery system. Because the available labor force for working the
farms was reduced, large tracts of land were taken out of production. Consequently, much of this
fallow land was sold by larger planters, which resulted in an increased number of small farms. A
related change in rural lifeways during the late nineteenth century was the rise of tenant farming
(Powell 1989:419). The county's economy gradually moved from agriculture to industrial, primarily
textile and furniture manufacturing.
Railroads reached the project vicinity in 1891, and in subsequent decades the first major textile
mills were constructed. This period saw the beginnings of small industry and commercial business
throughout the region (Powell 1989:404-421). Textile mills began to appear after the war and by
1910 the Wennonah Cotton Mill of Lexington and the Amazon Cotton Mill of Thomasville were
both in operation (Sellon 1980). During these same years, furniture manufactories also sprang up
in both towns. Flour and grist mills were scattered along Piedmont waterways to provide farmers
with a means of grinding their own grain; some farmers also built mills to supplement their farming
income. Sawmills and timbering were prevalent in Davidson County throughout the twentieth
century.
The proliferation of the automobile in the early twentieth century caused the state to take over the
maintenance and construction of roads. In 1921, the establishment of the "Good Roads System"
led to the hard paving of many of the roads in the state. As other roads were built or improved,
transportation became easier.
Historical Maps
Topographic maps, aerial photography, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil
survey maps, and historical maps were examined for information on natural or cultural factors that
might have affected site locations or preservation, and to determine if structures were located on
the parcel. In general, with the exception of the topographic quadrangle maps, the historical maps
available were not at a scale sufficient to show possible structure locations with any accuracy or
detail. Historical aerial photography was also consulted to determine changes in land use over
time as well as to look for former structure locations.
No structures are depicted within the project area on the c. 1890 Davidson County Map, 1910
Calvin Miller Map, or c. 1919 Rural Delivery Routes Map. The 1915 Davidson County Soils map
and 1969 Welcome, NC USGS topographic map (1:24,000) show no structures within the
conservation easement or survey area (Figure 3.1).
Aerial imagery from 1955 and 1965 shows a structure just outside of the project area to the north
of Reedy Creek. The structure is gone by 1984. Visual inspection of this area revealed no signs
of structural remains or historic period artifacts. Aerial imagery indicates that the southern portion
3.11

�f
Cs#
Af
*Af _-
j
�'`` c l #!
f.
%,jo
Tl 1 _� �... ......./
1969 Welcome, NC 1:24,000 USGS Topographic Map
Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
Historical Maps
NO.
Chkj
MM
in ierracon
Rolling Meadows
Proect No:
Project
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, Nc 27606
Davidson County, North Carolina
3'1
Date.
March 2022
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
of the conservation easement (currently fallow field) was wooded as late as 1993 (Figure 3.2,
top). By 1998, this area was clear-cut and ditched for agricultural use. The 2002 aerial photograph
shows the project area under cultivation (Figure 3.2, bottom).
Archaeological Potential and Expectations
Review of historical maps and aerial imagery suggested that there was low potential for historic
period sites to be present within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Given the project
area's floodplain setting and proximity to water (as well as the presence of several previously
recorded precontact archaeological sites within one mile of the project area), it was expected that
there would be an increased likelihood of encountering precontact sites, particularly along level
portions of the upland landforms adjacent to the somewhat narrow floodplain.
3.12

1993 Aerial Photograph
2002 Aerial Photograph
Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
Aerial Photographs
NO.
Chkd:
MM
inierracon
Rolling Meadows
Project No:
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27606
Davidson County, North Carolina
3.2
Date.
March 2022
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
4. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
A records review was conducted on February 25, 2022, by OSA staff on behalf of Terracon. Based
on this research, 15 archaeological sites have been recorded and eight cultural resource surveys
had been conducted within the one mile of the proposed project area; however, none are directly
within the project area (Table 4.1). Almost half of these sites were recorded by Wake Forest
University as revisits of sites recorded by private collectors. Two historic period cemeteries were
also recorded. Most of the sites recorded consisted of unassessed or ineligible surface scatters
of lithic and ceramic materials. Site 31 DV401, first recorded in 1973 and revisited by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for a bridge replacement in 1995, consisted of
a Middle Woodland scatter of ceramic and lithic materials. Subsurface deposits were recorded,
and NCDOT noted the potential for intact deposits.
Table 4.1: Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within One Mile of the Project Area
Site
Description
NRHP Status
Comment
31 DV397
Precontact: Archaic/Woodland surface scatter
Unassessed
private collector
31 DV398
Precontact: Archaic/Woodland surface scatter
Historic Period: surface artifact scatter
Unassessed
private collector
31 DV401
Precontact: Middle Woodland
Unassessed
NCDOT considered
potentially eligible
31 DV403
Precontact: Woodland surface scatter
Unassessed
31 DV439
Precontact: Late Archaic/Woodland surface
scatter
Unassessed
private collector
31 DV440
Historic Period Cemetery
Unassessed
31 DV441
Precontact: lithic/ceramic surface scatter
Unassessed
private collector
31 DV442
Precontact: lithic surface scatter
Unassessed
private collector
31 DV444
Precontact: Archaic/Woodland surface scatter
Unassessed
private collector
31 DV446
Precontact: Archaic/Woodland surface scatter
Unassessed
private collector
31 DV486
Precontact: Middle Archaic surface scatter
Not Eligible
31 DV487
Precontact: Lithic scatter
Not Eligible
31 DV700
Historic Period Cemetery
Unassessed
31 DV720
Precontact: Woodland
Historic Period: 191" —201" C. farmstead and
artifact scatter
Not Eligible
Mid -South Pipeline
31 DV721
Precontact: Lithic scatter
Historic Period: artifact scatter
Not Eligible
Mid -South Pipeline
Three surveys were conducted by NCDOT in the vicinity. In 1993, NCDOT conducted a study for
the replacement of Bridge No. 26 on SR 1450 over Huffmans Creek (Jurgelski and Glover 1993).
4.1

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Two sites (31 DV486 and 31 DV487) were recorded. An archaeological survey of Bridge No. 50 on
SR 1493 conducted by NCDOT in 1993 recorded no new archaeological sites (Glover 1993). In
1995, NCDOT conducted a study for the replacement of Bridge No. 56 on NC 150 over Reedy
Creek (Glover 1995). One site, 31 DV401, was recorded.
Five additional archaeological investigations were undertaken for various portions of the Williams
Gas Pipeline (Jones and Bland 2010; Jones 2011a; Jones 2011b). In 2012, Phase II testing was
conducted at site 31 DV720 in advance of a proposed pipeline (Jones 2012). The site was
determined Not Eligible for the NRHP.
4.2

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
5. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
The main goal of the investigation was to identify and assess the significance of cultural resources
that might occur within the proposed project area. Work towards this goal took place in two stages:
background research and field investigations.
Background Research
The goal of the background research was to acquire a working familiarity with the natural and
cultural developments of the area. Background research at the OSA was conducted by OSA staff
on behalf of Terracon and included a search of the North Carolina Archaeological Site Files, as
well as an examination of reports of previous investigations of cultural resources in the vicinity of
the project area.
Field Methodology
Field survey methods employed by Terracon during the investigation included systematic shovel
testing combined with pedestrian inspection (visual survey) of the project area. Areas of clear
visibility were systematically inspected for artifacts and other surface signs of precontact or
historic period cultural activity. Shovel testing was conducted at 25-meter intervals within areas
of proposed ground disturbance. As most of the project area was located adjacent to Reedy Creek
and its tributaries, a representative sample of shovel tests were augered with a four -inch bucket
auger to a depth of at least one meter below surface to investigate the potential for buried soil
horizons suitable for cultural occupation.
Shovel tests excavated measured approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and were dug to one
meter in depth or sterile subsoil. Excavated sediments were screened through 6.35-millimeter
(0.25-inch) hardwire mesh. Pertinent field data, including locations, soil color and texture, notes
on the stratigraphic relationships of artifacts, environmental setting, topography, etc. were
recorded for shovel test locations. Shovel test locations were marked on a field map of the
archaeological study area and were generally assigned identifying Transect and Shovel Test
numbers (i.e., ST1-2 would be the second shovel test along the first transect).
Laboratory Methodology
Artifacts collected during field investigations were transported to the Terracon laboratory in
Raleigh, North Carolina. During fieldwork, a catalog system was employed to ensure that
provenience data were recorded for each recovered artifact. In the laboratory, artifacts were
5.1

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
washed with a soft bristle brush and allowed to air dry. Collected artifacts were limited to
precontact lithic debitage.
During the analysis, lithic artifacts were counted, identified as to material type, and examined
under magnification (10-60x) as needed. To determine their relative position on the reduction
continuum, flakes were measured along their long axis and were further categorized on the basis
of observable surface cortex. Flake size categories used were 0-10 mm, 10-20 mm, 20-30 mm,
30-40 mm, etc. Primary flakes (PF) exhibit cortex over 100% of their outer surface, while
secondary flakes (SF) possess cortex over less than 100% of their outer surface. Flakes that
lacked cortex on the outer surface were classified as tertiary flakes (TF). Shatter are defined as
angular fragments of stone that have been clearly modified but lack a clear bulb of percussion.
Curation
The results of laboratory analysis were tabulated in the site descriptions. Field documents
including notes, forms, and maps as well as the artifacts recovered during the investigation were
labeled and packed for permanent curation according to the OSA Archaeological Curation
Standards and Guidelines. Presently, project materials are being temporarily housed at the
Terracon laboratory in Raleigh, North Carolina. Following project completion, artifacts and project
documents will be transported to the OSA curatorial facility for permanent storage.
Archaeological Site Descriptions
Site descriptions in this report contain a variety of information generally based on fields included
on North Carolina Archaeological Site Forms, much of it presented in a succinct bullet format.
Categories in the bullet format include: Site size, topography, elevation, environmental setting,
soil type, nearest water, surface visibility, field procedures, cultural affiliation, site function, and
site integrity. Each site description also includes a detailed description of the work conducted at
the site and the types of cultural materials encountered. Also given are a listing of the artifacts
recorded at the site separated by component and context, the results of historic research (when
applicable), and recommendations for the site (no further work, avoidance, testing, etc.).
Archaeological Site Definitions and Evaluations
Archaeological sites are defined as discrete and potentially interpretable loci of cultural material
(Plog et al. 1978). For the present study, an archaeological site is defined as a location where at
least one artifact or cultural feature greater than 50 years old has been identified.
5.2

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
NRHP Eligibility Criteria
In order for a site, building, etc. to be considered a significant historic property, it must meet one
or more of four specific criteria established in 36 CFR Part 60 (National Register of Historic
Places) and 36 CFR Part 800 (Protection of Historic Properties). The evaluation of a precontact
or historic period archaeological site for inclusion on the NRHP rests largely on its research
potential, that is, its ability to contribute important information through preservation and/or
additional study (Criterion D).
The NRHP criteria for evaluation are stated as follows:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology,
engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association, and;
Criterion A: Properties that are associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to broad patterns of our history;
Criterion B: Properties that are associated with the lives of persons significant in
our past;
Criterion C: Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period,
or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess
high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction; and
Criterion D: Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, important
information in prehistory or history.
Archaeoloaical Sites and the NRHP
While many archaeological sites are recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D,
this criterion is somewhat vague. In order to clarify the issue of site importance, the following
attribute evaluations add a measure of specificity that can be used in assessing site significance
and NRHP eligibility:
5.3

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
• Site Integrity— Does the site contain intact cultural deposits or is it disturbed?;
• Preservation — Does the site contain material suited to in-depth analysis and/or
absolute dating such as preserved features, botanical and/or faunal remains, or
human skeletal remains?;
• Uniqueness— Is the information contained in the site redundant in comparison
to that available from similar sites, or do the remains provide a unique or insightful
perspective on research concerns of regional importance?;
• Relevance to Current and Future Research — Would additional work at this site
contribute to our knowledge of the past? Would preservation of the site protect
valuable information for future studies? While this category is partly a summary of
the above considerations, it also recognizes that a site may provide valuable
information regardless of its integrity, preservation, or uniqueness.
5.4

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
6. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS
Field investigations were conducted from February 28 to March 3, 2022 by Terri Russ (Field
Director and Principal Investigator), Becky Sponseller (Crew Chief), and Kristin Doshier. As a
result of the investigation, a total of 176 shovel tests were excavated and one new archaeological
site (31 DV769) was recorded (Figures 6.1 and 6.2). General overview photographs of the project
area are shown on Figures 6.3 to 6.6.
Subsurface investigations focused on the areas of proposed ground disturbance related to the
proposed wetland restoration (see Appendix A for proposed wetland restoration plan). Shovel
testing was conducted at 25-meter intervals within these areas of proposed ground disturbance.
A representative sample of shovel tests were augered to investigate the potential for buried soils
horizons suitable for cultural occupation. In addition, areas of the conservation easement
exhibiting good surface visibility (outside of the proposed disturbance area) were systematically
visually inspected for artifacts and surface evidence of cultural activity.
Shovel testing primarily focused on the areas to the south of Reedy Creek within the proposed
wetland restoration area. The portions of this area closest to the drainage were mapped by the
NRCS as Chewacla loam (floodplains); however, a larger portion of this low-lying, level area was
apparently mis-mapped by the NRCS as Pacolet sandy loam (15-25% slopes; see Figure 2.1).
Although this area was currently fallow, aerial photographs indicate past agricultural use. The
fields were wooded as late as 1993 (see Figure 3.2, top); however, by 1998, this area was clear-
cut and ditched for agricultural use (Figure 3.2, bottom for view of project area under cultivation
in 2002).
Shovel testing revealed a variety of soils. For example, Shovel Test (ST)7-9 (located in the
southern portion of the project area near a drainage ditch) consisted of 20 centimeters of brown
sandy loam over 5 centimeters of brown, yellowish brown, and reddish brown coarse sandy loam.
A yellowish brown and strong brown silty loam was encountered from 25 to 40 centimeters below
surface, followed by 40 centimeters of a brown coarse sand. Pale gray very coarse sand was
encountered from 80 to 95 centimeters over a gray clay (excavated 95 to 100 centimeters below
surface).
Other shovel tests consisted of 20 to 30 centimeters of brown or dark brown sandy clay loam over
mottled yellowish brown and gray clay with redox. Most of the shovel tests in this area
encountered the water table between 25 and 50 centimeters below surface. Representative
shovel test profiles can be seen on Figure 6.7.
6.1

Legend
Source: Terracon (Field Data) 2022;
Conservation Easement Boundary O Negative Shovel Test APE provided by Client.
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for
Site Boundary x No Dig informational purposes only and was not prepared for,
and is not suitable for, legal or engineering purposes.
+ Surface Find
Drwn: MM
Shovel Test Locations
FIGURE
rerracon
NO.
Chkd:
TR
■
Rolling Meadows
Mitigation Project
g 1
6.1
Project "
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27604
Davisdson County, North Carolina
Date:
March 2022
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

r\
Lim
011
( _ .i
GZr
GIL
AN
,Copy`ght:© 2013-Nation al Geographic Sociei-cubed
Legend
FE-IConservation Easement Boundary Kilometers
EZI0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Site Boundary
Drwn: MM
Archaeological Site Location
FIGURE
rerracon
Chkd:
TR
.
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27604
Rolling Meadows
Mitigation Project
Davisdson County, North Carolina
6.2
Project No.:
70227103
Date:
March 2022
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Northern Portion of Conservation Easement, Facing North
Portion of Conservation Easement along North Side of Reedy Creek, Facing West
Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
Project Area Photographs
Rolling Meadows
N O.
Ohkd:
MMMerracon
Project No:70227103
6.3
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 2760
Davidson County, North Carolina
Date:
March 202211
Phone: [phone] Fax: (919) 873_9":

Drainage in Northern Portion of Conservation Easement, Facing North
Reedy Creek, Facing West
Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
Werracon
Project Area Photographs
Rolling Meadows
NO.
Chkd:
MM
Project No:70227103
6.4
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27605
Davidson County, North Carolina
Date.
March 202211
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]"

Southern Portion of Conservation Easement, Facing West
Drainage Ditch in Southern Portion of Conservation Easement, Facing East
Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
Project Area Photographs
NO.
Chkd:
MM
� �erracon
Rolling Meadows
Project No:
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27606
Davidson County, North Carolina
6.5
Date.
March 2022
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Reedy Creek, Facing West
Reedy Creek, Facing East
Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
� ������0�
Rolling Meadows Project Area Photographs
NO.
Chkd:
MM
Project No:
6.6
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27606
Davidson County, North Carolina
Date.
March 2022
phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

\ - 1 Y ,,� •N� 1 tY�� ' �,�,�Lr -�'� 4'yQ i"'""°�
`F4�F} s�� ,rri`'L,�G�I�R�,vp � v'0 ,� t '✓ +ya��
.�Qr+.s' - .. � r ���gy��
0 #' � Y x,,�� "./°G-.�.
; ..
�d.4i!y
kV.
I
l _
r
ST1-6
ST4-3
Bank
Profile of Reedy Creek
I
;
r !
ST7-13
ST11-2
Drwn: FIGURE
TR
Chkd:
MM
�, %rracon
Rolling Meadows Representative Shovel Test Photographs
No.
Project No:
70227103
Davidson County, North Carolina
6'7
Date.
March 2022
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27605
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
No artifacts or cultural materials were recovered as a result of the shovel testing; however, surface
inspection of the conservation easement recorded a precontact scatter of lithic and ceramic
artifacts, discussed below.
31 DV769
UTM : 17S 562848.43 m E 3974637.35 m N
Site Size: 3,955m2
Elevation: 720 feet amsl
Environmental Setting: Agricultural Field
Soils: ChA, Chewacla Loam, frequently flooded, 0-2% slopes
Nearest Water: 25 meters south, Reedy Creek
Surface Visibility: 75-100%
Field Procedures: Pedestrian Survey and Shovel Testing (n=1)
Cultural Affiliation: Precontact—Woodland; Lithic (Unknown Subperiod)
Site Function: Precontact—Limited Activity
Site Integrity: Poor
Recommendations: Not Eligible; No Further Work
Site Description: Surface inspection of a recently tilled and planted agricultural field north of Reedy
Creek revealed a scatter of lithic materials along the boundary and outside of the conservation
easement; Figures 6.8-6.10. The majority of the site appeared to be outside of the conservation
easement boundary (approximately 705 m2 of the 3,955 m2 site was located within the project
boundaries).
Given the excellent surface visibility, field methodology consisted of systematic visual inspection
transects spaced at 5-meter intervals, thus affording nearly 100 percent coverage of the area.
Each artifact or cluster of artifacts (within an approximately 1-meter radius) was marked in the
field with a pin flag. The locations of these artifacts (designated Surface Find [SF]1, SF2, etc.)
were recorded with a Trimble Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. Only those artifacts located
within the project area boundaries were collected; however, the artifacts outside of the project
boundary were counted, logged, and photographed (see Appendix B). Table 6.1 shows the
artifacts recorded as a result of the site investigation. The majority of artifacts from the site (n=70;
92.1 %) consisted of metavolcanic lithic debitage. Other artifacts recorded included quartz shatter
and flakes and one rhyolite biface fragment. Two ceramic sherds were also noted outside of the
project area. Both were sand tempered and were eroded (likely fabric impressed).
6.2

Legend
Source: Terracon (Field Data) 2022;
Conservation Easement Boundary O Negative Shovel Test APE provided by Client.
Disclaimer. The information depicted on this figure is
= Site Boundary X No Dig for informational purposes only and was not
prepared for, and is not suitable for, legal or
Tree Line + Surface Find engineering purposes.
Drwn: MM
WrerraconRolling
Archaeological Site Plan
FIGURE
Chkd:
TR
Meadows
Mitigation Project
6.8
Project No.:
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27604
Davisdson County, North Carolina
Date:
March 2022
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
%rracon
Rolling Meadows Archaeological Site Photographs
No.
chkd
MM
Project No:
6'9
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27606
Davidson County, North Carolina
Date.
March 2022
phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
%rracon
Rolling Meadows Archaeological Site Photographs
No.
chkd
MM
Project No:
6.10
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27606
Davidson County, North Carolina
Date.
March 2022
phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Table 6.1: Site 31 DV769 Artifacts
Within Project Area
Prov
AType rtifact
Description*
N=
SF 1
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
4
SF14
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
3
SF15
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
2
SF16
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
1
SF16
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
1
SF17
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
2
SF18
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
3
Biface frag:
MV
1
Total Within Project Area
17
Outside of Project Area
Prov
AType rtifact
Description*
N=
SF2
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
7
SF3
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
2
SF4
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
1
SF5
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
1
SF6
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
1
SF7
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
1
SF8
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
2
SF9
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
1
SF10
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
2
Debitage:
Qtz
1
SF11
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
2
SF12
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
2
SF13
Ceramic
Fabric impressed; sand tempered
1
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
3
SF19
Ceramic
Fabric impressed; sand tempered
1
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
1
Debitage:
Qtz
1
SF20
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
3
SF21
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
1
SF22
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
2
SF23
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
3
6.3

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Outside of Project Area
Prov
AType rtifact
Description*
N=
SF24
Lithic
Debitage: MV
1
Shatter: Qtz
1
SF25
Lithic
Debitage: MV
1
SF26
Lithic
Debitage: MV
2
SF27
Lithic
Debitage: MV
3
SF28
Lithic
Debitage: MV
4
SF29
Lithic
Debitage: MV
3
SF30
Lithic
Debitage: MV
2
SF31
Lithic
Debitage: MV
2
SF32
Lithic
Debitage: MV
1
Total Outside of Project Area
59
Grand 76
Total
HMV: Metavolcanic, Qtz: Quartz
One shovel test was excavated within the conservation easement boundaries (near the southern
portion of the site). Soils in this shovel test consisted of 30 centimeters of yellowish brown sandy
clay loam over mottled brownish yellow, red, and white sandy clay subsoil. Although the NRCS
mapped this area as Chewacla loam, the site is located along an elevated sloping ridge
overlooking Reedy Creek and is more likely characterized as Wedowee sandy loam (2-8%
slopes).
Summary and Recommendations: This site consists of a surface scatter of primarily metavolcanic
lithic artifacts. Temporally diagnostic materials were limited to two diminutive ceramic sherds
(recorded outside of the project area), suggesting a Woodland period of occupation. The field
exhibited erosion and has been used for agriculture for decades; shovel testing did not indicate
the presence of intact sub -plow zone soils.
Given the nearly 100 percent coverage of the area, it was apparent that cultural materials
appeared to be scattered across the site's boundaries rather than continuously distributed, and in
spite of the large size of the site, the density of the deposits was generally low. No cultural features
or significant artifact concentrations were recorded, and the site does not appear to be particularly
unique or contain materials suited to in-depth analysis. Additional work at this site is unlikely to
contribute to our knowledge of the past. This site is recommended Not Eligible for the NRHP
under Criteria A—D; no additional archaeological work is recommended for this location.

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
7. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This archaeological investigation for the Rolling Meadows wetland mitigation and restoration
project located along Reedy Creek in Davidson County, North Carolina was conducted by
Terracon of Raleigh, North Carolina, on behalf of Water & Land Solutions. The project site
consists of an approximately 51.8-acre proposed mitigation area and conservation easement
encompassing a portion of Reedy Creek and associated tributaries. Although the surrounding
conservation easement encompasses an approximately 51.8-acre area, the proposed areas of
subsurface disturbance are limited to the drainageways and adjacent floodplain proposed for
stream restoration and wetland re-establishment (see Appendix A for proposed wetland
restoration plan).
Fieldwork was designed to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA and guidelines established by
the Office of the Secretary of the Interior of the United States and in consultation with the OSA
(ER 22-0175). Prior to the initiation of fieldwork, background research was conducted, which
included a search of archaeological site files by OSA staff on behalf of Terracon. Field methods
used during the investigation included pedestrian inspection and shovel testing. Field
investigations took approximately 11.25 person days to complete and were conducted from
February 28 to March 3, 2022 by Terri Russ, Becky Sponseller, and Kristin Doshier.
As a result of the investigation, 176 shovel tests were excavated and one new archaeological site
(31 DV769) was recorded (Table 7.1). The archaeological site is recommended Not Eligible for
the NRHP; it is recommended that the proposed project be allowed to proceed without concern
for impacts to significant cultural resources. Should the project area be expanded, additional
coordination with SHPO should occur to ensure that these actions do not adversely affect
potentially significant archaeological resources.
Table 7.1: Summary of Site Data
Site Cultural Affiliation Site Type Recommendations
31 DV769 Precontact: Lithic; Woodland Limited Activity Not Eligible; NFW*
* NFW.- No Further Work
7.1

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
REFERENCES CITED
Adovasio, J.M., J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath
1990 The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology 1975-1990. American
Antiquity 55(2):348-354.
Amick, D.S. and P.J. Carr
1996 Changing Strategies of Lithic Technological Organization. In Kenneth E.
Sassaman and David G. Anderson (eds) Archaeology of the Mid -Holocene
Southeast. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. pp. 41-56.
Anderson, D. G.
1990 A North American Paleoindian Projectile Point Database. Current Research in
the Pleistocene 7:67-69.
1995 Paleoindian Interaction Networks in the Eastern Woodlands. In M. Nassaney and
K. Sassaman (eds) Native American Interaction: MultiscalarAnalyses and
Interpretations in the Eastern Woodlands. The University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville. pp. 3-26.
Anderson, D.G. and G. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast: A Case Study for the Savannah River
Valley. American Antiquity 53:262-286.
Anderson, D.G. and J. Schuldenrein
1983 Early Archaic Settlement on the Southeastern Atlantic Slope: A View from
Rucker's Bottom Site, Elbert County, Georgia. North American Archaeologist
4(3):177-210.
Anderson, D.G., R.J. Ledbetter, and L. O'Steen
1990 Paleoindian Period Archaeology of Georgia. Laboratory of Archaeology Services
Report No. 28, University of Georgia, Athens.
Blanton, D. and K.E. Sassaman
1989 Pattern and Process in the Middle Archaic Period in South Carolina. In Glen T.
Hanson and Albert C. Goodyear II I (eds) The Archaeology of South Carolina:
Papers in Honor of Dr. Robert L. Stephenson. South Carolina Institute of
Archeology and Anthropology, Anthropological Studies, No. 7. University of
South Carolina Press, Columbia. pp. 53-72.
R.1

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Cable, J.S.
1992 Organizational Variability in Piedmont Hunter -Gatherer Lithic Assemblages. In
Stephen R. Claggett and John S. Cable (assemblers) The Haw River Sites:
Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North Carolina
Piedmont. Report 2386. Commonwealth Associates, Jackson, Mississippi. pp.
637-88.
Carbone, V.A.
1983 Late Quaternary Environments in Florida and the Southeast. Florida
Anthropologist36 (1-2): 3-17.
Claggett, S.R. and J.S. Cable
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the
North Carolina Piedmont. Report No. 2386, Commonwealth Associates, Jackson,
Michigan. Ms. On file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Coe, J.L.
1952 The Cultural Sequence of the Carolina Piedmont. In Archaeology of the Eastern
United States, edited by J.B. Griffin, pp. 301-311. University of Chicago Press.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of American
Philosophical Society, 54. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
1995 Town Creek Indian Mound: A Native Legacy. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Daniel, Jr., I.R.
1998 Hardaway Revisited: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Davis, R.P.S. and T. Ward
1991 The Evolution of Siouan Communities in Piedmont North Carolina. Southeastern
Archaeology, No. 1:40-53.
Delcourt, P.A., and H.R. Delcourt
1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of the Southeastern United
States. In V.M. Bryant and R.G. Holloway (eds) Pollen Records of Late -
Quaternary North American Sediments. American Association of Stratigraphic
Palynologists Foundation, College Station, Texas. pp. 1-37.
1987 Long Term Forest Dynamics of the Temperate Zone: A Case Study of Late
Quaternary Forests in Eastern North America. Ecological Studies No. 63,
Springer Verlag, New York.
R.2

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Dillehay, T.D.
1997 Monte Verde, A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Volume 2, The
Archaeological Context and Interpretation. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.
Dobyns, H.
1983 Their Number Become Thinned. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Dunbar, J.S. and B.I. Waller
1983 A Distribution Analysis of the Clovis/Suwannee Paleo-Indian Sites in Florida: A
Geographic Approach. Florida Anthropologist 36(1-2):18-30.
Ferguson, Leland
1971 South Appalachian Mississippian. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department
of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Fiedel, S.J.
1999 Older than We Thought: Implications of Corrected Dates for Paleoindians.
American Antiquity 64(1):95-115.
Glover, Gerold F.
1993 Archaeological Study, Bridge No. 50 on SR 1493, Davidson County, North
Carolina, TIP B-2542. North Carolina Department of Transportation. Ms. on File,
Ms. on File, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh North Carolina.
1995 Archaeological Study, Bridge No. 56 on NC 150 over Reedy Creek, Davidson
County, North Carolina, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-150(4), TIP No. B-2126. North
Carolina Department of Transportation. Ms. on File, Ms. on File, Office of State
Archaeology, Raleigh North Carolina.
Goodyear, A.C.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United
States. American Antiquity (47):382-395.
Goodyear, A.C., J.H. House, and N.W. Ackerly
1979 Laurens -Anderson: An Archaeological Study of the Inter-Riverine Piedmont.
Anthropological Studies 4. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Columbia.
R.3

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Goodyear, A.C., J. Michie, and T. Charles
1989 The Earliest South Carolinians. In A. Goodyear and G. Hanson (eds) Studies in
South Carolina Archaeology. Anthropological Studies 9. South Carolina Institute
of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia. pp. 19-52.
Graham, R.W. and A. Roberts
1986 Residentially Constrained Mobility: A Preliminary Investigation of Variability in
Settlement Organization. Haliksa'i: UNM Contributions to Anthropology 5:105-16.
Griffin, J.B.
1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156:175-191.
Hamel, P.B.
1992 Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Howell, Ray
2000 Images of America: Davidson County. Davidson County Historical Museum.
Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.
Jones, Paul L.
2011 a Addendum I to Phase I Archaeological Investigations for Williams Gas Pipeline—
Transco's Proposed Mid -South Expansion Project. Gastonia, Rowan, and
Davidson Loops in Gaston, Rowan, and Davidson Counties, North Carolina: Pipe
Yards. Florida History, LLC, Tampa, Florida. Ms. on File, Office of State
Archaeology, Raleigh North Carolina.
2011 b Addendum II to Phase I Archaeological Investigations for Williams Gas Pipeline—
Transco's Proposed Mid -South Expansion Project. Gastonia, Rowan, and
Davidson Loops in Gaston, Rowan, and Davidson Counties, North Carolina:
Access Roads. Florida History, LLC, Tampa, Florida. Ms. on File, Office of State
Archaeology, Raleigh North Carolina.
2012 Phase II Archaeological Testing of Site 31 DV720 and Historical Assessment of
Building Complexes DV363 and DV1063 in Support of the Operations and
Maintenance of the Williams Transco Pipeline, Davidson County, North Carolina.
Florida History, LLC, Tampa, Florida. Ms. on File, Ms. on File, Office of State
Archaeology, Raleigh North Carolina.
RA

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Jones, Paul L. and Myles Bland
2010 Phase I Archaeological Investigations for Williams Gas Pipelin e— Transco's
Proposed Mid -South Expansion Project. Gastonia, Rowan, and Davidson Loops
in Gaston, Rowan, and Davidson Counties, North Carolina. Florida History, LLC,
Tampa, Florida. Ms. on File, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh North Carolina.
Jurgelski, Bill and Gerold Glover
1993 Archaeological Study, Bridge No. 26 on SR 1450, Davidson County, North
Carolina, TIP B-2541. North Carolina Department of Transportation. Ms. on File,
Ms. on File, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh North Carolina.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III
1980 Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
McAvoy, J.M.
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No. 8.
Merrell, J. H.
1987 "This Western World". The Evolution of the Piedmont, 1525— 1725. In the Siouan
Project: Seasons I and II , edited by R. dickens Jr., H.T. Ward, and R.P.S. Davis
Jr., Monograph No. 1. Research Laboratories of Archaeology, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Morrow, J.E., and T.A. Morrow
1999 Geographic Variation in Fluted Projectile Points: A Hemispheric Perspective.
American Antiquity 64(2):215-231.
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
1966 National Historic Preservation Act. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part
800. United States of America: Washington D.C.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
2021 Davidson County, North Carolina Soil Survey. Tabular Data. Natural Resources
Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey.
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/, accessed February 2022.
Nitze, H. C., and G. B. Hanna
1896 Gold Deposits of North Carolina. Bulletin No. 3, The North Carolina Geological
Survey, M.I. & J.C. Stewart, Printers, Winston. Reprinted 1996.
R.5

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
2015 Physiographic Provinces of North Carolina. ESRI interactive story map.
https://deg. nc. gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/north-carolina-
geological-survey/interactive-geologic-maps, accessed March 2022.
2016 Geologic Terranes and Major Geological Elements of North Carolina. ESRI
interactive story map.
https://ncdenr. maps. arcgis. com/apes/MapSeries/index.html?appid=0a7ccd93947
34ff6aa2434d2528ddfl2, accessed March 2022.
North Carolina State Library
2004 North Carolina County Formation.
https://statelibrary. ncdcr. gov/research/genealogy-and-famil v-history/family-
records/nc-county-formation, accessed March 2022.
Oliver, B.L.
1981 The Piedmont Tradition: Refinement of the Savannah River Stemmed Point
Type. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of
Georgia, Athens.
1992 Settlements of the Pee Dee Culture. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department
of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
O'Steen, L.D.
1983 Early Archaic Settlement Patterns in the Wallace Reservoir: An Inner Piedmont
Perspective. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of Georgia, Athens.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell
1995 Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina.
Perkinson, P.H.
1971 North Carolina Fluted Points
23:3-40.
1973 North Carolina Fluted Points
25:3-60.
Survey Number One. Southern Indian Studies
Survey Number Two. Southern Indian Studies
Plog, Stephen, Fred Plog, and Walter Wait
1978 Decision Making in Modern Surveys. In Michael Schiffer (ed) Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory. Academic Press, New York. pp. 383-412.
R.6

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina through Four Centuries. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell
1994 Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Russo, M.
1992 Chronologies and Cultures of the St. Mary's Region of Northeast Florida and
Southeast Georgia. Florida Anthropologist 45 (2):107-126.
Sassaman, K.E.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Sassaman, K.E., M. J. Brooks, G.T. Hanson, and D. G. Anderson
1990 Native American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley. Savannah
Archaeological Research Papers 1.
Sassaman, K.E., G.T. Hanson, and T. Charles
1988 Raw Material Procurement and the Reduction of Hunter -Gatherer Range in the
Savannah River Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 7(2):79-94.
Scarry, C.M. (editor)
1993 Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.
Schuldenrein, J.
1996 Geoarchaeology and the Mid -Holocene Landscape History of the Greater
Southeast. In Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson (eds) Archaeology
of the Mid -Holocene Southeast. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. pp. 3-
27.
Sellon, M. R.
1980 PreliminaryArchaeological and Historical Investigations at Three Alternative
Airport Areas in Davidson County, North Carolina. Ms. on File, Office of State
Archaeology, Raleigh North Carolina.
R.7

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Simpkins, Daniel L. and Gary Petherick
1985 First Phase Investigations of Late Aboriginal Settlement Systems in the Eno,
Haw, and Dan River Drainages, North Carolina. Research Report No. 3,
Research Laboratories of Anthropology, the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill.
Smith, B.D.
1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: From Dalton to deSoto
(10,500 B.P. — 500 B.P.). In Fred Wendorf and Angela E. Close (eds) Advances
in World Archaeology, Volume 5. Academic Press, New York. pp. 1-92.
Steponaitis, V.P.
1986 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern United States. Annual Review of
Anthropology (15):363-404.
Trimble, S.W.
1974 Man -Induced Soil Erosion on the Southern Piedmont. Soil Conservation Society
of America.
United States Department of Agriculture: North Carolina Department of Agriculture
1915 Soil Map, North Carolina, Davidson County, North Carolina. On file, North
Carolina State Archives, Raleigh, North Carolina.
https://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/sinpleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/292/rec/18, accessed
March 2022.
United States Geological Survey
1969 Welcome, North Carolina. 1:24,000 Topographic Quadrangle Map. Washington
D.C.
Ward, H. Trawick
1978 The Archaeology of Whites Creek, Marlboro County, South Carolina. Research
Laboratories of Archaeology. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In
M.A. Mathis and J.J. Crow (eds) The Prehistory of North Carolina: An
Archaeological Symposium. North Carolina Division of Archives and History,
Raleigh.
Ward, H.T. and R.P.S. Davis Jr.
1993 Indian Communities on the North Carolina Piedmont A.D. 1000 to 1700.
Research Laboratories of Archaeology Monograph No. 2. The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill.
R.8

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Ward, H.T. and R.P.S. Davis Jr. (continued)
1999 Time Before History. The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Watts, W.A., E.C. Grim, and T.C. Hussey
1996 Mid -Forest of Florida and the Coastal Plain of Georgia and South Carolina. In
Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson (eds). Archaeology of the Mid -
Holocene Southeast. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. pp. 28-40.
Webb, Paul and D.S. Leigh
1995 Geomorphological and Archaeological Investigations of a Buried Site on the
Yadkin River Floodplain. Southern Indian Studies: 44:1-36.
Wilson, J. H., Jr.
1983 A Study of Late Prehistoric, Protohistoric, and Historic Indians of the Carolina
and Virginia Piedmont. Structure, Process, and Ecology. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill.
Woodall, J.N.
1990 Archaeological Investigations in the Yadkin River Valley, 1984-1987. Publication
25. North Carolina Archaeological Council, Raleigh.
R.9

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
APPENDIX A: PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN

Fen
posed Conservation Easement ,. f
Mitigation r q
r �
eam Restoration 4*
eam Enhancement I
sting Utilitiesd Mitigationtland Re-establishment
cel Boundaryvidsorn County Parcels
II I
I
--VLower
JJVVA
HS01
` F
Rr �
Reach ID Mitigation
Stream
Reedy Creek Upper
Restoration
589
Reedy Creek Upper
Enhancement 1
175
Reedy Creek Lower
Restoration
4064
5100
I Restoration
1466
5101
Restoration
570
5300
Restoration
201
7065
Wetland ID
Mitigation
Wetland
H501
Re-establishment
7.43
H502
Re-establishment
1.22
H503
Re-establishment
0.61
9.26
Ratio
Credits
.1P
f
fit +,
1:1
589
1.5:1
117
1:1
4064
1:1
1:1
1:1
407_m�l
Ratio
1:1
1:1
1:1
002 t
;each Break
;Upper/Lower
0 300 600 1,200 \
Feet\1
1 inch = 600 feet N
Figure
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Mitigation
WATER & LAND
HUC8 Upper Yadkin 03040101
Davidson County, North Carolina
Concept Map
9
SOLUTIONS
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plan e_N orth_Carol in a_F I PS_3200_Feet
Date: 1/5/2022
Data sources - Soils data source: USDA. Imagery data source: NC One Map

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
APPENDIX B: ARTIFACT PHOTOGRAPHS

III III 111; Iflk fly 71 ilfV•J'IIJI�
nII III,1IIII II11III_1'.1 Ti 11I1IIIIIII"11 11111IIIIIIIIIT
S _
(one flake not photographed)
SF-2
SF-3
SF-4
SF-5
Il11111V11f'`��Il`' ili ll�ll�� fliifllp'II';I!I
_ -
�„
�I'�I ��f1IIIIllllll;l'
SF-6
l
SF-7
h
mm(f
l�ll� �i �I�� III
III IIII IIII _I iII'i 11 il� ��i illl'I�IIII
SF-9
SF-11
Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
� rerracon
Artifact Photographs
Rolling Meadows
NO.
Chkd:
MM
Project No:70227103
B'�
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27606
Davidson County, North Carolina
Date.
March 2022
11 phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

3.x
�a
�IIIIII1�111111 1111T1111_17117J11,"IIIIIIIll I'll
i
Illll��lllll,llgrl u�IIII'III',I'i�lll.ld lll�
SF-12
SF-13
SF-19
SF-20
I111, JI] IIll I,IIIII_ _q[[Ii, I11111 allll I Iilf
SF-21
SF-22
j
IIJill 111111;11j11:1111111L 111-I
� II'r1111111�IIlfiT:1111i1��1111.1 lldll l I_I
SF-23
SF-24
Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
�, %rracon
Artifact Photographs
Rolling Meadows
No.
chkd
MM
Project No:70227103
B'2
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27606
Davidson County, North Carolina
Date.
March 2022
phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

2 d 4
_
-
�j�ii,l,lili
I' llll' IIi ell ,I 'll!I11il'li;I'llllll;'''li'V
II'll III�� fll ill llqHlllllllll�lllll: I�
e
SF-25
SF-26
L a -,
.e
II Il��f�� I���'�i� Iffi flll��iflll'i II
II I Ilfll i� II I
SF-27
SF-28
1
rx
h.�fF
�III�IIIII' �Ill�lli.l�l�'<f �➢�I�� pll• 9�_�'��
:III II f dilPll III I II JI II II I� II II �II �ti
s�
SF-29
SF-30
>'.
•
,glll�lll�llll1���,��llilll'¶�f�;��rjiu�luglllqulul�',ill�
S F-31
S F-32
Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
�, %rracon
Artifact Photographs
Rolling Meadows
No.
chkd
MM
Project No:70227103
B'3
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27606
Davidson County, North Carolina
Date.
March 2022
phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION
NOTES TO USERS
SCALE
SEER REPORTFORZONEDESCRIPRONSANDINDUMAP
THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING
m
e
DOCUMENTATION AREALSO AVAIIABLE IN DIGITAL FORMATAT
xA rvnw rasa n�
HTTP://FRIS.NC.GOV/FRIS
�tlr F�qµ,@mra. •F�+em.M�=�»Po.•m•���••r �rm.,.....,..d�,��.
IInch =1,000 feet 1:12,000
Vf[hou[ Bases ootl Elevation (BFE)
-'
a,anrixMeuam ium.ms
en
0 500 1,000 2,0 0
Ith BFEllDepthzoneAE, AO, AH, vS AR
gemm emem u. rem ikiees.�sc..m,rue..,m
mmmN n mN .m, �, R•,^@ • s..s a..
SPECIAL FLOOD
HATARDAREAS
R
I—egulffiory Flootlway
�u,.n@p,®„•.r r-moaweexo. ""'"'M'mi°`a ro,. u,....a®.u�®uu. x.m..i
Meters
0 150 3W fi00
—0.2%AnnoaIChanceFlood Hazam,Anoo
oft% Annual Caance Flootlw NAwmge
,��,.,.,.....�.u�
ew n. orm«x
PANEL LOCATOR
Depthess LTh OocFoctor With Dmnage
Areas cf Less Than One Square M Ie zone
— Fo[ure Cc.diti..l%Annual
Chance Flood Hamm zo
OTHERAREASOF — Areawith Retlocetl Flootl Riskd.to Levee
,ae,nyw.s.u.rEu.rrm,r�.rmrc......rrn,. w,�mn m«snrm
m
FLOOD HAZARD See NMes zone
OTHER — Areas DMen mdt,b,O000dctho
Mwcmuxtt
AREAS 0.2%Annual Chance Floodplain zonex
awemimm.mu.ia..•ure„e.s.oro„wr.u,s.eu.azro.w•.=.•,e. svw.m.aseuerme
ene
wen
sm rm ne
ere
'-�------
------------- Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
^tee �e,s.m.,,..ru.u,u�,.®u,.r.a.�.mmtiem oru. �a,nr.mromne•trum.ar .
Acaetltetl or Prows onallyAaretltetl
an • �•m•e.,nm.rEMa
GENERAL
STRUCTURES
DIre or Flootlwall
�� Non-a¢retldetl Leveg Dlre, or Flootivall
aro Nod,Clina Geotletic S,,oybenchmrk a
a rw uvEz Aro.,�.�vEm�a..a e.mnm�••uim,mu. m. Du m,
-
urveyb S ic
® NffiGeo ionaltletenchmark
Umitcf Motlemte Wage ActiOn(LIMWA)
Co-.IEsticSurvey benchmark
Raa—
Cross Sections wi h 1%Annual Chance
TEM(CBRS)No
Water Solace EM oi,,(BFE)
0-----Coas[alTrensect
s. r,n.mwm..m., r-moawwiTn. .mr m.
c
raxAx caum
----- - Con-IT—dBaseline
® CBRSArea Othemiee Pmtectetl Area
- — PMile Baseline
RydrogmpHc Feature
OTHER
Umit of Study
uMaauwumr
trcou
msomsarwumr
FEATURES
,.....w.»..... o......we...
C NORTH CAROLINAROODPWNMAPPINGPROGRAM
NA00NAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
ra F LOOD I NSURANCE RATE MAP
�I
vq NORTH CAROLINA
o
�C
� PANa6708 �
�w
N FFMA
U
11
�%
CID -NET SUFFIX
N oI oU.NN—xry —1 mre c
i
0
LL
cc
i
m
z
MAP RUKED
3/] /mae

a)
0
a)
U
a)
a)
Reedy Creek Limited Detail Study
Pt
0
0
0
rn
rcy
0
co
co
r0,
O
CO
SNo
Fey
LO rep
LO
`ry'o
0
ktNi
r0,
0
0
L
0 0
oco
r0,
CO
0
0

ƒ \
{
/
�
;ƒ
;
� a
k
!§
� �§
)
§
�
� �/
�
\��
\
3
k 7� ]
G �.E�§ § k:\j /CN
G / LU 0 §CO
2 - 2 E 0
\ / 2
o
m ) \T IT
8
; C - C) e ;- LO
0 / ) 00
/ o� � R N e §
ƒ ) oIT� 0 �
m�� 2 F \ tee 0 F
LO
# o t
§ \ ® § J ) m
2
2 $ m 2 0
E h E
\ § \ 0
0
} § Ix R
\ / / / / j / / co \ / / / / / / / k
Uum©mg Uum©mg
.ƒ U- d ƒ )
) 7� \
Q a -
04
�.S §§ §:\:6 2
§ LLI 0
E 2
/T; 17
LO
e
)
} / §
\ ƒ §0 �� ; \ /
j « \
§ \ 0 m
] @
�
7 )
\ 0
\ \
R
k 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m
§ r r p p p R R
()II ugee@

E
)§
'§
)
§ ®�
k
�
�
\��
\
k
3
E
k
!§
.§
)
§®
U
\.
�/
Lu
�LU
\
3
CN
0
CO
§
§
\
o
�\
\
/
\
\
;
)
�
R
\
;
)
�
R
}
\ 04
\
}
\
e
)
\
ƒ
)
2
> ��
§
#
>
}
e
°
) \
i
o
\
g
\
\
\
�
m
�
�
\
\
\
#
�
»
)
\
)
w
\
/
/
/ /
/
/ \
/
N
Uum©ml
E
)§
'§
)
§ ®�
k
�E
/ ;E
/
� �
k
3
00
LO
\ /
o J
\ 0
e \ \
E )
\ F e
\ j \ /
8 k
9 7
8 \
4
8 5D
R
\
Uum©m3
/ \ / \ / /
Uum©ml
E
k
!§
.§
)
§ ®
k
�E
f ;E
/
3
()II ugee@

E
)§
'§
)
§ ®�
k
�
�
\��
\
k
3
CN
0
CO
§
o
§
\
\
\
/
\
\
T
;
2
\
0
}
o
e
-
LL
s
)
\
)
\
cq
�
)
F
/
/
§
y
>
\
\
\
..
e
.
n
9
n
\
\
�
\
m
R
}
\
Q
�
f
ƒ
J
\
I
E
k
!§
.§
)
§®
U
�/
Lu
\.
�LU
\
3
\ / / / / / / / \ /
Uum©mg
k
k
!§
0 .0
§ §
§ ®�
t
:w
4
k
w
a:8
3
w
Uum©m3
R
/ / / \ / /
Uum©ml
ƒ;\
{
k
_
;ƒ
- a
k
!§
.§
)
§ ®
k
�E
f ;E
/
�/
3
()II ugee@

y'
�40
o
o; o
0,0
o
0
�
0��
m
J
W
?j ! W
W
N
N
O
N O
f� O
LO
O
C
7
T
Lp O
3 O
-O O
O O
O
LL O
C r
O M
d Y O
O
N LO
U LO
T T C
O O
r
CO 0) �
03 V LO
O U)
O
N LO
❑
N
O
O
Y LO
N V
N
U
T
O O
O O
O
O O O O O O O
V Cl) N O O) 00
I` r r r I` O LO
(4) u011ena13
c
c !LLo LLo
+o o o 0 0 �Y m
c
N N J (� U) Ur fn m U
o O W �j ; W >j c
N O N W 0
f� O f� 0
O 0
0
0
00
T T LO
m m
-3p O -3p 0
O LO O O
LL O LO LL O LO
N co N M O
Lv
U O U O
V In O O j -O N O
LO
U) a) :� U) 0)
0 U) — O U)
0 +N 0
❑ ❑ IT LO
LO 0
O 0 O 0
LO W
J V J 0
0
U U v
T T
v v
WI
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0v 0 0 0 0 0 0v
O LO V Cl) N 0 O) Cl) N 0 O) 00
r r r r r r r LO r O LO
( ) uol;ena13 (j}) uOIJen913
c
c
! LLo
LLo
c in
�
o
0
0� Y
m
d
J
!
?j
�
o
W
! W
W

N
O
0
0
N
0
J
V% N N N V V V N N
N
I�
O)
(O
(O
N
N
(O
M
N
O
6?
V
FW
LL K
LL
x
r U
O iT
h
°
U)
_
'A
V)
0
V
L~L
}
0
LU a
N
¢
Q
W
C
O
N
m
(00
7
O
7
Z
N
V
N
N
N
M
N
(O
O
Q
N '
a
N
N
N
N
O
O
N
O
O
N
M
O
a
0
=
w E
�_
LL 0
z
Z
H
U
m=
O
N
O)
V
N
V
f�
r
Q W
7 =
H
N
m
m
Z
=
3
3
3
3
3
3
?�
a0
J
J
J
J
J
J
Q
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
AO:
Q t`O') V Onl (n0 00l N O 0 r M
fp N N N N M V N
V
V
N
V
V
O
N
N
V
N
V
N
M
O
T
N
O)
O
M
M
N
N
O
N
c
V
N
W
LL K
F U
O
N
C V
~
}
Z
N N
J
O
J
J
W
Z O C
ry
O
V
N
O
(MO
N
r
7
O
o
a
0 i9
N
^y
O
O
O
N
O
O
M
M
N
O
z
Z
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
m p
W E
LL
W C
W
J
LL
z
z
U
Q W
r
r
r
c0
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
H
N
m
ro
a
s
s
z
o
20
o
o
=
o
0
0
0
=
o
a0
J
M
r
T
d T
W
O
O
O
O2
2
2
2o
121002-2-223
o
o
o
2
2
N
V

§
,
}x
§�
oI
_ _
j
LU
\
`
§.
`o
§
IF
k�
LuE
o
f\
\
o Mu
cn
z
0
]
]
]
a
&
a
a
`LRU7
7
)
7
7
0
3
=
f\
=
(¥
[
/
§
_
_
\
{
~
§
k
[(
=
[
§§
e
f\
p
)
)
2
0
w
>
>
>
\ \
LU
z
c
k
0
s
|
1
k
=
j
To
&
2
L�u

C
(�
_ _
j
Z
\
`
§��
`o
§
IF
k�
LuE
o
f\
z
o Mu
cn
co
t
\
\
/
§
0
!
_
<
§
0
_
0
)
7
7
LU
o
~
[
§§
c
0
0
0
A;
k
0
s
|
k
1
1
!
ƒ
j
�
To
&

& ) )
\\
_
f¥
_ _
j
z
\
~
§.�
`o
§
IF
k�
LE
Lu
o
f\
2
o Mu
z
!
o
o
`
§
7
)
7
C ( \ (
o
_
- —
\
j
0
~§.
�o
[
�|
z
0
2k
;
cq
Lu
)
)
o
2
w
(
<
\
j
2ol
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ij

Appendix C- Site Analysis Data
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Stream Design Parameters and Morphology Tables
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Comparison
Water Quality Feature Design Calculations
Bankfull Velocity and Discharge Estimates
USGS Regression Flow Analysis
Sediment Transport Calculations
Culvert Analysis
StreamStats

Reach: Reedy Creek - Lower
Existing Stream Values
Composite Reference Values
Proposed Stream Values
Parameter
MIN MAX
MIN MAX
MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
8.60
---
8.60
Stream Type (Rosgen)
E5 (Channelized)
C5
C5
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
400.0
---
400.0
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
93.6 1 110.5
---
82.0
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
3.6
3.5
5.0
4.9
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
21.1
21.9
---
---
33.9
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
4.4
5.5
---
---
2.4
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
3.6
5.1
10.0
14.0
14.0
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
65.0
105.0
---
---
105.0
320.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
3.1
4.8
2.2
>2.2
3.1
9.4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
5.9
6.4
---
---
3.5
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.5
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.0
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
0
0
---
---
310.0
410.0
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
0.0
0.0
7.0
14.0
9.1
12.1
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
0.0
0.0
---
---
68.0
100.0
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf
0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
0.0
0.0
---
---
120.0
190.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
0.0
t 0.0
3.5
8.0
3.5
5.6
Sinuosity, K
1.03
1.2
1.5
1.19
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.00310
0.005
0.015
0.0031
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
0.00300
---
---
0.0003
Slope Riffle, Sriff (ft/ft)
0.0040
0.0050
---
---
0.0003
0.0007
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan
1.3
1.7
1.2
1.5
1.0
2.3
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
0.0005
0.0032
---
---
0.0000
0.0000
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.2
1.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
5.8
---
---
4.4
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
1.3
1.2
2.5
1.8
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
27.8
---
---
43.0
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.3
1.1
1.7
1.3
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
72.0
122.0
---
---
130.0
225.0
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
3.4
5.8
3.5
7.0
3.8
1 6.6

Reach: Reedy Creek - Upper
Existing Stream Values
Composite Reference Values
Proposed Stream Values
Parameter
MIN MAX
MIN MAX
MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
7.85
---
7.85
Stream Type (Rosgen)
E5 (Channelized)
C5
C5
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
385.0
---
385.0
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
133.0 1 158.0
---
80.0
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
2.4
3.5
5.0
4.8
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
23.4
31.3
---
---
33.5
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
4.1
5.7
---
---
2.4
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
4.7
6.8
10.0
14.0
14.0
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
45.0
111.0
---
---
65.0
120.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
1.9
3.5
2.2
>2.2
1.9
3.6
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
5.1
6.1
---
---
3.5
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.4
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
1.2
1.4
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
0
0
---
---
150.0
280.0
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
0.0
0.0
7.0
14.0
4.5
8.4
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
0.0
0.0
---
---
60.0
130.0
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf
0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
1.8
3.9
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
0.0
0.0
---
---
80.0
110.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
0.0
t 0.0
3.5
8.0
2.4
3.3
Sinuosity, K
1.03
1.2
1.5
1.09
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.00340
0.005
0.015
0.0034
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
0.00330
---
---
0.0030
Slope Riffle, Sriff (ft/ft)
0.0040
0.0050
---
---
0.0019
0.0142
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan
1.2
1.5
1.2
1.5
0.6
4.7
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
0.0005
0.0032
---
---
0.0000
0.0000
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.2
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
5.9
---
---
4.2
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
1.4
1.2
2.5
1.8
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
35.1
---
---
42.0
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.5
1.1
1.7
1.3
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
61.0
F 88.0
---
---
130.0
225.0
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
2.6
1 3.8
3.5
7.0
3.9
6.7

Reach: S100
Existing Stream Values
Composite Reference Values
Proposed Stream Values
Parameter
MIN I MAX
MIN I MAX
MIN I MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
0.19
---
0.19
Stream Type (Rosgen)
F4 (Channelized)
C4
C4
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
21.0
---
21.0
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
57.0 1 62.0
---
4.7
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
0.3
3.5
5.0
4.5
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
11.5
18.2
---
---
7.8
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
3.4
5.4
---
---
0.6
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
2.1
5.4
10.0
14.0
13.0
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
17.0
55.0
---
---
36.0
88.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
1.5
3.0
2.2
>2.2
4.6
11.3
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
5.8
6.8
---
---
0.8
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.2
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
2.5
>5.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
0
0
---
---
60.0
90.0
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
0.0
0.0
7.0
14.0
7.7
11.5
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
0.0
0.0
---
---
16.0
24.0
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf
0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.1
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
0.0
0.0
---
---
28.0
41.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
0.0
t 0.0
3.5
8.0
3.6
5.2
Sinuosity, K
1.03
1.2
1.5
1.17
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.01140
0.005
0.015
0.0114
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
0.01110
---
---
0.0130
Slope Riffle, Sriff (ft/ft)
0.0040
0.0050
---
---
0.0110
0.0518
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan
0.4
0.5
1.2
1.5
0.8
4.0
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
0.0005
0.0032
---
---
0.0000
0.0000
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
6.4
---
---
1.4
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
1.9
1.2
2.5
2.3
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
19.7
---
---
10.0
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.7
1.1
1.7
1.3
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
61.0
152.0
---
---
30.0
53.0
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
5.3
13.2
3.5
7.0
3.8
6.8

Reach: S101
Existing Stream Values
Composite Reference Values
Proposed Stream Values
Parameter
MIN MAX
MIN MAX
MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
0.10
---
0.10
Stream Type (Rosgen)
F4 (Channelized)
C4
C4
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
16.0
---
16.0
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
13.0 1 43.0
---
3.3
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
0.4
3.5
5.0
4.8
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
9.9
13.1
---
---
6.5
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
2.1
3.4
---
---
0.5
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
3.1
4.7
10.0
14.0
13.0
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
15.0
44.0
---
---
33.0
75.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
1.5
3.4
2.2
>2.2
5.0
11.5
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
2.7
4.1
---
---
0.7
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.4
1.4
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
1.7
4.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
0
0
---
---
46.0
77.0
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
0.0
0.0
7.0
14.0
7.0
11.8
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
0.0
0.0
---
---
14.0
20.0
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf
0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
2.1
3.1
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
0.0
0.0
---
---
23.0
34.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
0.0
t 0.0
3.5
8.0
3.5
5.2
Sinuosity, K
1.07
1.2
1.5
1.19
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.01390
0.005
0.015
0.0139
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
0.01300
---
---
0.0170
Slope Riffle, Sriff (ft/ft)
0.0128
0.0147
---
---
0.0152
0.0407
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.5
0.9
2.4
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
0.0003
0.0040
---
---
0.0000
0.0000
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
4.7
---
---
1.3
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
2.2
1.2
2.5
2.6
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
19.4
---
---
8.2
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
2.0
1.1
1.7
1.3
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
41.0
87.0
---
---
23.0=
44.0
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
4.1
8.8
3.5
7.0
3.5
1 6.7

Reach: S300
Existing Stream Values
Composite Reference Values
Proposed Stream Values
Parameter
MIN MAX
MIN MAX
MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
0.14
---
0.14
Stream Type (Rosgen)
F4 (Channelized)
C4
C4
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
19.0
---
19.0
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
5.9 1 7.1
---
4.1
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
2.7
3.5
5.0
4.6
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
14.0
16.7
---
---
7.3
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
0.4
0.9
---
---
0.6
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
22.0
44.0
10.0
14.0
13.0
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
15.0
44.0
---
---
20.0
40.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
2.7
4.1
2.2
>2.2
2.7
5.5
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
1.4
1.8
---
---
0.8
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
0.3
0.5
1.1
1.4
1.4
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
1.3
2.8
1.0
1.1
1.0
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
0
0
---
---
60.0
80.0
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
0.0
0.0
7.0
14.0
8.2
11.0
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
0.0
0.0
---
---
15.0
22.0
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf
0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
2.1
3.0
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
0.0
0.0
---
---
19.0
29.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
0.0
0.0
3.5
8.0
2.6
4.0
Sinuosity, K
1.03
1.2
1.5
1.12
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.00310
0.005
0.015
0.0010
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
0.00300
---
---
0.0015
Slope Riffle, Sriff (ft/ft)
0.0128
0.0147
---
---
0.0042
0.0071
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan
4.3
4.9
1.2
1.5
2.8
4.7
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
0.0003
0.0040
---
---
0.0000
0.0030
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.1
1.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
#DIV/0!
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
2.5
---
---
1.4
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
6.3
1.2
2.5
2.5
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
17.5
---
---
9.2
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.3
1.1
1.7
1.3
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
66.0
82.0
---
---
30.0
45.0
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
4.7
5.9
3.5
7.0
4.1
6.2

Nx
C
c0
2
O
O
-1 �
� C
O
N -0
Y
N
fO
a
c �
o �
E �
�
v �
Q
v 3
O
z a
.�
i
Ln
L
v
�
c
cr
L
� Q
�
c-I
a
f0 N
SX�
v
3
N a
°
U92
o
a N
�o o
v �
v g z
UO
N c v
3
o o
a a
i
i
i
O
O
O O O
cI
c-I
O
c-I
(laal aaenbs)
eaad -3as-X Iinguee
N
tND l-'I
O
Lfi
M �
X;.
O
II
dj
.
v
1
I
a
� H
�
Q �
M O
�
c-I �
N
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

•aUGZ�ONi�caC1
N
X00
III
mnmm
NQ1

§
/
)
o
\\\\\\
\

Bankfull VELOCITY/DISCHARGE Estimates
Site
Rolling Meadows: S100 X4
Location
35.915993'-80.304510'
Date
3/3/2022
1 Stream Type
F5
Valley Type
U-AL-FD
Observers
KMV
HUC (8-digit)
03040101
Input Variables
Output Variables
Bankfull Cross-section AREA
7.2
Abkf(sgft)
Bankfull Mean DEPTH
0.99
Dbkf (ft)
Bankfull Width
7.3
Wbkf (ft)
Wetted PERIMETER
(-2*Dbkf+Wbkf)
9.27
WPbkf (ft)
D84 @Riffle
2.0
Dia (mm)
D84 mm/304.8 =
0.007
D84 (ft)
Bankfull Slope
0.0122
S (ft/ft)
Hydraulic Radius
(Abkf/WPbkf)
0.78
R (ft)
Gravitational Acceleration
32.2
g (ft/sec2)
Relative Roughness
(R(ft)/D84(ft))
118.34
ft/ft
Drainage Area
0.19
DA (sq mi)
Shear Velocity
(u*=(g*R*S)05
0.55
u* (ft/sec)
ESTIMATION METHODS
Bankfull VELOCITY
Bankfull DISCHARGE
1. Friction Factor/Relative Roughness
8.04
ft/sec
57.91
CFS
u=[2.83+5.66*log{R/D84}]*u*
2. Roughness Coefficient: a) Manning's 'n' from friction
factor/relative roughness.
u=1.4895*R2i3*S'/2/n; n= (from tables 1 and 2)
input'n' below
4.63
ft/sec
33.36
CFS
0.03
2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R213*S'/2/n
b) Manning's 'n' from Jarrett (USGS): n=0.39*S0.38R-.16
n' calcuated
ft/sec
CFS
NOTE: This equation is for applications involving steep, step -pool, high
boundary roughness, cobble -boulder dominated stream systems; i.e., (Al,
A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C2, and E3)
2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R213*S'/2/n
c) Manning's 'n' from Stream Type (Table 3)
input'n' below
2.53
ft/sec
18.19
CFS
0.055
Chezy C, etc.)
ft/sec
CFS
3. Other Methods, i.e. Hydraulic Geometry (Hey, Darcy Weisbach,
Chezy C, etc.)
ft/sec
CFS
4. Continuity Equation: b) USGS Gage Data u=Q/A
1.5 yr Ri
5.55
ft/sec
39.99
CFS
4a. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
Rural =
3.94
ft/sec
28.33
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=
Urban =
18.19
ft/sec
131.00
CFS
4b. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
Rev Rural =
3.87
ft/sec
27.86
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=
Rev Urban =
14.82
ft/sec
106.69
CFS
4c. Continuity Equation: a) Walker Curves u=Q/A
Rural =
2.02
ft/sec
14.58
CFS

Bankfull VELOCITY/DISCHARGE Estimates
Site
Rolling Meadows: S101 X6
Location
35.913712'-80.304825'
Date
3/3/2022
1 Stream Type
F5
Valley Type
U-AL-FD
Observers
KMV
HUC (8-digit)
03040101
Input Variables
Output Variables
Bankfull Cross-section AREA
15.8
Abkf(sgft)
Bankfull Mean DEPTH
1.90
Dbkf (ft)
Bankfull Width
8.3
Wbkf (ft)
Wetted PERIMETER
(-2*Dbkf+Wbkf)
12.11
WPbkf (ft)
D84 @Riffle
2.0
Dia (mm)
D84 mm/304.8 =
0.007
D84 (ft)
Bankfull Slope
0.0136
S (ft/ft)
Hydraulic Radius
(Abkf/WPbkf)
1.31
R (ft)
Gravitational Acceleration
32.2
g (ft/sec2)
Relative Roughness
(R(ft)/D84(ft))
198.88
ft/ft
Drainage Area
0.10
DA (sq mi)
Shear Velocity
(u*=(g*R*S)05
0.76
u* (ft/sec)
ESTIMATION METHODS
Bankfull VELOCITY
Bankfull DISCHARGE
1. Friction Factor/Relative Roughness
11.97
ft/sec
189.20
CFS
u=[2.83+5.66*log{R/D84}]*u*
2. Roughness Coefficient: a) Manning's 'n' from friction
factor/relative roughness.
u=1.4895*R2i3*S'/2/n; n= (from tables 1 and 2)
input'n' below
6.29
ft/sec
99.32
CFS
0.033
2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R213*S'/2/n
b) Manning's 'n' from Jarrett (USGS): n=0.39*S0.38R-.16
n' calcuated
ft/sec
CFS
NOTE: This equation is for applications involving steep, step -pool, high
boundary roughness, cobble -boulder dominated stream systems; i.e., (Al,
A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C2, and E3)
2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R213*S'/2/n
c) Manning's 'n' from Stream Type (Table 3)
input'n' below
3.77
ft/sec
59.59
CFS
0.055
Chezy C, etc.)
ft/sec
CFS
3. Other Methods, i.e. Hydraulic Geometry (Hey, Darcy Weisbach,
Chezy C, etc.)
ft/sec
CFS
4. Continuity Equation: b) USGS Gage Data u=Q/A
1.5 yr Ri
1.66
ft/sec
26.23
CFS
4a. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
Rural =
1.13
ft/sec
17.89
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=
Urban =
5.70
ft/sec
90.11
CFS
4b. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
Rev Rural =
1.11
ft/sec
17.48
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=
Rev Urban =
4.47
ft/sec
70.55
CFS
4c. Continuity Equation: a) Walker Curves u=Q/A
Rural =
0.54
ft/sec
8.60
CFS

Bankfull VELOCITY/DISCHARGE Estimates
Site
Rolling Meadows: S300 X7
Location
35.911251 °-80.311506'
Date
3/3/2022
1 Stream Type
F5 (Ditched)
Valley Type
U-AL-FD
Observers
KMV
HUC (8-digit)
03040101
Input Variables
Output Variables
Bankfull Cross-section AREA
5.9
Abkf(sgft)
Bankfull Mean DEPTH
0.35
Dbkf (ft)
Bankfull Width
16.7
Wbkf (ft)
Wetted PERIMETER
(-2*Dbkf+Wbkf)
17.41
WPbkf (ft)
D84 @Riffle
2.0
Dia (mm)
D84 mm/304.8 =
0.007
D84 (ft)
Bankfull Slope
0.0310
S (ft/ft)
Hydraulic Radius
(Abkf/WPbkf)
0.34
R (ft)
Gravitational Acceleration
32.2
g (ft/sec2)
Relative Roughness
(R(ft)/D84(ft))
51.66
ft/ft
Drainage Area
0.14
DA (sq mi)
Shear Velocity
(u*=(g*R*S)05
0.58
u* (ft/sec)
ESTIMATION METHODS
Bankfull VELOCITY
Bankfull DISCHARGE
1. Friction Factor/Relative Roughness
7.29
ft/sec
42.99
CFS
u=[2.83+5.66*log{R/D84}]*u*
2. Roughness Coefficient: a) Manning's 'n' from friction
factor/relative roughness.
u=1.4895*R2i3*S'/2/n; n= (from tables 1 and 2)
input'n' below
3.86
ft/sec
22.79
CFS
0.033
2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R213*S'/2/n
b) Manning's 'n' from Jarrett (USGS): n=0.39*S0.38R-.16
n' calcuated
ft/sec
CFS
NOTE: This equation is for applications involving steep, step -pool, high
boundary roughness, cobble -boulder dominated stream systems; i.e., (Al,
A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C2, and E3)
2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R213*S'/2/n
c) Manning's 'n' from Stream Type (Table 3)
input'n' below
2.32
ft/sec
13.68
CFS
0.055
Chezy C, etc.)
ft/sec
CFS
3. Other Methods, i.e. Hydraulic Geometry (Hey, Darcy Weisbach,
Chezy C, etc.)
ft/sec
CFS
4. Continuity Equation: b) USGS Gage Data u=Q/A
1.5 yr Ri
5.63
ft/sec
33.24
CFS
4a. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
Rural =
3.92
ft/sec
23.14
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=
Urban =
18.83
ft/sec
111.07
CFS
4b. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
Rev Rural =
3.84
ft/sec
22.69
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=
Rev Urban =
15.07
ft/sec
88.90
CFS
4c. Continuity Equation: a) Walker Curves u=Q/A
Rural =
1.96
ft/sec
11.55
CFS

Bankfull VELOCITY/DISCHARGE Estimates
Site
Rolling Meadows: Reedy Creek (upper) X3
Location
35.913387'-80.303648'
Date
3/3/2022
Stream Type
E5 (Channelized)
Valley Type
U-AL-FD
Observers
KMV
HUC (8-digit)
03040101
Input Variables
Output Variables
Bankfull Cross-section AREA
120.5
Abkf(sq ft)
Bankfull Mean DEPTH
4.29
Dbkf (ft)
Bankfull Width
28.1
Wbkf (ft)
Wetted PERIMETER
(-2*Dbkf+Wbkf)
36.68
WPbkf (ft)
D84 @Riffle
1.5
Dia (mm)
D84 mm/304.8 =
0.005
D84 (ft)
Bankfull Slope
0.0035
S (ft/ft)
Hydraulic Radius
(Abkf/WPbkf)
3.29
R (ft)
Gravitational Acceleration
32.2
g (ft/sec)
Relative Roughness
(R(ft)/D84(ft))
667.61
ft/ft
Drainage Area
7.85
DA (sq mi)
Shear Velocity
(u*=(g*R*S)05
0.61
u* (ft/sec)
ESTIMATION METHODS
Bankfull VELOCITY
Bankfull DISCHARGE
1. Friction Factor/Relative Roughness
11.45
ft/sec
1379.73
CFS
u=[2.83+5.66*log{R/D84}]*u*
2. Roughness Coefficient: a) Manning's 'n' from friction
factor/relative roughness.
u=1.4895*R2i3*S' 2/nI n= (from tables 1 and 2)
input'n' below
5.56
ft/sec
670.49
CFS
0.035
2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R213*S'/2/n
b) Manning's 'n' from Jarrett (USGS): n=0.39*S0.38R-.16
n' calculated
ft/sec
CFS
NOTE: This equation is for applications involving steep, step -pool, high
boundary roughness, cobble -boulder dominated stream systems; i.e., (Al,
A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C2, and E3)
2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R213*S'/2/n
c) Manning's 'n' from Stream Type (Table 3)
input'n' below
3.89
ft/sec
469.34
CFS
0.05
Chezy C, etc.)
ft/sec
CFS
3. Other Methods, i.e. Hydraulic Geometry (Hey, Darcy Weisbach,
Chezy C, etc.)
ft/sec
CFS
4. Continuity Equation: b) USGS Gage Data u=Q/A
1.5 yr RI
4.03
ft/sec
485.40
CFS
4a. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
Rural =
3.22
ft/sec
387.61
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=
Urban =
9.15
ft/sec
1102.55
CFS
4b. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
Rev Rural =
3.28
ft/sec
395.68
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=
Rev Urban =
9.32
ft/sec
1123.63
CFS
4c. Continuity Equation: a) Walker Curves u=Q/A
Rural =
2.44
ft/sec
294.31
CFS

Bankfull VELOCITY/DISCHARGE Estimates
Site
Rolling Meadows: Reedy Creek (lower) X1
Location
35.910573'-80.314750'
Date
3/3/2022
Stream Type
E5 (Channelized)
Valley Type
U-AL-FD
Observers
KMV
HUC (8-digit)
03040101
Input Variables
Output Variables
Bankfull Cross-section AREA
101.4
Abkf(sq ft)
Bankfull Mean DEPTH
4.65
Dbkf (ft)
Bankfull Width
21.8
Wbkf (ft)
Wetted PERIMETER
(-2*Dbkf+Wbkf)
31.10
WPbkf (ft)
D84 @Riffle
1.3
Dia (mm)
D84 mm/304.8 =
0.004
D84 (ft)
Bankfull Slope
0.0031
S (ft/ft)
Hydraulic Radius
(Abkf/WPbkf)
3.26
R (ft)
Gravitational Acceleration
32.2
g (ft/sec)
Relative Roughness
(R(ft)/D84(ft))
764.38
ft/ft
Drainage Area
8.60
DA (sq mi)
Shear Velocity
(u*=(g*R*S)05
0.57
u* (ft/sec)
ESTIMATION METHODS
Bankfull VELOCITY
Bankfull DISCHARGE
1. Friction Factor/Relative Roughness
10.92
ft/sec
1107.71
CFS
u=[2.83+5.66*log{R/D84}]*u*
2. Roughness Coefficient: a) Manning's 'n' from friction
factor/relative roughness.
u=1.4895*R2i3*S' 2/nI n= (from tables 1 and 2)
input'n' below
4.80
ft/sec
486.56
CFS
0.038
2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R213*S'/2/n
b) Manning's 'n' from Jarrett (USGS): n=0.39*S0.38R-.16
n' calculated
ft/sec
CFS
NOTE: This equation is for applications involving steep, step -pool, high
boundary roughness, cobble -boulder dominated stream systems; i.e., (Al,
A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C2, and E3)
2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R213*S'/2/n
c) Manning's 'n' from Stream Type (Table 3)
input'n' below
3.65
ft/sec
369.78
CFS
0.05
Chezy C, etc.)
ft/sec
CFS
3. Other Methods, i.e. Hydraulic Geometry (Hey, Darcy Weisbach,
Chezy C, etc.)
ft/sec
CFS
4. Continuity Equation: b) USGS Gage Data u=Q/A
1.5 yr RI
4.79
ft/sec
485.40
CFS
4a. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
Rural =
4.07
ft/sec
413.18
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=
Urban =
11.45
ft/sec
1161.41
CFS
4b. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
Rev Rural =
4.16
ft/sec
422.17
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=
Rev Urban =
11.74
ft/sec
1190.12
CFS
4c. Continuity Equation: a) Walker Curves u=Q/A
Rural =
3.12
ft/sec
316.72
CFS

It
X
O
O
O
cu
N
O)
C
O
O T
o
CT
c
O c6
Q N
L Q
U �
o�
VJ
Cl)
Cl)
Cl)
Cl)
cM
Cl)
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
N
N
N
.n
�
�
vi
vi
vi
vi
vi
vi
E
E
E
E
E
E
N
N
N
co
co
co
co
co
cu
(6
L
CO
L
CO
L
N
N
N
N
N
N
0)
U)
U)
0
0
0
0
0
w
O
O
O
T
0
0
0
0
0
(D
N
N
N
N
N
N
U)
U)
U)
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
7
fn
fn
fn
fn
fn
fn
N
N
N
N
N
N
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
L
L
L
L
L
L
Z
Z
Z
cB
co
co
co
co
ca
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
.0
-
0)
d
M
L
M
L
M
L
O
}I
Z
N
N
N
W
L-
CO
0)T
0')COCO
N
N
O�
0')M
Il-
6
O
In
00
t
6M6
(6
Ul
N
M
Cl)
00
T
T
r
3
Y
cu
d
a
CE
O
N
LO
O
In
C
C)
N
L
T
N
L
C
T
T
C
W
w
0
0
ti
rn
N
>�
L
X
�
O')
O
L
�
N
n
W
C
N
W
}1
}A
vI
L
i
V
N
a
O O
O O
O
O
(sIO)
06ae4osia

O
X
O
U)
O
M
N
O
O
� o
O (B
= N
L
U
U�
(3)M
o�
M
VJ cl
M
M
M
M
M
M
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
2
2
2
2
2
2
N
N
N
vS
vS
(
(6
v)-
v)-
E
E
E
E
E
E
N
N(I)
L
L
N
L
N
L
N
L
N
L
N
L
N
L
N
L
O
O
O
O
O
O
E
E
E
E
E
E
O
O
O
—
—
—
—
71
r
-
r
-
r
-
-
r
-
r
-
���
0
0
0
0
0
0
g
E
E
E
C
U)
U)(
O
O
O
O
O
,O
L
L
L
L
L
L
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
L
L
L
L
L
L
Z
Z
Z
(5
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
O
.
OO
.0—
O
O
O
L
L
L
L
L
L
ch
C
co
co
co
co
co
�l
L
L
L
X
X
X
U)Z
N
N
N
d
i31
L
fl-
(O
M
N
M�
M
LO'T
N
NM
0)
0
0
U
f—
—
(O
N
N
(O
(0
O
CO
(n
—
N
N
M
In
(O
M
O
0
Y
d
IL
y
O
NLO
N
LO
O
N
O
L
O
0
0
ti
Lq
r`
X
=
C
M
L
N
N
`v
Ri
=
N
W
}�
0
0
t
ci
B
a
O 0
O
00
(sic))
a6as4csia

rl-
O
O
Cl)
U)
O
c6
N
O7
C
O T
o
CT
c
O c6
Q N
L Q
U
o�
VJ
Cl)
Cl)
Cl)
Cl)
cM
Cl)
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
N
N
N
.n
�
�
vi
vi
vi
vi
vi
vi
E
E
E
E
E
E
N
N
N
co
co
co
co
co
ca
(6
L
CO
L
CO
L
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
T
0
0
0
0
0
(D
N
N
N
N
N
N
U)
U)
U)
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
7
fn
fn
fn
fn
fn
fn
N
N
N
N
N
N
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
L
L
L
L
L
L
Z
Z
Z
cB
co
co
co
co
ca
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
.0-
m
}I
L
L
L
n
0
Z
N
0)
N
u
d
0)
LO
LO�
O
Cl)
N
_
lLa
Il-
N
�
LO
N
Cl)
OD
OA
c
V
O
M
00
00
M
Ul
N
N
Cl)
CO
00
T
T
T
Y
cu
d
a
CE
O
N
LO
O
In
C
C)
N
L
T
N
L
C
T
T
C
W
w
0
0
LO
N
>�
L
X
�
++
O
O
_
L
°'
N
N
W
N
W
}1
}A
vI
L
i
V
N
a
O O
O O
O
O
(sIO)
06ae4osia

�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
LO
LO
LO
m
LO
LO
LO
LO
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
co
co
co
co
co
co
co
co
N
N
N
cO
cO
cO
cO
cO
cO
cO
c0
-0-0-0
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
m
m
m
c
c
c
O
O
O
��
��
��
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
7
7
7
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
CD
m
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
on
on
w
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
c
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
c
cO
cO
ca
.O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
yn
n
n
n
n
V
V
V
O
X
X
X
Cf)
C/)
C/)
C/)
C/)
CO
CO
CO
Z
N
N
NDIDIDIDIDID
DID
N
V
d
L-
LO
CO
0
0
CO
CO
1-
CO
0
L
O
M
O
LO
0
0
Q
C)
O
O
N
O
r-
r—
r—
M
0
0
N
(O
O
LO
Y
R
d
a
�a
0
O
NLO
O
LO
0
O
O
O
a+
N
M
N
0
0
0
N
LO
C
O
O
0
L
�.+
i
L
O
Cq
O
O
as
+
x
_
c
N
i
MCIO
11
i
N
W
�
L
t
c.>
0
a
O O
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
(sj3)
eBjeyc)sia

L
O
CD
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
LO
LO
LO
m
LO
LO
LO
LO
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
co
co
co
co
co
co
co
co
N
N
N
cO
cO
cO
cO
cO
cO
cO
c0
-0-0-0
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
m
m
m
c
c
c
O
O
O
��
��
��
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
7
7
7
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
CD
m
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
on
on
w
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
-0-0�
c
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
O
i0
O
i0
O.O
is
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
X
X
X
co
Co
Co
Co
Co
CO
CO
CO
Z
N
N
WIDIDID
DIDIDIDID
N
V
d
R
N
CO
It
LO
O
m
N
w
w
It
It
L
(O
li
L6
O
r
O
M
LO
It
O
u
(.0
(O
00
(h
O
I-
O
00
(.0
LO
N_
N
CO
'T
(O
LO
0')r—
It
r-
N
N
('')
m
Y
R
d
a
�a
0
O
NLO
O
LO
0
O
O
O
a+
N
M
N
0
0
0
N
LO
C
0
0
0
L
�
N
i
L
(�O
N
O
O
as
+
x
_
L
N
i
oLO
�
I I
7i
i
N
�
^W
W
O +�+
�
L
t
c.>
0
a
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
o
(sic))
eBjeyc)sia

W
U
Do
LO 0
00
LO
W
N 04
N
O
y
(
00
O
O
O
O_
CO
O
O
Cl)
LO
N
O
CO
N
O
W
0000
h
M
0000
O 00
O
LO
V
LO.
U
000
000
(D
p
LO
N�
O
M
0
O0
O0
�
N
y
O
0
0
0
O
O
M
0
0
0
�,.�
V
N
O
to
C:)
p
W
O
>
M
0�
d
U
OO
N
CO
0
M
LO
O
00
O
O
J
O
O
W_
2
CO
W
U
O
LO
O
LO
X
Z
O
LO
O
O
o
O
O
O
Vl
LU
N
O
0
O
C
U)
O
O
p
V
V
co
O
O
LO
'a
N
D
LO
M
LO
O
O
O
O
N
p
p
O
N
O
N
M
f�
I--
O
N
LO
N
O
p
p0')
N
M
O
0
M
M
N
N
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r-
0
O
0
0
N
�
W
c
>
y
�
X
W
U
o
00
r
o
CO
6
O
O
M
J
O
O
W
2
co
�
II
rn
M
�p
r
�
�
co
N
k-
�
O
M
nj
r
o
�
�
N
O
M
O
II
L
(n
nj
LO
O
*O
�n
co
(n
*
II
E
E
0
N
Co
v
X
N
(D
's
E
II
E a
V
E
n
o
m
0 0
CNO
_
*
mil-
0
O V
N
LO
N
N
E
N
U
U
tom. o
n C
N o�
to
>�
E
0
0
I^
N p
O
c
-
E
�--•
`m
m
N
N
N
�,
o 04
E 0
o.
t_
Q
Q
a
as
r/1
E
E
O
o
'6
(/j
'6
'6
N
l0
N
0
'
(D
II
to
"
II
0>
(n
N
00
LO
,�
N
N
E
C
N
N
Y)
4:
+
a
Q
CO
(6
Q
E
CO
M_
m
m
m
O
*
Co
a
0
(n
(n
N
•'
E ^
E U
•O iT
a
II
(6
E
N>
O
LO
'6
LO
*
LO
N
U
N
U>
a
N
_
N
i
E
E
O m
O
R
a
Q
d
N
E
Lp
v
M
O*
*
*
N
L5
LO
v)
N o_
s N
>a
j
0
*_
o
fn
�
>>
N
O
N
O
M
0
N
N
��.•
N
W
(n
(n t
-moo
0
Q
j
0
7
y
E
DLO
-6
00
0
p
II
=
rn
C
O V
O
N
N
U
N
E
O
N
O
II
?
>
`°
O
II
II
M
.U.
�,
II
O
N
c6
N
,...
UO
O
a
U
N 4
N n
!Z N
C
N
N
m
�
Q
w
Lo
II
M
M
cM
II
M
O
O
N
E
c
CO -
E t
0 CD
N
(n
x>
>�
M_
E
E>
v
Q
II
-_moo
N
d
'>
Q
-6
-6
LO
_6
_6
M
.°
N
N CO
N
t
C
w
w
w
LL
-O
`�
M
N
N
N
N
w
(�
C
O
U a1
f�
-6
U N
L
U cn
V
L6
N
y
C
y,
C
-k
C
'6
L
C
7
n
O
a
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
y.
C
•.•
G!
II
(D
>
-O r
'O N
-6 n
d'
0
m
m
m
2
(n
m
a
-0
0
0
cL
U'
-U
C
C
(n
(n
J
J
oD
D
0
t-
d
d (n
d II

W
U
Oo
LO o
LO
o
[I-
W
N
N
O
y
(
O
O
O
O
CO
O
OM
V
M
M
p
C)
p
C0
V
O
M
W
LO
LO
O
O
LO
N
LO
U
LOO
LO
p
LO
O
V
6)
N
6)
000
M
'O
(M
O
O
r
O
C)
O
O
M
O
O
O
1-
N
N
N
O
O
C)
p
p
O
M
W
O
>
a
Q�
a
U
Oo
N
LO
o
CO
0
N
LO
O
r-
N
O
J
O
O
W_
2
co
W
U
O
LO
CD
X
Z
(V
O
O
_
CD
O
CD
O
Vl
(D LLI
N
O
O
O
C
CO
O
O
w'
O
OD
M
00
O
O
C)
O
00
M
O
O
Zo
6)
M
00
LO
co
00
O
(O
O
O
0
0
0
f�
00
M
r-
r-
O—
'It
(O
LO
O
O
O
N
V
M
V
c)
M
M
O
N
0
O'T
M
O
O
4
O
0
0
O
co
O
r
CD0
0
0
�
W
c
>
y
�
X
W
U
o
00
CD
v
O
O
J
CDp
O
W
2
co
�
II
rn
M
�p
r
�
�
k-
O
M
(y
r
o
�
�
(V
O
M
o
II
L
CO
nj
LO
O
*
O
�n
CO
CO
*
II
E
E
Q0
N
Co
X
's
E
II
V
E
n
o
m
0 0
CNO
_
*
mil-
0
O V
N
LO
CD
N
N
E
N
O
U
tom. o
n C
N o�
.T
>
_
N
v N
> o
.�
-
E
`m
N
N
�,
o
f
t_
Q
Q
a
as>
r/1
E
E
O
o
'O
(/j
'6
'6
N
LO
N
0
'
II
y
N"
II
.--.
0>
N
,-
(n
N
>
00
p
LO
-p
>
'6
,�
a
N
L
N
L
E
C
Q
CO
N
O
O L
C
N
4:
+
a
(6
n
E
00
M_
m
m
O
*
LO
a
o
0
(n
(n
N
•_
E
E CO
o rn
U
,-
a
II
II
(6
E
N>
O
LO
'6
LO
-
*
LO
((
U
U>
a,
_
N
i
E
E
O m
O
a
Q
0
d
N
E
(p
v
M
LpO
-O
*
*
*
N
Lo
IP'E'E
`°
N
s N
>
j
O
V
01)
m
O—
*_
(V
(D
N
N
o
CL �_
U
(D
>>
N
O
N
O
M
0
N
N
��.•
N
N
tl)
(n t
-"o
( 0
Q
j
7
y
O
E
Lo
0
C)
II
=
0
U
t
N
N
O
N
E
N
N
O
II
?
>
`°
O
II
II
M
.0.
II
c6
N
N
,...
OO
O
a
U
N 4
N n
!Z N
C
N
N
•�
m
Q
w
LO
II
M
M
M
II
M
O
O
N
E
c
(n
E t
tl)
Ui
X>
>�
E
E>
v
Q
II
a
,0
'>
_6
_6
.°
N
�
N
N
t
C
w
w
w
-O
M
N
N
N
N
w
(n
C
O
U f�
U N
L
U cn
V
L6
N
Y
C
Y
C
Y
C>
C
n
a
0
0
O
N
y.
C
•.•
N
II
>
>
-6
-6 N
-n
6LO
O
m
m
m>
2
(n
coo'6
LO
'6
0
0
0
0
(n
(n
J
J
m
i
k-
d
IE
d (n
d II

W
U
o
r`
Z
C)
f�
N
O
y
�
LU
LO
O
O
O
CO
O
O
C)
C)
O
N
O
N
Cfl
p
CO
N
O
W
W
N
O
00
N
LO
m
O
00
LO
O
m
N
00
O
U
co
O
O
N
O
LO
N
O—'T
L6
O
h
M
N
N
O
V
00
Cfl
'a
C:)
C')
N
00
N
O
O
O
O
7
O
N
LO
O
O
1
N
00
�
N
y
O
O
O
C)
C)
N
W
C)to
O
M
>
0�
d
U
N
M
V
C)
a1
LO
O
N
LO
C)0
C)
J
O
O
W_
2
co
W
U
O
O
LO
LO
co
O
O
m
i<
Z
W
Ln
p
O
O
O
p
O
0
CO
y
C
CO
O
O
a
Cfl
OM
00
(D
M
00
M
O
00
CO
�
C)
O
M
O
00
N
C
N
Cfl
O
O
CCD)
r
O
N
LO
6)
O
O
O
L.
co
LO
O
V
N
M
M
M
O
O
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
CD
IR
O
0
0
LU
c
>
y
�
j
Ci
o
00
Ito
CO
v
o
No
0
J
o
0
W
2
(n
�
M
II
�p
rn
r
�
�
k-
O
M
nj
r
o
It
�
N
M
II
L
nj
LO
*
OIn
O
�n
CO
CO
*
II
E
E
0
N
Co
X
V
E
s
n
o
m
0 0
coN
M
_
LO
o
N
E
N
O
U
tom.
Q C
N m
'W
>
.�
N
N
> o
C
Q
v
a
as
k-
N
E
E
`m
4
L
NIn
'6
N
'6
N
Ln
>.
0
N i-
Q
N
II
0
>
r/1
In
E
N
_
00
O
LO
'O
'6
m
CO
(/j
a
N
t
N
-
E
l0
a
N
>
>
N
N"
.--.
w
04
a
>
N
O
a0
m
*
a
0
(n
(n
Q
(n
._
O
II
L
O
•� N
>t
E CO
0 In
CL
U
w
0
II
II
N
ram/)
>
O
C)
CD
*
'*6
LO
U
U
>
i
�
� It
� �
Y
l0
Q
-
d
N
Lp
v
M
'6
*
*
N
LO
N
U
(1) a
t N
N
N
>o
j
O
C:)
*
)
Cfl
*_
M
LD
N
i
N
t o
Y
U
>>
N
O
N
C)
M
00
0
N
N
—
N
G)
tl)
CO
-"o
0
NQ
O
66
.
O
U
UO
V
ON
.aN
OLN
E
N
N
°C:)
II
O
Oa
NN
0
In
>
N
4Ow
LO
I I
M
_II
O
O
�
(n
�
tla j
.0
x
>
'>
-a
-a
LO
f�
M
�_
�_
M
>
N
�
II
-_moo
t
a
w
w
w-a
-O
_6
_6
co
N
N
w
a
O
U
-6
U N
L
U
V
L6
N
y
C
y,
C
y.
C>
LL
'O
L
C
7
n
O
a
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
`�
N
N
y.
(�
...
G)
II
LD
>
f�
'6 f�
'6 N
cn
-6 n
L
O
10110110
>
2
(n
m
'O
'O
0
0
�
0
0
CO
(n
J
J
m
k-
d
d (n
d 11

W
U
0
o
LO
00
N
N
O
N
W
Ur
O
O
O
CO
O
0
O
O
V
S
O
CO
N
O
W
0�0
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
LO
N
p
O
V
.a
N
00
M
M
N
M
N
O
O
O
O
O
M
CO
O
O
00
V
00
V
N
N
to
O
O
O
O
O
W
O
O
M
>
0�
d
C�
C)
N
v
v
CO 0
Lri
LO 1p
O
O
J
O
O
W_
2
CO
W
U
O
O
LO
LO
co
O
O
X
Z
W
6
O
O
O
O
O
CO
o
o
y
C
CO
O
o
a+
'a
O
O
,TT
00
CO
N
M
CO
M
CO
LO
V
f�
O
00
CO
O
(0
O
00
p
N
CO
O
O
CD
r
0,
O
N
LO
M
O
O
O
O
f�
(D
0
N
N
M
O
O
O�
COO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
c0
M
10
0
0
O
W
c
>
y
�
j
Ci
o
cov
o
�
r
O
NC)
O
J
�
O
O
W
2
(n
�
M
II
�p
rn
r
�
�
k-
O
M
nj
r
o
�
�
N
M
II
L
�n
CO
CO
*
II
E
E
Q0
N
Co
X
's
V
E
E
II
s
n
o
m
0 0
coN
_
*
mil-
O V
N
Lq
E
N
U
U
'W
>
.�
N
a)
> o
Q
a
as
-
E
E
`m
o
N
Ln
m
o �
E
t_
Q
r/1
E
O
(/j
z—
l0
N
d
N"
a
N
00
a
(n
(n
a)
w+
E
M_Lo
O
0
_Em
I_I
En
�
N>
O
Lo
LO
N
U
N
U
E
E
E
o
F0a)
O?
d
E
a
r
N
sO
O
*_
o
Y
fn
>>
O
M
0
"
a)
a)
—
()
a)
tl)
CO t
�
N
Q
E
>
O
II
O
N
OZ V
L>
?m
)
a)
Oa
NC n
N
Na�E
a)
UON
QOL
w
LOO
I I
cj
f`
M_
I I
M
O
O
a)
E
C
(D
(n
E
0 CD
.�
U
�'
'>
Q
-6
-6
S)
f�
M
�_
�_
M
E
E
>
N
.0
c
N II
-_moo
i
w
w
w
-O
_6
_6
�M..
M
ul
ul
w
O
U
U ul
L
V
L6
a)
1'
C
1'
C
y.
C>
(L
'O
L
C
7
n
O
a
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
`�
a)
a)
1'
(n
...
a)
II
(D
>
"-
'6
O
m
m
m>
2
W
m
'O
'6
0
0
C
C
(n
(n
J
J
m
S
6
k-
d �
d U)
d II

20
18
16
14
12
0 10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008
Slope (ft/ft)
12.000
N
< 10.000
E
8.000
`m
p 6.000
a
E
4.000
G!
N 2.000
0.000
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008
Slope (ft/ft)
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008
Slope (ft/ft)

�
W
W
2
U)
�
�
r)
$
CO
_-)
2
/
3
\
\
w
\
/
_
a
\\
41~
\
/
±
±
±
±
±
z
z
z
z
az
m t\ \
CD CD
n
O
O
O
O
Oa)
oao @%g-0o
§
QOQOO
/§§%
J
e
e
e
e
e
\\\\\
O Q
e
e
e
e
e
O
O
O
010
� ..
> /
\ / \ }
11
E $ .: '� .. = a u
o o
/ƒ
o
e
e
o
E<[\\ 3: 2 2 2
G'c-c-
=
j
#
e
R
R
\
a
&
o= a =.G
§E
_
$%QS
=E0
\g
?2E //
®§$
®®
c
o//R°°
oEL 00 000
§G
4=
a
9
7
g
$
w
e�
\
0)
�
/
�
3
m
-C
/
\ \
q q
ƒ�
/ _
/
/
/
/
/
/® ®
®
_
_
$
u
=
0
\
(
\
\
\
�
$
® ^
\
\
/
�
\
73 u
§
\
\
CD
0
0
/
\
}
m-
CD
0
0
0
CD
/
„/
w
w
w
w
a
/
n
E\
/
k
/
\
\
E
E
E
\
/
/
,
2 j
+
a
&
&
&
n
0
L
/
2
y �
O
o
o
0
0
0
o
Z
.: o 0
2
o
0
0
0
o
e
> &
w
w
w
w
4
£
\ % I
m
o
e
e
e
e
e
m
o
0
0
0
0
-
1
/
\
7
}/_/
a
o
0
0
0
c
a %
I=
2
444t
a
c't
g
9
5
® ±/
\
o
c
/
g
\
=
n
o
o
a
\ m
r
§ems
±
0
\
j /
}
_
a
n
4
CN
9
9
9
9
9
\
0/ \
a\
0=
o
0
0
0
0
=
± LU
k
@
_
\ \ >
)
{
# e
z
_
e
q
U
7
\
CCD CCD \/ m\\
2<&/
+o 22.R\
9
\o oZE%
2
~0-
/
CO
0
§ ±
m
o
n
o
..
//
§ §
\ w
a
n
.0
->2
f=
2EG
4 j o m
k§0 LL
] .o
\) \ f
/
k 0
\
_ _C 00
k
u = o o
/ \ / \ /
m
\
} { \ \
§�
7
7
7
7
IC
7
\ . .
< _ _ = e = _ _ =
Z a
E

00000l\
{{{{{{{
}}}}}\\
\\\\\\\
VvvvvtE
fj\\\j\/200000006
\
<<000
:
__---\\rr!!!kk
a;
:
2;2§§
!;
{{\\\kk\
_
------.
}}}}}}\
\\\\\\\
�))
\44
}}}}}}}
\\;;;\(
-------
`)(!)
444
§§§§§§§
\))/\/§
§(2§}\[

Culvert Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.
Existing 24in RCP S100
Invert Elev Dn (ft)
= 720.20
Calculations
Pipe Length (ft)
= 64.10
Qmin (cfs)
Slope (%)
= 1.75
Qmax (cfs)
Invert Elev Up (ft)
= 721.32
Tailwater Elev (ft)
Rise (in)
= 24.0
Shape
= Circular
Highlighted
Span (in)
= 24.0
Qtotal (cfs)
No. Barrels
= 1
Qpipe (cfs)
n-Value
= 0.012
Qovertop (cfs)
Culvert Type
= Circular Concrete
Veloc Dn (ft/s)
Culvert Entrance
= Groove end projecting (C)
Veloc Up (ft/s)
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k
= 0.0045, 2, 0.0317, 0.69, 0.2
HGL Dn (ft)
HGL Up (ft)
Embankment
Hw Elev (ft)
Top Elevation (ft)
= 730.55
Hw/D (ft)
Top Width (ft)
= 20.00
Flow Regime
Crest Width (ft)
= 100.00
B-(,)
rw
730,00
r m
726 00
724.00
MW
720.W
713 00
Existing 24in RCP 57QQ
Monday, Apr 25 2022
= 92.10
= 164.00
= (dc+D)/2
= 92.10
= 50.32
= 41.78
= 16.03
= 16.02
= 722.19
= 724.82
= 730.82
= 4.75
= Inlet Control
r D.pm (f)
GlrwlarW-1 HGL Embank
R.(R)

S100
Region ID: NC
Workspace ID: NC20220228214451086000
Clicked Point (Latitude, Longitude): 35.91334,-80.30447
Time: 2022-02-28 16:45:10 -0500
'+ 1'01411tz Ln
I
I I
Basin Characteristics
Parameter
Code Parameter Description Value Unit
DRNAREA Area that drains to a point on a stream 0.19 square
miles
PCTREG1
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 1
- Piedmont
100
percent
/ Ridge and Valley
PCTREG2
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 2
- Blue
0
percent
Ridge
PCTREG3
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 3
- Sandhills
0
percent
PCTREG4
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 4
- Coastal
0
percent
Plains

Parameter
Code
Parameter Description
Value
Unit
PCTREG5
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 5 - Lower
0
percent
Tifton Uplands
LC061MP
Percentage of impervious area determined from NLCD 2006
0.47
percent
impervious dataset
BASINPERIM
Perimeter of the drainage basin as defined in SIR 2004-
2.5
miles
5262
BSLDEM30FT
Mean basin slope, based on slope percent grid
8.44
percent
CSL10_85fm
Change in elevation between points 10 and 85 percent of
121.91
feet
length along main channel to basin divide divided by length
per mi
between points ft per mi
ELEV
Mean Basin Elevation
770
feet
ELEVMAX
Maximum basin elevation
821
feet
124H50Y
Maximum 24-hour precipitation that occurs on average
6.44
inches
once in 50 years
LC01 BARE
Percentage of area barren land, NLCD 2001 category 31
0
percent
LC01 CRPHAY
Percentage of cultivated crops and hay, classes 81 and 82,
40.2
percent
from NLCD 2001
LC01 DEV
Percentage of land -use from NLCD 2001 classes 21-24
2.7
percent
LC01 FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 2001 classes 41-43
33.7
percent
LC01 HERB
Percentage of herbaceous upland from NLCD 2001 class 71
22.1
percent
LC011MP
Percent imperviousness of basin area 2001 NLCD
0.47
percent
LC01 SHRUB
Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2001 NLCD
1.2
percent
LC01 WATER
Percentage of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2001
0
percent
LC01 WETLND
Percentage of wetlands, classes 90 and 95, from NLCD
0
percent
2001
LC06BARE
Percent of area covered by barren rock using 2006 NLCD
0
percent
LC06DEV
Percentage of land -use from NLCD 2006 classes 21-24
2.7
percent
LC06FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 2006 classes 41-43
35.6
percent
LC06GRASS
Percent of area covered by grassland/herbaceous using
20.3
percent
2006 NLCD
LC06PLANT
Percent of area in cultivation using 2006 NLCD
40.2
percent
LC06SHRUB
Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2006 NLCD
1.2
percent
LC06WATER
Percent of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2006
0
percent

Parameter
Code
Parameter Description
Value
Unit
LC06WETLND
Percent of area covered by wetland using 2006 NLCD
0
percent
LC11 BARE
Percentage of barren from NLCD 2011 class 31
0
percent
LC11 CRPHAY
Percentage of cultivated crops and hay, classes 81 and 82,
40.2
percent
from NLCD 2011
LC11 DEV
Percentage of developed (urban) land from NLCD 2011
2.7
percent
classes 21-24
LC11 FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 2011 classes 41-43
28.8
percent
LC11 GRASS
Percent of area covered by grassland/herbaceous using
27
percent
2011 NLCD
LC111MP
Average percentage of impervious area determined from
0.5
percent
NLCD 2011 impervious dataset
LC11 SHRUB
Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2011 NLCD
1.2
percent
LC11 WATER
Percent of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2011
0
percent
LC11 WETLND
Percentage of wetlands, classes 90 and 95, from NLCD
0
percent
2011
LC92FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 1992 classes 41-43
35.1
percent
LFPLENGTH
Length of longest flow path
0.885
miles
LU92BARE
Percent of area covered by barren rock using 1992 NLCD
0
percent
LU92DEV
Percent of area covered by all densities of developed land
0
percent
using 1992 NLCD
LU92PLANT
Percent of area in cultivation using 1992 NLCD
64.9
percent
LU92WATER
Percent of area covered by water using 1992 NLCD
0
percent
LU92WETLN
Percent of area covered by wetland using 1992 NLCD
0
percent
MINBELEV
Minimum basin elevation
703
feet
OUTLETELEV
Elevation of the stream outlet in feet above NAVD88
706
feet
PRECIP
Mean Annual Precipitation
44.8
inches
PROTECTED
Percent of area of protected Federal and State owned land
0
percent
SSURGOA
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type A from SSURGO
0
percent
SSURGOB
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type B from SSURGO
88.2
percent
SSURGOC
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type C from SSURGO
11.4
percent
SSURGOD
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type D from SSURGO
0
percent

Peak -Flow Statistics Parameters [Region 1 Piedmont rural under 1 sgmi 2014 50301
Parameter Code
Parameter Name
Value
Units
Min Limit
Max Limit
DRNAREA
Drainage Area
0.19
square miles
0.1
1
LC061MP
Percent Impervious NLCD2006
0.47
percent
0
47.9
Peak -Flow Statistics Flow Report [Region 1 Piedmont rural under 1 sgmi 2014 50301
PII: Prediction Interval -Lower, Plu: Prediction Interval -Upper, ASEp: Average Standard Error of
Prediction, SE: Standard Error (other -- see report)
Statistic
Value
Unit
PII
Plu
ASEp
50-percent AEP flood
51
ft"3/s
27.1
95.8
31.9
20-percent AEP flood
84.7
ft"3/s
50.8
141
25.4
10-percent AEP flood
110
ft^3/s
67.2
180
25
4-percent AEP flood
144
ft"3/s
83.9
247
27
2-percent AEP flood
171
ft"3/s
95.4
306
29.3
1-percent AEP flood
199
ft^3/s
105
378
32.1
0.5-percent AEP flood
227
ft^3/s
113
455
35.1
0.2-percent AEP flood
270
ft"3/s
130
562
37.5
Peak -Flow Statistics Citations
Feaster, T.D., Gotvald, A.J., and Weaver, J.C.,2014, Methods for estimating the magnitude
and frequency of floods for urban and small, rural streams in Georgia, South Carolina, and
North Carolina, 2011 (ver. 1.1, March 2014): U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2014-5030, 104 p. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2014/5030/)
Bank -full Statistics Parameters [Appalachian Highlands D Bieger 20151
Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit
DRNAREA Drainage Area 0.19 square miles 0.07722 940.1535
Bank -full Statistics Parameters [Piedmont P Bieger 20151
Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit
DRNAREA Drainage Area 0.19 square miles 0.289575 939.99906

Bank -full Statistics Parameters [USA Bieger 2015]
Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit
DRNAREA Drainage Area 0.19 square miles 0.07722 59927.7393
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [Appalachian Highlands D Bieger 20151
Statistic Value Unit
Bieger_D_channel_width 7.63 ft
Bieger_D_channel_depth 0.696 ft
Bieger_D_channel_cross_sectional_area 5.36 ft^2
Bank -full Statistics Disclaimers [Piedmont P Bieger 20151
One or more of the parameters is outside the suggested range. Estimates were extrapolated with
unknown errors
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [Piedmont P Bieger 20151
Statistic Value Unit
Bieger_P_channel_width 6.97 ft
Bieger_P_channel_depth 0.685 ft
Bieger_P_channel_cross_sectional_area 4.49 ft^2
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [USA Bieger 2015]
Statistic Value Unit
Bieger_USA_channel_width 6.9 ft
Bieger_USA_channel_depth 0.846 ft
Bieger_USA_channel_cross_section aLarea 6.97 ft"2
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [Area -Averaged]
Statistic Value Unit
Bieger_D_channel_width 7.63 ft
Bieger_D_channel_depth 0.696 ft
Bieger_D_channel_cross_sectional_area 5.36 ft"2

Statistic
Value
Unit
Bieger_P_channel_width
6.97
ft
Bieger_P_channel_depth
0.685
ft
Bieger_P_channel_cross_sectional_area
4.49
ft"2
Bieger_USA_channel_width
6.9
ft
Bieger_USA_channel_depth
0.846
ft
Bieger_USA_channel_cross_sect
ion al_area
6.97
ft"2
Bankfull Statistics Citations
Bieger, Katrin; Rathjens, Hendrik; Allen, Peter M.; and Arnold, Jeffrey G.,2015,
Development and Evaluation of Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for the
Physiographic Regions of the United States, Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty,
17p. (https:Hdigitalcommons.uni.edu/usdaarsfacpub/1515?
utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fusdaarsfacpub%2F1515&utm_medium=PDF&utm_can
USGS Data Disclaimer: Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality
standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have
been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty
expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes, nor on all computer systems,
nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty.
USGS Software Disclaimer: This software has been approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Although the
software has been subjected to rigorous review, the USGS reserves the right to update the software as needed pursuant to
further analysis and review. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the USGS or the U.S. Government as to the
functionality of the software and related material nor shall the fact of release constitute any such warranty. Furthermore,
the software is released on condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages
resulting from its authorized or unauthorized use.
USGS Product Names Disclaimer: Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not
imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Application Version: 4.7.0
StreamStats Services Version: 1.2.22
NSS Services Version: 2.1.2

S101
Region ID: NC
Workspace ID: NC20220228222212822000
Clicked Point (Latitude, Longitude): 35.91333,-80.30480
Time: 2022-02-28 17:22:32 -0500
I
F� 'Q0
creek Rd
I
�I
5ttady Ha[n9s
Basin Characteristics
Parameter
Ken4lebEO06
R
Code
Parameter Description
Value
Unit
DRNAREA
Area that drains to a point on a stream
0.0967
square
miles
PCTREG1
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 1
- Piedmont
100
percent
/ Ridge and Valley
PCTREG2
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 2
- Blue
0
percent
Ridge
PCTREG3
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 3
- Sandhills
0
percent
PCTREG4
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 4
- Coastal
0
percent
Plains

Parameter
Code
Parameter Description
Value
Unit
PCTREG5
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 5 - Lower
0
percent
Tifton Uplands
LC061MP
Percentage of impervious area determined from NLCD 2006
0.05
percent
impervious dataset
BASINPERIM
Perimeter of the drainage basin as defined in SIR 2004-
2.01
miles
5262
BSLDEM30FT
Mean basin slope, based on slope percent grid
7.18
percent
CSL10_85fm
Change in elevation between points 10 and 85 percent of
125.48
feet
length along main channel to basin divide divided by length
per mi
between points ft per mi
ELEV
Mean Basin Elevation
764
feet
ELEVMAX
Maximum basin elevation
822
feet
124H50Y
Maximum 24-hour precipitation that occurs on average
6.44
inches
once in 50 years
LC01 BARE
Percentage of area barren land, NLCD 2001 category 31
0
percent
LC01 CRPHAY
Percentage of cultivated crops and hay, classes 81 and 82,
72.1
percent
from NLCD 2001
LC01 DEV
Percentage of land -use from NLCD 2001 classes 21-24
0.5
percent
LC01 FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 2001 classes 41-43
22.5
percent
LC01 HERB
Percentage of herbaceous upland from NLCD 2001 class 71
4.9
percent
LC011MP
Percent imperviousness of basin area 2001 NLCD
0.05
percent
LC01 SHRUB
Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2001 NLCD
0
percent
LC01 WATER
Percentage of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2001
0
percent
LC01 WETLND
Percentage of wetlands, classes 90 and 95, from NLCD
0
percent
2001
LC06BARE
Percent of area covered by barren rock using 2006 NLCD
0
percent
LC06DEV
Percentage of land -use from NLCD 2006 classes 21-24
0.5
percent
LC06FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 2006 classes 41-43
22.5
percent
LC06GRASS
Percent of area covered by grassland/herbaceous using
4.9
percent
2006 NLCD
LC06PLANT
Percent of area in cultivation using 2006 NLCD
72.1
percent
LC06SHRUB
Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2006 NLCD
0
percent
LC06WATER
Percent of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2006
0
percent

Parameter
Code
Parameter Description
Value
Unit
LC06WETLND
Percent of area covered by wetland using 2006 NLCD
0
percent
LC11 BARE
Percentage of barren from NLCD 2011 class 31
0
percent
LC11 CRPHAY
Percentage of cultivated crops and hay, classes 81 and 82,
72.1
percent
from NLCD 2011
LC11 DEV
Percentage of developed (urban) land from NLCD 2011
0.5
percent
classes 21-24
LC11 FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 2011 classes 41-43
22.5
percent
LC11 GRASS
Percent of area covered by grassland/herbaceous using
4.9
percent
2011 NLCD
LC111MP
Average percentage of impervious area determined from
0
percent
NLCD 2011 impervious dataset
LC11 SHRUB
Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2011 NLCD
0
percent
LC11 WATER
Percent of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2011
0
percent
LC11 WETLND
Percentage of wetlands, classes 90 and 95, from NLCD
0
percent
2011
LC92FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 1992 classes 41-43
47.1
percent
LFPLENGTH
Length of longest flow path
0.777
miles
LU92BARE
Percent of area covered by barren rock using 1992 NLCD
0
percent
LU92DEV
Percent of area covered by all densities of developed land
0
percent
using 1992 NLCD
LU92PLANT
Percent of area in cultivation using 1992 NLCD
52.9
percent
LU92WATER
Percent of area covered by water using 1992 NLCD
0
percent
LU92WETLN
Percent of area covered by wetland using 1992 NLCD
0
percent
MINBELEV
Minimum basin elevation
706
feet
OUTLETELEV
Elevation of the stream outlet in feet above NAVD88
706
feet
PRECIP
Mean Annual Precipitation
44.7
inches
PROTECTED
Percent of area of protected Federal and State owned land
0
percent
SSURGOA
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type A from SSURGO
0
percent
SSURGOB
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type B from SSURGO
90.3
percent
SSURGOC
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type C from SSURGO
9.7
percent
SSURGOD
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type D from SSURGO
0
percent

Peak -Flow Statistics Parameters [Region 1 Piedmont rural under 1 sgmi 2014 50301
Parameter
Code Parameter Name
DRNAREA Drainage Area
LC061MP Percent Impervious
NLCD2006
Min
Value Units Limit Max Limit
0.0967 square 0.1 1
miles
0.05 percent 0 47.9
Peak -Flow Statistics Disclaimers [Region 1 Piedmont rural under 1 sgmi 2014 50301
One or more of the parameters is outside the suggested range. Estimates were extrapolated with
unknown errors
Peak -Flow Statistics Flow Report [Region 1 Piedmont rural under 1 sgmi 2014 50301
Statistic
Value
Unit
50-percent AEP flood
31.2
ft^3/s
20-percent AEP flood
51
ft"3/s
10-percent AEP flood
65.6
ft"3/s
4-percent AEP flood
84.7
ft^3/s
2-percent AEP flood
99.8
ft"3/s
1-percent AEP flood
115
ft"3/s
0.5-percent AEP flood
131
ft^3/s
0.2-percent AEP flood
155
ft^3/s
Peak -Flow Statistics Citations
Feaster, T.D., Gotvald, A.J., and Weaver, J.C.,2014, Methods for estimating the magnitude
and frequency of floods for urban and small, rural streams in Georgia, South Carolina, and
North Carolina, 2011 (ver. 1.1, March 2014): U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2014-5030, 104 p. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2014/5030/)
Bank -full Statistics Parameters [Appalachian Highlands D Bieger 2015]
Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit
DRNAREA Drainage Area 0.0967 square miles 0.07722 940.1535

Bank -full Statistics Parameters [Piedmont P Bieger 2015]
Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units
DRNAREA Drainage Area 0.0967 square miles
Bank -full Statistics Parameters [USA Bieger 2015]
Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units
DRNAREA Drainage Area 0.0967 square miles
Min Limit Max Limit
0.289575 939.99906
Min Limit Max Limit
0.07722 59927.7393
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [Appalachian Highlands D Bieger 20151
Statistic Value Unit
Bieger_D_channel_width 5.76 ft
Bieger_D_channel_depth 0.573 ft
Bieger_D_channel_cross_sectional_area 3.33 ft^2
Bank -full Statistics Disclaimers [Piedmont P Bieger 20151
One or more of the parameters is outside the suggested range. Estimates were extrapolated with
unknown errors
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [Piedmont P Bieger 20151
Statistic Value Unit
Bieger_P_channel_width 5.28 ft
Bieger_P_channel_depth 0.555 ft
Bieger_P_channel_cross_sectional_area 2.7 ft^2
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [USA Bieger 2015]
Statistic Value Unit
Bieger-USA-channel-width 5.44 ft
Bieger-USA-channel-depth 0.733 ft
Bieger_USA_channel_cross_section al_area 4.84 ft^2
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [Area -Averaged]

Stetletic
Value
Unit
Bieger_D_channel_width
5.76
ft
Bieger_D_channel_depth
0.573
ft
Bieger_D_channel_cross_sectional_area
3.33
ft"2
Bieger_P_channel_width
5.28
ft
Bieger_P_channel_depth
0.555
ft
Bieger_P_channel_cross_sectional_area
2.7
ft"2
Bieger_USA_channel_width
5.44
ft
Bieger_USA_channel_depth
0.733
ft
Bieger_USA_channel_cross_sect
ion al_area
4.84
ft^2
Bankfull Statistics Citations
Bieger, Katrin; Rathjens, Hendrik; Allen, Peter M.; and Arnold, Jeffrey G.,2015,
Development and Evaluation of Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for the
Physiographic Regions of the United States, Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty,
17p. (https:Hdigitalcommons.uni.edu/usdaarsfacpub/1515?
utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fusdaarsfacpub%2F1515&utm_medium=PDF&utm_can
USGS Data Disclaimer: Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality
standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have
been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty
expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes, nor on all computer systems,
nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty.
USGS Software Disclaimer: This software has been approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Although the
software has been subjected to rigorous review, the USGS reserves the right to update the software as needed pursuant to
further analysis and review. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the USGS or the U.S. Government as to the
functionality of the software and related material nor shall the fact of release constitute any such warranty. Furthermore,
the software is released on condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages
resulting from its authorized or unauthorized use.
USGS Product Names Disclaimer: Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not
imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Application Version: 4.7.0
StreamStats Services Version: 1.2.22
NSS Services Version: 2.1.2

M I,
Region ID: NC
Workspace ID: NC20220228222602398000
Clicked Point (Latitude, Longitude): 35.91119,-80.31197
Time: 2022-02-28 17:26:22 -0500
Kerj t
-i
Basin Characteristics
Parameter
Code Parameter Description Value Unit
DRNAREA Area that drains to a point on a stream 0.14 square
miles
PCTREG1 Percentage of drainage area located in Region 1 - Piedmont 100 percent
/ Ridge and Valley
PCTREG2 Percentage of drainage area located in Region 2 - Blue 0 percent
Ridge
PCTREG3 Percentage of drainage area located in Region 3 - Sandhills 0 percent
PCTREG4 Percentage of drainage area located in Region 4 - Coastal 0 percent
Plains

Parameter
Code
Parameter Description
Value
Unit
PCTREG5
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 5 - Lower
0
percent
Tifton Uplands
LC061MP
Percentage of impervious area determined from NLCD 2006
0.66
percent
impervious dataset
BASINPERIM
Perimeter of the drainage basin as defined in SIR 2004-
2.32
miles
5262
BSLDEM30FT
Mean basin slope, based on slope percent grid
6.77
percent
CSL10_85fm
Change in elevation between points 10 and 85 percent of
113.27
feet
length along main channel to basin divide divided by length
per mi
between points ft per mi
ELEV
Mean Basin Elevation
756
feet
ELEVMAX
Maximum basin elevation
814
feet
124H50Y
Maximum 24-hour precipitation that occurs on average
6.44
inches
once in 50 years
LC01 BARE
Percentage of area barren land, NLCD 2001 category 31
0
percent
LC01 CRPHAY
Percentage of cultivated crops and hay, classes 81 and 82,
70.1
percent
from NLCD 2001
LC01 DEV
Percentage of land -use from NLCD 2001 classes 21-24
5.4
percent
LC01 FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 2001 classes 41-43
17.2
percent
LC01 HERB
Percentage of herbaceous upland from NLCD 2001 class 71
7.2
percent
LC011MP
Percent imperviousness of basin area 2001 NLCD
0.66
percent
LC01 SHRUB
Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2001 NLCD
0
percent
LC01 WATER
Percentage of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2001
0
percent
LC01 WETLND
Percentage of wetlands, classes 90 and 95, from NLCD
0
percent
2001
LC06BARE
Percent of area covered by barren rock using 2006 NLCD
0
percent
LC06DEV
Percentage of land -use from NLCD 2006 classes 21-24
5.4
percent
LC06FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 2006 classes 41-43
17.2
percent
LC06GRASS
Percent of area covered by grassland/herbaceous using
7.2
percent
2006 NLCD
LC06PLANT
Percent of area in cultivation using 2006 NLCD
70.1
percent
LC06SHRUB
Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2006 NLCD
0
percent
LC06WATER
Percent of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2006
0
percent

Parameter
Code
Parameter Description
Value
Unit
LC06WETLND
Percent of area covered by wetland using 2006 NLCD
0
percent
LC11 BARE
Percentage of barren from NLCD 2011 class 31
0
percent
LC11 CRPHAY
Percentage of cultivated crops and hay, classes 81 and 82,
70.1
percent
from NLCD 2011
LC11 DEV
Percentage of developed (urban) land from NLCD 2011
5.4
percent
classes 21-24
LC11 FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 2011 classes 41-43
17.2
percent
LC11 GRASS
Percent of area covered by grassland/herbaceous using
7.2
percent
2011 NLCD
LC111MP
Average percentage of impervious area determined from
0.7
percent
NLCD 2011 impervious dataset
LC11 SHRUB
Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2011 NLCD
0
percent
LC11 WATER
Percent of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2011
0
percent
LC11 WETLND
Percentage of wetlands, classes 90 and 95, from NLCD
0
percent
2011
LC92FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 1992 classes 41-43
19.1
percent
LFPLENGTH
Length of longest flow path
0.866
miles
LU92BARE
Percent of area covered by barren rock using 1992 NLCD
0
percent
LU92DEV
Percent of area covered by all densities of developed land
0
percent
using 1992 NLCD
LU92PLANT
Percent of area in cultivation using 1992 NLCD
80.9
percent
LU92WATER
Percent of area covered by water using 1992 NLCD
0
percent
LU92WETLN
Percent of area covered by wetland using 1992 NLCD
0
percent
MINBELEV
Minimum basin elevation
698
feet
OUTLETELEV
Elevation of the stream outlet in feet above NAVD88
699
feet
PRECIP
Mean Annual Precipitation
44.7
inches
PROTECTED
Percent of area of protected Federal and State owned land
0
percent
SSURGOA
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type A from SSURGO
0
percent
SSURGOB
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type B from SSURGO
19.2
percent
SSURGOC
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type C from SSURGO
78.8
percent
SSURGOD
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type D from SSURGO
0
percent

Peak -Flow Statistics Parameters [Region 1 Piedmont rural under 1 sgmi 2014 50301
Parameter Code
Parameter Name
Value
Units
Min Limit
Max Limit
DRNAREA
Drainage Area
0.14
square miles
0.1
1
LC061MP
Percent Impervious NLCD2006
0.66
percent
0
47.9
Peak -Flow Statistics Flow Report [Region 1 Piedmont rural under 1 sgmi 2014 50301
PII: Prediction Interval -Lower, Plu: Prediction Interval -Upper, ASEp: Average Standard Error of
Prediction, SE: Standard Error (other -- see report)
Statistic
Value
Unit
PII
Plu
ASEp
50-percent AEP flood
41.3
ft"3/s
21.8
78.1
31.9
20-percent AEP flood
67.9
ft"3/s
40.5
114
25.4
10-percent AEP flood
87.6
ft^3/s
53.2
144
25
4-percent AEP flood
114
ft"3/s
66
197
27
2-percent AEP flood
134
ft"3/s
74.2
242
29.3
1-percent AEP flood
156
ft^3/s
81.5
299
32.1
0.5-percent AEP flood
177
ft^3/s
87.5
358
35.1
0.2-percent AEP flood
210
ft"3/s
99.8
442
37.5
Peak -Flow Statistics Citations
Feaster, T.D., Gotvald, A.J., and Weaver, J.C.,2014, Methods for estimating the magnitude
and frequency of floods for urban and small, rural streams in Georgia, South Carolina, and
North Carolina, 2011 (ver. 1.1, March 2014): U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2014-5030, 104 p. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2014/5030/)
Bank -full Statistics Parameters [Appalachian Highlands D Bieger 20151
Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit
DRNAREA Drainage Area 0.14 square miles 0.07722 940.1535
Bank -full Statistics Parameters [Piedmont P Bieger 20151
Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit
DRNAREA Drainage Area 0.14 square miles 0.289575 939.99906

Bank -full Statistics Parameters [USA Bieger 2015]
Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit
DRNAREA Drainage Area 0.14 square miles 0.07722 59927.7393
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [Appalachian Highlands D Bieger 20151
Statistic Value Unit
Bieger_D_channel_width 6.72 ft
Bieger_D_channel_depth 0.638 ft
Bieger_D_channel_cross_sectional_area 4.32 ft^2
Bank -full Statistics Disclaimers [Piedmont P Bieger 20151
One or more of the parameters is outside the suggested range. Estimates were extrapolated with
unknown errors
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [Piedmont P Bieger 20151
Statistic Value Unit
Bieger_P_channel_width 6.15 ft
Bieger_P_channel_depth 0.623 ft
Bieger_P_channel_cross_sectional_area 3.57 ft^2
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [USA Bieger 2015]
Statistic Value Unit
Bieger_USA_channel_width 6.2 ft
Bieger_USA_channel_depth 0.793 ft
Bieger_USA_channel_cross_section aLarea 5.91 ft"2
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [Area -Averaged]
Statistic Value Unit
Bieger_D_channel_width 6.72 ft
Bieger_D_channel_depth 0.638 ft
Bieger_D_channel_cross_sectional_area 4.32 ft"2

Statistic
Value
Unit
Bieger_P_channel_width
6.15
ft
Bieger_P_channel_depth
0.623
ft
Bieger_P_channel_cross_sectional_area
3.57
ft"2
Bieger_USA_channel_width
6.2
ft
Bieger_USA_channel_depth
0.793
ft
Bieger_USA_channel_cross_sect
ion al_area
5.91
ft"2
Bankfull Statistics Citations
Bieger, Katrin; Rathjens, Hendrik; Allen, Peter M.; and Arnold, Jeffrey G.,2015,
Development and Evaluation of Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for the
Physiographic Regions of the United States, Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty,
17p. (https:Hdigitalcommons.uni.edu/usdaarsfacpub/1515?
utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fusdaarsfacpub%2F1515&utm_medium=PDF&utm_can
USGS Data Disclaimer: Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality
standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have
been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty
expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes, nor on all computer systems,
nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty.
USGS Software Disclaimer: This software has been approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Although the
software has been subjected to rigorous review, the USGS reserves the right to update the software as needed pursuant to
further analysis and review. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the USGS or the U.S. Government as to the
functionality of the software and related material nor shall the fact of release constitute any such warranty. Furthermore,
the software is released on condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages
resulting from its authorized or unauthorized use.
USGS Product Names Disclaimer: Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not
imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Application Version: 4.7.0
StreamStats Services Version: 1.2.22
NSS Services Version: 2.1.2

ReedyCrUpper
Region ID: NC
Workspace ID: NC20220228210633080000
Clicked Point (Latitude, Longitude): 35.91311,-80.30417
Time: 2022-02-28 16:06:52 -0500
r
- A hnt:.rr
t �
Ft�
� v
�r
Rd
Of
1 �
o
Shadp 4iz
FrF
Ca
33arb'%�4'�
3
Basin Characteristics
Parameter
Code Parameter Description
DRNAREA Area that drains to a point on a stream
Value Unit
7.94 square
miles
PCTREG1
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 1
- Piedmont
100
percent
/ Ridge and Valley
PCTREG2
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 2
- Blue Ridge
0
percent
PCTREG3
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 3
- Sandhills
0
percent
PCTREG4
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 4
- Coastal
0
percent
Plains

Parameter
Code
Parameter Description
Value
Unit
PCTREG5
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 5 - Lower
0
percent
Tifton Uplands
LC061MP
Percentage of impervious area determined from NLCD 2006
2.08
percent
impervious dataset
BASINPERIM
Perimeter of the drainage basin as defined in SIR 2004-5262
17.7
miles
BSLDEM30FT
Mean basin slope, based on slope percent grid
8.48
percent
CSL10_85fm
Change in elevation between points 10 and 85 percent of
26.21
feet
length along main channel to basin divide divided by length
per mi
between points ft per mi
ELEV
Mean Basin Elevation
808
feet
ELEVMAX
Maximum basin elevation
911
feet
124H50Y
Maximum 24-hour precipitation that occurs on average once
6.47
inches
in 50 years
LC01 BARE
Percentage of area barren land, NLCD 2001 category 31
0.2
percent
LC01 CRPHAY
Percentage of cultivated crops and hay, classes 81 and 82,
35.7
percent
from NLCD 2001
LC01 DEV
Percentage of land -use from NLCD 2001 classes 21-24
10.4
percent
LC01 FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 2001 classes 41-43
44.5
percent
LC01 HERB
Percentage of herbaceous upland from NLCD 2001 class 71
6.9
percent
LC011MP
Percent imperviousness of basin area 2001 NLCD
2.05
percent
LC01 SHRUB
Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2001 NLCD
1.2
percent
LC01 WATER
Percentage of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2001
0.1
percent
LC01 WETLND
Percentage of wetlands, classes 90 and 95, from NLCD 2001
1
percent
LC06BARE
Percent of area covered by barren rock using 2006 NLCD
0.2
percent
LC06DEV
Percentage of land -use from NLCD 2006 classes 21-24
10.4
percent
LC06FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 2006 classes 41-43
44.9
percent
LC06GRASS
Percent of area covered by grassland/herbaceous using
6.7
percent
2006 NLCD
LC06PLANT
Percent of area in cultivation using 2006 NLCD
35.7
percent
LC06SHRUB
Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2006 NLCD
1
percent
LC06WATER
Percent of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2006
0.1
percent
LC06WETLND
Percent of area covered by wetland using 2006 NLCD
1
percent

Parameter
Code
Parameter Description
Value
Unit
LC11 BARE
Percentage of barren from NLCD 2011 class 31
0.2
percent
LC11 CRPHAY
Percentage of cultivated crops and hay, classes 81 and 82,
35.5
percent
from NLCD 2011
LC11 DEV
Percentage of developed (urban) land from NLCD 2011
10.6
percent
classes 21-24
LC11 FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 2011 classes 41-43
44.5
percent
LC11 GRASS
Percent of area covered by grassland/herbaceous using
7.1
percent
2011 NLCD
LC111MP
Average percentage of impervious area determined from
2.2
percent
NLCD 2011 impervious dataset
LC11 SHRUB
Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2011 NLCD
1
percent
LC11 WATER
Percent of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2011
0.1
percent
LC11 WETLND
Percentage of wetlands, classes 90 and 95, from NLCD 2011
1
percent
LC92FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 1992 classes 41-43
50.9
percent
LFPLENGTH
Length of longest flow path
5.273
miles
LU92BARE
Percent of area covered by barren rock using 1992 NLCD
0
percent
LU92DEV
Percent of area covered by all densities of developed land
7.1
percent
using 1992 NLCD
LU92PLANT
Percent of area in cultivation using 1992 NLCD
41.2
percent
LU92WATER
Percent of area covered by water using 1992 NLCD
0
percent
LU92WETLN
Percent of area covered by wetland using 1992 NLCD
0.8
percent
MINBELEV
Minimum basin elevation
701
feet
OUTLETELEV
Elevation of the stream outlet in feet above NAVD88
703
feet
PRECIP
Mean Annual Precipitation
45
inches
PROTECTED
Percent of area of protected Federal and State owned land
0
percent
SSURGOA
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type A from SSURGO
0
percent
SSURGOB
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type B from SSURGO
85.5
percent
SSURGOC
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type C from SSURGO
14.3
percent
SSURGOD
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type D from SSURGO
0
percent

Peak -Flow Statistics Parameters [Peak Southeast US over 1 sgmi 2009 5158]
Parameter Code Parameter Name
DRNAREA
Drainage Area
PCTREG1
Percent Area in Region 1
PCTREG2
Percent Area in Region 2
PCTREG3
Percent Area in Region 3
PCTREG4
Percent Area in Region 4
PCTREG5
Percent Area in Region 5
Value Units Min Limit Max Limit
7.94
square miles
1
9000
100
percent
0
100
0
percent
0
100
0
percent
0
100
0
percent
0
100
0
percent
0
100
Peak -Flow Statistics Flow Report [Peak Southeast US over 1 sgmi 2009 5158]
PII: Prediction Interval -Lower, Plu: Prediction Interval -Upper, ASEp: Average Standard Error of
Prediction, SE: Standard Error (other -- see report)
Statistic
Value
Unit
PII
Plu
ASEp
50-percent AEP flood
608
ft"3/s
350
1060
34.5
20-percent AEP flood
1080
ft^3/s
626
1860
34
10-percent AEP flood
1430
ft^3/s
816
2510
35.1
4-percent AEP flood
1880
ft"3/s
1040
3410
37.5
2-percent AEP flood
2290
ft"3/s
1220
4290
39.6
1-percent AEP flood
2660
ft^3/s
1370
5150
41.9
0.5-percent AEP flood
3020
ft^3/s
1500
6060
44.3
0.2-percent AEP flood
3590
ft"3/s
1700
7560
47.7
Peak -Flow Statistics Citations
Weaver, J.C., Feaster, T.D., and Gotvald, A.J.,2009, Magnitude and frequency of rural floods
in the Southeastern United States, through 2006-Volume 2, North Carolina: U.S. Geological
Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5158, 111 p.
(http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5158/)
Bank -full Statistics Parameters [Appalachian Highlands D Bieger 2015]
Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit
DRNAREA Drainage Area 7.94 square miles 0.07722 940.1535

Bank -full Statistics Parameters [Piedmont P Bieger 2015]
Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units
DRNAREA Drainage Area 7.94 square miles
Bank -full Statistics Parameters [USA Bieger 2015]
Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units
DRNAREA Drainage Area 7.94 square miles
Min Limit Max Limit
0.289575 939.99906
Min Limit Max Limit
0.07722 59927.7393
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [Appalachian Highlands D Bieger 20151
Statistic Value Unit
Bieger_D_channel_width 35.9 ft
Bieger_D_channel_depth 2.03 ft
Bieger_D_channel_cross_sectional_area 74.1 ft^2
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [Piedmont P Bieger 20151
Statistic Value Unit
Bieger_P_channel_width 32.2 ft
Bieger_P_channel_depth 2.18 ft
Bieger_P_channel_cross_sectional_area 73.8 ft^2
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [USA Bieger 2015]
Statistic Value Unit
Bieger-USA-channel-width 25.7 ft
Bieger-USA-channel-depth 1.87 ft
Bieger_USA_channel_cross_section aLarea 52.3 ft"2
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [Area -Averaged]
Statistic Value Unit
Bieger_D_channel_width 35.9 ft
Bieger_D_channel_depth 2.03 ft
Bieger_D_channel_cross_sectional_area 74.1 ft"2

Statistic
Value
Unit
Bieger_P_channel_width
32.2
ft
Bieger_P_channel_depth
2.18
ft
Bieger_P_channel_cross_sectional_area
73.8
ft"2
Bieger_USA_channel_width
25.7
ft
Bieger_USA_channel_depth
1.87
ft
Bieger_USA_channel_cross_sect
ion al_area
52.3
ft"2
Bankfull Statistics Citations
Bieger, Katrin; Rathjens, Hendrik; Allen, Peter M.; and Arnold, Jeffrey G.,2015,
Development and Evaluation of Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for the
Physiographic Regions of the United States, Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty,
17p. (https:Hdigitalcommons.uni.edu/usdaarsfacpub/1515?
utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fusdaarsfacpub%2F1515&utm_medium=PDF&utm_can
USGS Data Disclaimer: Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality
standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have
been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty
expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes, nor on all computer systems,
nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty.
USGS Software Disclaimer: This software has been approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Although the
software has been subjected to rigorous review, the USGS reserves the right to update the software as needed pursuant to
further analysis and review. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the USGS or the U.S. Government as to the
functionality of the software and related material nor shall the fact of release constitute any such warranty. Furthermore,
the software is released on condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages
resulting from its authorized or unauthorized use.
USGS Product Names Disclaimer: Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not
imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Application Version: 4.7.0
StreamStats Services Version: 1.2.22
NSS Services Version: 2.1.2

ReedyCrLLower
Region ID: NC
Workspace ID: NC20220228205506824000
Clicked Point (Latitude, Longitude): 35.91057,-80.31448
Time: 2022-02-28 15:55:26 -0500
f..
- - Y
4
Hi I DI
Basin Characteristics
Parameter
Code
Parameter Description
Value
Unit
BASINPERIM
Perimeter of the drainage basin as defined in SIR 2004-5262
19.2
miles
BSLDEM30FT
Mean basin slope, based on slope percent grid
8.47
percent
CSL10_85fm
Change in elevation between points 10 and 85 percent of
23.67
feet
length along main channel to basin divide divided by length
per mi
between points ft per mi
DRNAREA
Area that drains to a point on a stream
8.6
square
ELEV Mean Basin Elevation
miles
803 feet

Parameter
Code
Parameter Description
Value
Unit
ELEVMAX
Maximum basin elevation
911
feet
124H50Y
Maximum 24-hour precipitation that occurs on average once
6.47
inches
in 50 years
LC01 BARE
Percentage of area barren land, NLCD 2001 category 31
0.2
percent
LC01 CRPHAY
Percentage of cultivated crops and hay, classes 81 and 82,
37.5
percent
from NLCD 2001
LC01 DEV
Percentage of land -use from NLCD 2001 classes 21-24
9.8
percent
LC01 FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 2001 classes 41-43
43.2
percent
LC01 HERB
Percentage of herbaceous upland from NLCD 2001 class 71
7.2
percent
LC011MP
Percent imperviousness of basin area 2001 NLCD
1.92
percent
LC01 SHRUB
Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2001 NLCD
1.1
percent
LC01 WATER
Percentage of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2001
0.1
percent
LC01 WETLND
Percentage of wetlands, classes 90 and 95, from NLCD 2001
0.9
percent
LC06BARE
Percent of area covered by barren rock using 2006 NLCD
0.2
percent
LC06DEV
Percentage of land -use from NLCD 2006 classes 21-24
9.8
percent
LC06FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 2006 classes 41-43
43.6
percent
LC06GRASS
Percent of area covered by grassland/herbaceous using
7.1
percent
2006 NLCD
LC061MP
Percentage of impervious area determined from NLCD 2006
1.95
percent
impervious dataset
LC06PLANT
Percent of area in cultivation using 2006 NLCD
37.2
percent
LC06SHRUB
Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2006 NLCD
1
percent
LC06WATER
Percent of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2006
0.1
percent
LC06WETLND
Percent of area covered by wetland using 2006 NLCD
0.9
percent
LC11 BARE
Percentage of barren from NLCD 2011 class 31
0.2
percent
LC11 CRPHAY
Percentage of cultivated crops and hay, classes 81 and 82,
37.1
percent
from NLCD 2011
LC11 DEV
Percentage of developed (urban) land from NLCD 2011
10
percent
classes 21-24
LC11 FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 2011 classes 41-43
43.1
percent
LC11 GRASS
Percent of area covered by grassland/herbaceous using
7.5
percent
2011 NLCD

Parameter
Code
Parameter Description
Value
Unit
LC111MP
Average percentage of impervious area determined from
2
percent
NLCD 2011 impervious dataset
LC11 SHRUB
Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2011 NLCD
1
percent
LC11 WATER
Percent of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2011
0.1
percent
LC11 WETLND
Percentage of wetlands, classes 90 and 95, from NLCD 2011
1
percent
LC92FOREST
Percentage of forest from NLCD 1992 classes 41-43
50.1
percent
LFPLENGTH
Length of longest flow path
5.923
miles
LU92BARE
Percent of area covered by barren rock using 1992 NLCD
0
percent
LU92DEV
Percent of area covered by all densities of developed land
6.5
percent
using 1992 NLCD
LU92PLANT
Percent of area in cultivation using 1992 NLCD
42.4
percent
LU92WATER
Percent of area covered by water using 1992 NLCD
0
percent
LU92WETLN
Percent of area covered by wetland using 1992 NLCD
1
percent
MINBELEV
Minimum basin elevation
694
feet
OUTLETELEV
Elevation of the stream outlet in feet above NAVD88
695
feet
PCTREG1
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 1 - Piedmont
100
percent
/ Ridge and Valley
PCTREG2
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 2 - Blue Ridge
0
percent
PCTREG3
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 3 - Sandhills
0
percent
PCTREG4
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 4 - Coastal
0
percent
Plains
PCTREG5
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 5 - Lower
0
percent
Tifton Uplands
PRECIP
Mean Annual Precipitation
45
inches
PROTECTED
Percent of area of protected Federal and State owned land
0
percent
SSURGOA
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type A from SSURGO
0
percent
SSURGOB
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type B from SSURGO
83.6
percent
SSURGOC
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type C from SSURGO
16.1
percent
SSURGOD
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type D from SSURGO
0
percent

Bank -full Statistics Parameters [Appalachian Highlands D Bieger 2015]
Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units
DRNAREA Drainage Area 8.6 square miles
Bank -full Statistics Parameters [Piedmont P Bieger 2015]
Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units
DRNAREA Drainage Area 8.6 square miles
Bank -full Statistics Parameters [USA Bieger 2015]
Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units
DRNAREA Drainage Area 8.6 square miles
Min Limit Max Limit
0.07722 940.1535
Min Limit Max Limit
0.289575 939.99906
Min Limit Max Limit
0.07722 59927.7393
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [Appalachian Highlands D Bieger 20151
Statistic Value Unit
Bieger_D_channel_width 37.1 ft
Bieger_D_channel_depth 2.08 ft
Bieger_D_channel_cross_sectional_area 78.4 ft^2
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [Piedmont P Bieger 20151
Statistic Value Unit
Bieger_P_channel_width 33.3 ft
Bieger_P_channel_depth 2.23 ft
Bieger_P_channel_cross_sectional_area 78.3 ft"2
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [USA Bieger 2015]
Statistic Value Unit
Bieger-USA-channel-width 26.4 ft
Bieger-USA-channel-depth 1.91 ft
Bieger_USA_channel_cross_section aLarea 54.6 ft"2
Bank -full Statistics Flow Report [Area -Averaged]

Statistic
Bieger_D_channel_width
Bieger_D_channel_depth
Bieger_D_channel_cross_sectional_area
Bieger_P_channel_width
Bieger_P_channel_depth
Bieger_P_channel_cross_sectional_area
Bieger_USA_channel_width
Bieger_USA_channel_depth
Bieger_USA_channel_cross_sect
ion al_area
Bankfull Statistics Citations
Value
Unit
37.1
ft
2.08
ft
78.4
ft"2
33.3
ft
2.23
ft
78.3
ft"2
26.4
ft
1.91
ft
54.6
ft"2
Bieger, Katrin; Rathjens, Hendrik; Allen, Peter M.; and Arnold, Jeffrey G.,2015,
Development and Evaluation of Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for the
Physiographic Regions of the United States, Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty,
17p. (https:Hdigitalcommons.uni.edu/usdaarsfacpub/1515?
utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fusdaarsfacpub%2F1515&utm_medium=PDF&utm_can
Peak -Flow Statistics Parameters [Peak Southeast US over 1 sgmi 2009 5158]
Parameter Code Parameter Name
DRNAREA
Drainage Area
PCTREG1
Percent Area in Region 1
PCTREG2
Percent Area in Region 2
PCTREG3
Percent Area in Region 3
PCTREG4
Percent Area in Region 4
PCTREG5
Percent Area in Region 5
Value Units Min Limit Max Limit
8.6
square miles
1
9000
100
percent
0
100
0
percent
0
100
0
percent
0
100
0
percent
0
100
0
percent
0
100
Peak -Flow Statistics Flow Report [Peak Southeast US over 1 sgmi 2009 5158]
PII: Prediction Interval -Lower, Plu: Prediction Interval -Upper, ASEp: Average Standard Error of
Prediction, SE: Standard Error (other -- see report)
Statistic Value Unit PII Plu ASEp
50-percent AEP flood 640 ft"3/s 369 1110 34.5
20-percent AEP flood 1140 ft^3/s 661 1970 34

Statistic
Value
Unit
PH
Plu
ASEp
10-percent AEP flood
1500
ft^3/s
856
2630
35.1
4-percent AEP flood
1980
ft^3/s
1090
3590
37.5
2-percent AEP flood
2400
ft"3/s
1280
4500
39.6
1-percent AEP flood
2790
ft"3/s
1440
5410
41.9
0.5-percent AEP flood
3170
ft^3/s
1580
6360
44.3
0.2-percent AEP flood
3760
ft"3/s
1790
7920
47.7
Peak -Flow Statistics Citations
Weaver, J.C., Feaster, T.D., and Gotvald, A.J.,2009, Magnitude and frequency of rural floods
in the Southeastern United States, through 2006-Volume 2, North Carolina: U.S. Geological
Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5158, 111 p.
(http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5158/)
USGS Data Disclaimer: Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality
standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have
been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty
expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes, nor on all computer systems,
nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty.
USGS Software Disclaimer: This software has been approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Although the
software has been subjected to rigorous review, the USGS reserves the right to update the software as needed pursuant to
further analysis and review. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the USGS or the U.S. Government as to the
functionality of the software and related material nor shall the fact of release constitute any such warranty. Furthermore,
the software is released on condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages
resulting from its authorized or unauthorized use.
USGS Product Names Disclaimer: Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not
imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Application Version: 4.7.0
StreamStats Services Version: 1.2.22
NSS Services Version: 2.1.2

Appendix D- Site Protection Instrument
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Agent Authorization Forms
Long-term Steward Engagement Letter & Fee Breakdown
Conservation Easement Template

WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS
7721 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 130, RALEIGH, NC 27615
(9191 614 - 5111 I wale€landsolutions.com
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
DEED BOOK: 2474 PAGE: 1187 PARCEL ID: 6718-01-29-0067, 6719-03-
30-7146, 6718-01-49-2814, 6719-03-30-
4935
STREET ADDRESS: Kendlebrook Farm Rd. Lexington, NC 27295
PROPERTY OWNER: North State Environmental Inc
'I'he undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby
authorize
Adam V. McIntyre of Water and Land Solutions, LLC
(Contractor / Agent) (Nance of consulting firm)
to review my property and to act on my behalf to tape all actions necessary for the
processing, issuance and acceptance of necessary permits, land disturbing activities, and/or
certifications and any and all standard and special conditions attached. This authorization
allows the individual to represent on my behalf to the necessary Government agency
personnel for the proposed property.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above): 2889 Lowery St, Winston
Salem, NC 27101
Telephone: [phone]
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate
to the best of our knowledge.
uth sized Signature Authorized Signature
Date: oa # Date:

r
BROAD WATER
INN0VAT10NS
March 8, 2022
Ms. Catherine Roland
Senior Project Manager
Water & Land Solutions
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
Dear Ms. Roland,
This letter confirms that Broad Water Innovations, a 501(c)3 not -for -profit organization
located in the Commonwealth of Virginia, has preliminarily agreed to act as the
conservation easement grantee for the Rolling Meadows Mitigation site ("Site") located
in Davidson County, North Carolina. The Site consists of an approximate 53-acre
conservation easement area.
As the conservation easement grantee, BWI shall be responsible for periodic inspection
of the Site to ensure that the terms and restrictions required in the conservation
easement are enforced and maintained into perpetuity. Specific responsibilities include:
• Conservation easement compliance monitoring of the Site is conducted on an
annual basis
• Visits to Site are coordinated with the landowner when possible
• Annual conservation easement compliance monitoring reports are sent to the
landowner when possible
• Signage (if applicable) for the conservation easement boundary is maintained
• Violations and potential violations of the conservation easement deed are
addressed following protocols contained in the BWI Conservation Easement
Violations Policy and per the terms of the conservation easement deed.
Water & Land Solutions shall act as Bank Sponsor of the Site. BWI shall receive a
stewardship endowment in the amount of $42,514 to ensure annual Site inspections
occur and that the terms of the conservation easements are legally defended into
perpetuity.
Regards,
l J ��
Tee Clarkson, President
3800 Grove Ave I Richmond I Virginia 1 23220 broadwaterinnvations.org

CONFIDENTIAL
BROAD WATER INNOVATIONS
•
•
Rolling Meadows
BROAD WATER
INNOVATION
Quantity
Rate
Cost
1. Staff time
A. Staff time prior to visit (communications,
file review)
1
$60
$60
B. Staff time to monitor easement (incl
travel, communications)
7
$60
$420
C. Staff time post visit (Reporting)
1
$60
$60
D. Annual cost of staff needed to address the
exercise of reserved rights by landowner.
10% chance per year
1
$60
$60
insurance
1
$150
$150
E. Annual cost of staff time needed to
address minor violations. 10% chance of this
happening annually.
1
$60
$60
2. Travel costs for a monitoring visit
A. Reimbursement per mile
100
$0.58
$58
B. Reimbursement for meals
$0
C. Reimbursement for lodging
$0
3. Supplies
A.Signage
1
$60
$60
B.Miscellaneous
1
$0
$0
4. Miscellaneous Duties
A. Regulatory communications & meetings
B.
5. Site Management
A. Site specific management plans and
reserved rights
B.
ANNUAL TOTAL MONITORING COSTS
$928
Capitalization rate
3.50%
Monitoring Endowment
$26,514
Defending an easement into perpetuity
A. Staff time
$3,000
B. Legal counsel
$10,000
C. Other incidentals
$3,000
Stewardship Complexities
A. No additional complexities
B. Level 1 complexities
C. Level 2 complexities
D. Level 3 complexities
TOTAL FOR DEFENSE AND COMPLEXITIES
$16,000
OVERALL TOTAL (PRINCIPAL)
$42,514

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S
USE
PERMANENT CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT ("Conservation Easement") made
this day of 202 by and
between ("Grantor") and _ _ ("Grantee").
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said
parties, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall include singular, plural,
masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated,
lying and being in County, North Carolina, more particularly
described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Property");
WHEREAS, Grantee is a charitable, not -for -profit or educational
corporation, association, or trust qualified under § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of
1

the Internal Revenue Code, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq., the
purposes or powers of which include one or more of the purposes (a) — (d)
listed below;
(a) retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open -space aspects of
real property;
(b) ensuring the availability of real property for recreational,
educational, or open -space use;
(c) protecting natural resources;
(d) maintaining or enhancing air or water quality.
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic,
natural, or aesthetic value of the property in its natural state, which includes
the following natural communities: [add or delete as appropriate: coastal
wetlands, non -riparian wetlands, riparian wetlands, perennial and intermittent
streams and riparian buffers]. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to
maintain streams, wetlands and riparian resources and other natural values of
approximately acres, more or less, and being more particularly described in
Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated fully herein by reference (the
"Conservation Easement Area"), and prevent the use or development of the
Conservation Easement Area for any purpose or in any manner that would
conflict with the maintenance of its natural condition.
WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the
Conservation Easement Area is a condition of the approval of the Mitigation
Banking Instrument (MBI) and Mitigation Plan for the
Mitigation Bank, Department of the Army (DA) Action ID Number SAW-
, entitled "Agreement to Establish the
Mitigation Bank in the River Basin within the State of North
Carolina", entered into by and between [enter Sponsor name] acting as the
Bank Sponsor and the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps), in
consultation with the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT). The
Mitigation Site has been approved by the Corps for use as
a mitigation bank to compensate for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts
authorized by DA permits.
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee agree that third -party rights of
enforcement shall be held by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District ("Third-
Parties,"to include any successor agencies), and may be exercised through
the appropriate enforcement agencies of the United States and the State of
North Carolina, and that these rights are in addition to, and do not limit, the
rights of enforcement under the NCDWR Project ID # and
Department of the Army instrument number SAW -
("Mitigation Banking Instrument"), or any permit or certification issued by the
Third -Parties.
2

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and
representations contained herein and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, Grantor hereby unconditionally and irrevocably grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its heirs, successors and assigns, forever and in
perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and character and to the
extent hereinafter set forth, over the Conservation Easement Area described
on Exhibit B, together with the right to preserve and protect the conservation
values thereof, as follows:
ARTICLE I.
DURATION OF EASEMENT
This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. This Conservation
Easement is an easement in gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by
Grantee against Grantor, Grantor's personal representatives, heirs, successors
and assigns, lessees, agents and licensees.
ARTICLE II.
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
Any activity on, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area inconsistent
with the purpose of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. The
Conservation Easement Area shall be preserved in its natural condition and
restricted from any development that would impair or interfere with the
conservation values of the Conservation Easement Area.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities
and uses are expressly prohibited, restricted or reserved as indicated
hereunder:
A. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change disturbance,
alteration or impairment of the natural features of the Conservation Easement
Area or any introduction of non-native plants and/or animal species is
prohibited.
B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any building, mobile
home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other advertising display, antenna, utility
pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock or any other temporary or permanent structure
or facility on or above the Conservation Easement Area.
C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential
and/or commercial activities, including any rights of passage for such purposes
are prohibited.
D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing,
animal husbandry, and horticultural use of the Conservation Easement Area
3

are prohibited.
E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction,
harming, cutting or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation in the
Conservation Easement Area except as provided in the Mitigation Plan.
Mowing of invasive and herbaceous vegetation for purposes of enhancing
planted or volunteer trees and shrubs approved in the Mitigation Plan is
allowable once a year for no more than five consecutive years from the date on
page 1 of this Conservation Easement, except where mowing will negatively
impact vegetation or disturb soils. Mowing activities shall only be performed by
[enter Sponsor name] and shall not violate any part of Item L of Article 11.
F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or
walkways on the Conservation Easement Area; nor enlargement or
modification to existing roads, trails or walkways.
G. Signage. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Conservation
Easement Area, except the posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying
the conservation values of the Conservation Easement Area, signs giving
directions or proscribing rules and regulations for the use of the Conservation
Easement Area and/or signs identifying the Grantor as owner of the
Conservation Easement Area.
H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes,
garbage, waste, abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous
substances, or toxic or hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or
aboveground storage tanks or other materials on the Conservation Easement
Area is prohibited.
I. Excavation, Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading,
filling, excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand,
gravel, rock, peat, minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography
of the land in any manner on the Conservation Easement Area, except to
restore natural topography or drainage patterns. For purposes of restoring and
enhancing streams and wetlands within the Conservation Easement Area,
[enter Sponsor name] is allowed to perform grading, filling, and excavation
associated with stream and wetland restoration and enhancement activities as
described in the Mitigation Plan and authorized by Department of the Army
Nationwide Permit 27.
J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking,
draining, dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related
activities, or altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or
disruption or alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns.
In addition, diverting or causing or permitting the diversion of surface or
underground water into, within or out of the easement area by any means,
removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or
21

wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is prohibited.
K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been
encumbered or extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be
transferred pursuant to a transferable development rights scheme or cluster
development arrangement or otherwise.
[Not required, but may be added if Grantor and Grantee agree:]
L. Subdivision. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the Conservation
Easement Area currently consists of within
separate parcels. The Grantor may not further subdivide the
Conservation Easement Area, except with the prior written consent of the
Grantee. If Grantor elects to further subdivide any portion of the Conservation
Easement Area, Grantor must provide the Grantee the name, address, and
telephone number of new owner(s) of all property within the Conservation
Easement Area, if different from Grantor. No subdivision of the Conservation
Easement Area shall limit the right of ingress and egress over and across the
Property for the purposes set forth herein. Further, in the event of any
subdivision of the Property (whether inside or outside of the Conservation
Easement Area) provision shall be made to preserve not only Grantee's
perpetual rights of access to the Conservation Easement Area, as defined
herein, but also Grantee's right of perpetual access to any conservation
easements on properties adjacent to the Property which form a part of or are
included in the Mitigation Plan. Creation of a condominium or any de facto
division of the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. Lot line adjustments
or lot consolidation without the prior written consent of the Grantee is
prohibited. The Grantor may convey undivided interests in the real property
underlying the Conservation Easement Area. The Grantor shall notify the
Grantee immediately of the name, address, and telephone number of any
grantee of an undivided interest in any property within the Conservation
Easement Area.
M. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not
limitedto, motorcycles, dirt bikes, all -terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is
prohibited other than for temporary or occasional access by the [enter
Sponsor name], the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors,
assigns, NCDWR, and the Corps for purposes of constructing, maintaining
and monitoring the restoration, enhancement and preservation of streams,
wetlands and riparian areas within the Conservation Easement Area. The
use of mechanized vehicles for monitoring purposes is limited to only
existing roads and trails as shown in the approved in the mitigation plan.
N. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the
Conservation Easement Area which is or may become inconsistent with the
purposes of this grant, the preservation of the Conservation Easement Area
substantially in its natural condition, or the protection of its environmental
systems, is prohibited.
5

ARTICLE III.
GRANTOR'S RESEVERED RIGHTS
The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives,
heirs, successors or assigns, the right to continue the use of the Conservation
Easement Area for all purposes not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, including, but not limited to, the right to quiet enjoyment of the
Conservation Easement Area, the rights of ingress and egress, the right to
hunt, fish, and hike on the Conservation Easement Area, the right to sell,
transfer, gift or otherwise convey the Conservation Easement Area, in whole or
in part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to the terms
of, and shall specifically reference, this Conservation Easement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor,
its successors and assigns, including [enter Sponsor name] acting as the Bank
Sponsor, the right to construct and perform activities related to the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within
the Conservation Easement Area in accordance with the approved
Mitigation Plan, and the Mitigation Banking Instrument
described in the Recitals of this Conservation Easement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor,
its successors and assigns, the following rights in the areas labeled as "Internal
Crossing" on the plat [insert plat name and recorded plat book page number] in
the Conservation Easement Area: vehicular access, livestock access, irrigation
piping and piping of livestock waste. All Internal Crossings that allow livestock
access will be bounded by fencing and will be over a culvert.
ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEE'S RIGHTS
The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns,
and the Corps, shall have the right to enter the Property and Conservation
Easement Area at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting the
Conservation Easement Area to determine if the Grantor, or his personal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, is complying with the terms,
conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this Conservation Easement. The
Grantee, [enter Sponsor name], and its authorized representatives, successors
and assigns, and the Corps shall also have the right to enter and go upon the
Conservation Easement Area for purposes of making scientific or educational
observations and studies, and taking samples. The easement rights granted
herein do not include public access rights.
ARTICLE V.
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES

A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee, the Corps,
and NCDWR are allowed to prevent any activity on or use of the Conservation
Easement Area that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement and to
require the restoration of such areas or features of the Conservation Easement
Area that may be damaged by such activity or use. Upon any breach of the
terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor that comes to the attention of
the Grantee, the Grantee shall notify the Grantor in writing of such breach. The
Grantor shall have 30 days after receipt of such notice to correct the conditions
constituting such breach. If the breach remains uncured after 30 days, the
Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by appropriate legal
proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right, without notice, to
obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief if the
breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement is or would irreversibly or
otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation
Easement. The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such
circumstances damage to the Grantee would be irreparable and remedies at
law will be inadequate. The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided
hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other rights and
remedies available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.
The costs of a breach, correction or restoration, including the Grantee's
expenses, court costs, and attorneys' fees, shall be paid by Grantor, provided
Grantor is determined to be responsible for the breach. The Corps and the
NCDWR shall have the same rights and privileges as the said Grantee to
enforce the terms and conditions of this Conservation easement.
B. No failure on the part of the Grantee to enforce any covenant or
provision hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other
covenant, condition, or provision hereof or affect the right to Grantee to enforce
the same in the event of a subsequent breach or default.
C. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be
construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or
change in the Conservation Easement Area resulting from causes beyond the
Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, war, acts of
God or third parties, except Grantor's lessees or invitees; or from any prudent
action taken in good faith by Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, damage to property or harm to the
Conservation Easement Area resulting from such causes.
ARTICLE VI.
MISCELLANEOUS
A. Warranty. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns
the Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the
Property which may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement
or that there are no outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other

interests in the Property which have not been expressly subordinated to this
Conservation Easement. Grantor further warrants that Grantee shall have the
use of and enjoy all the benefits derived from and arising out of this
Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the
Property against the claims of all persons.
B. Subsequent Transfers. The Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms
of this Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that
transfers any interest in all or a portion of the Conservation Easement Area.
The Grantor agrees to provide written notice of such transfer at least sixty (60)
days prior to the date of the transfer. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the
terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive any merger of the fee and
easement interests in the Conservation Easement Area or any portion thereof
and shall not be amended, modified or terminated without the prior written
consent and approval of the Corps.
C. Assignment. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of
this Conservation Easement are in gross and assignable provided, however
that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event it transfers or
assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will
be a qualified holder pursuant to 33 CFR 332.7 (a)(1), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34
et seq. and § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the
Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or
assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to
continue in perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.
D. Entire Agreement and Severability. The Mitigation Banking
Instrument: MBI with corresponding Mitigation Plan, and this Conservation
Easement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations,
understandings or agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any
provision is found to be void or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect.
E. Obligations of Ownership. Grantor is responsible for any real estate
taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall
keep the Property free of any liens or other encumbrances for obligations
incurred by Grantor, except those incurred after the date hereof, which are
expressly subject and subordinate to the Conservation Easement. Grantee shall
not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the ownership,
operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as
expressly provided herein. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits
that may apply to the exercise of the Reserved Rights.
F. Long -Term Management. Grantor is responsible for all long-term
management activities associated with fencing. These activities include the
E:

maintenance and/or replacement of fence structures to ensure the aquatic
resource functions within the boundaries of the Protected Property are
sustained.
G. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render
impossible the continued use of the Conservation Easement Area for the
conservation purposes, this Conservation Easement may only be extinguished,
in whole or in part, by judicial proceeding.
H. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Conservation
Easement Area is taken in the exercise of eminent domain so as to
substantially abrogate the Restrictions imposed by this Conservation
Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in appropriate actions at the time of
such taking to recover the full value of the taking, and all incidental and direct
damages due to the taking.
I. Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property
interest immediately vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of the
Conservation Easement Area is sold, exchanged, or involuntarily converted
following an extinguishment or the exercise of eminent domain, Grantee shall
be entitled to the fair market value of this Conservation Easement as
determined at the time of the extinguishment or condemnation.
J. Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other
communication required under this Conservation Easement shall be sent by
registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses (or such
address as may be hereafter specified by notice pursuant to this paragraph):
To Grantor:
[Name, address and fax number]
To Grantee:
[Name, address and fax number]
To Sponsor:
To the Corps:
US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District, Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
K. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to
enforce this Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified
grantee, and if within a reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of
these events Grantee fails to make an assignment pursuant to this
Conservation Easement, then the Grantee's interest shall become vested in
another qualified grantee in accordance with an appropriate proceeding in a

court of competent jurisdiction.
L. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but
only in a writing signed by all parties hereto, and provided such amendment
does not affect the qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of
the Grantee under any applicable laws, and is consistent with the conservation
purposes of this grant.
M. Present Condition of the Conservation Easement Area. The
wetlands, scenic, resource, environmental, and other natural characteristics of
the Conservation Easement Area, and its current use and state of
improvement, are described in Section of the Mitigation Plan, prepared
by Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor and Grantee to be complete and
accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and Grantee have copies of this
report. It will be used by the parties to assure that any future changes in the use
of the Conservation Easement Area will be consistent with the terms of this
Conservation Easement. However, this report is not intended to preclude the
use of other evidence to establish the present condition of the Conservation
Easement Area if there is a controversy over its use.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually
unto Grantee for the aforesaid purposes.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and
seal, the day and year first above written.
[Signatures of the Grantor and Grantee in appropriate form]
10

Appendix E- USACE Assessment Forms
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
NC SAM Forms
NC WAM Forms

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
user rvianuai version d.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Rolling Meadows
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
5. County: Davidson
7. River basin: Yadkin -Pee Dee
2. Date of evaluation: 6/10/2021
Assessor name/organization
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
Obermiller - WLS
Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.910534,-80.315534
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Reedy Creek 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 4550
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 6 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 19 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A El
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ®Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ®IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not A
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
®C ®C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F, W ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) 2 E ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o w ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation Y U)C ❑I Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
❑A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
®C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ®Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ®Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ®Other fish
❑ ❑ Sala manders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®C ®C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
®N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
®C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
®A ®A ❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ®E ®E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Mature forest
❑B ❑B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
®E ®E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ®A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
®C ®C ®C ®C ®C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
®C ®C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
❑A ❑A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
®C ®C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
®C ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Reedy Creek is a channelized main stem through a bottomland currently used for hay production and some adjacent row crop. Floodplain is
ditched.

Draft NIC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Rolling Meadows Date of Assessment
6/10/2021
Stream Category Pa4 Assessor Name/Organization
Kyle Obermiller - WLS
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
user rvianuai version d.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Rolling Meadows
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
5. County: Davidson
7. River basin: Yadkin -Pee Dee
2. Date of evaluation: 6/10/2021
Assessor name/organization
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
Obermiller - WLS
Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.913575,-80.304503
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): S100 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 2250
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 6 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 20.5 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ®IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not A
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
®C ®C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
®I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F, W ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) 2 E ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o w ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation Y U)C ❑I Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ®Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ®Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ®Other fish
❑ ❑ Sala manders/tadpoles
❑ ®Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ®A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
®N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
®D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
®F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
®C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ®B ❑B ®B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
®E ❑E ®E ❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ®A Mature forest
❑B ❑B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
®E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
®A ❑A ®A ❑A ®A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ®A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
®C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
❑A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
®C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
®C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:
S100 is a perennial channel flowing south into Reedy Creek. Right bank is mostly wooded, left bank directly abuts active row crop field

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Rolling Meadows Date of Assessment 6/10/2021
Stream Category Pb2 Assessor Name/Organization Kyle Obermiller - WLS
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
user rvianuai version d.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Rolling Meadows
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
5. County: Davidson
7. River basin: Yadkin -Pee Dee
2. Date of evaluation: 6/10/2021
Assessor name/organization
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
Obermiller - WLS
Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.913512,-80.304565
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): S101 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 410
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3.5 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 9.0 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ®IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not A
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
®C ®C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
®B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F, W ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) 2 E ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o w ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation Y U)C ❑I Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ®Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ®Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑ Sala manders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ®Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
®A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ®C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
®N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
®D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
®F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
®B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
®B ❑B ®B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ®D ❑D ®D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E ❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ❑A Mature forest
❑B ❑B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ®C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ®A ❑A ®A ❑A ®A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ❑A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
❑C ®C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ❑A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ®C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
®A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:
S101 is a short tributary flowing into S100 prior to the confluence with Reedy Creek. Left bank is wooded, right bank abuts active agriculture

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Rolling Meadows Date of Assessment 6/10/2021
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization Kyle Obermiller - WLS
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user Manual Version b.0
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Rolling Meadows
Date of Evaluation
6-10-2021
Applicant/Owner Name
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Wetland Site Name
HS1- HS2
Wetland Type
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Kyle Obermiller - WLS
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Reedy Creek
River Basin
Yadkin -Pee Dee
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03040101
County
Davidson
NCDWR Region
Winston-Salem
6ZI Yes F1 No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
35.910716.-80.310651
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of 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)
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).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
®B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
®E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ®G ®G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer —assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑Yes ®No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
❑<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
❑Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
®C ®C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
®A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
®K ®K ®K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
®F
®F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑ B 1 to 4
®C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
TAA WT
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
cU ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C
®C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
- ❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
Moderate density layer
.�! ❑B
❑B
shrub
U) ®C
®C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
-0 ®A
®A
Dense herb layer
_ ❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
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
�.-�, f"�. f--�, (m',`. f--� �'�.. 1.-�, �`'•�.
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
HS1 and HS2 are two areas of hydric soil located in ditched agricultural land in the floodplain of Reedy Creek. These areas are clearcut and
currently in hay production. Multiple ditches cross through the assessment area. Reedy Creek is an incised and channelized stream.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name HS1- HS2 Date of Assessment 6-10-2021
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Kyle Obermiller - WLS
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user Manual Version b.0
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Rolling Meadows
Date of Evaluation
6-10-2021
Applicant/Owner Name
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Wetland Site Name
HS3
Wetland Type
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Kyle Obermiller - WLS
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Reedy Creek
River Basin
Yadkin -Pee Dee
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03040101
County
Davidson
NCDWR Region
Winston-Salem
6ZI Yes F1 No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
35.912259.-80.304564
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of 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)
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).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ❑A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
®G ®G ®G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer —assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑Yes ®No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
❑<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
❑Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
®D ®D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
®A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
®G ®G ®G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
®B
From 100 to < 500 acres
®C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
®B 1 to 4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
TAA WT
o ®A ®A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C
®C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
- ❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
Moderate density layer
1E ®B
®B
shrub
U) ❑C
❑C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
-0 ®A
®A
Dense herb layer
_ ❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
HS3 is an area of hydric soils that abuts W01 to the north and extends to the woodline adjacent to agricultural fields. HS3 is ditched from the
property line connecting into the channelized and incised Reedy Creek.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name HS3 Date of Assessment 6-10-2021
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Kyle Obermiller - WLS
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
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
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Veaetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user Manual Version b.0
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Rolling Meadows
Date of Evaluation
6-10-2021
Applicant/Owner Name
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Wetland Site Name
W01
Wetland Type
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Kyle Obermiller - WLS
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Reedy Creek
River Basin
Yadkin -Pee Dee
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03040101
County
Davidson
NCDWR Region
Winston-Salem
6ZI Yes F1 No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
35.91199.-80.30499
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of 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)
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).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ❑A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
®G ®G ®G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer —assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑Yes ®No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
❑<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
❑Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
®B ®B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
®H ®H ®H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
®B
From 100 to < 500 acres
®C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
®B 1 to 4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
®A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
TAA WT
o ®A ®A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C
®C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
- ❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
Moderate density layer
1E ®B
®B
shrub
U) ❑C
❑C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
-0 ❑A
❑A
Dense herb layer
_ ®B
®B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
®A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
®A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
W01 is a bottomland wetland at the toe of the slope of the floodplain of Reedy Creek.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name W01 Date of Assessment 6-10-2021
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Kyle Obermiller - WLS
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) 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 Ratina Summa
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
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
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

Appendix F- WOTUS Information
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2021-01538 County: Davidson U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -Welcome
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERNIINATION
Requestor: Water & Land Solutions
Kyle Obermiller
Address: 7721 Six Forks Road, Ste 130
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Telephone Number: 828-808-2240
E-mail: kyle( )waterlandsolutions.com
Size (acres) 51.2 Nearest Town Lexington
Nearest Waterway Reedy Creek River Basin Upper Pee Dee
USGS HUC 03040101 Coordinates Latitude: 35.916696
Longitude:-80.304871
Location description: The project is located between the Towns of Arcadia and Welcome, west of Link Road and north of
Hoover Road, in Davidson County, NC.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
® There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33
USC § 403). The waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be
sufficiently accurate and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map
dated 8/10/2021. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process,
including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation
requirements, and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat
all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program
Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an
appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are waters, including wetlandson the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.

SAW-2021-01538
❑ The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided
there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
❑ The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below onDATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Christopher Hoover at [phone] (05) or
christopher.d.hopper(&u sace. army.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: See the preliminary iurisdictional determination form dated 03/04/2022.
D. Remarks: USACE Staff conducted a site visit and verified resource extents and locations on 0812012021.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed
you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Mr. Philip A. Shannin
Administrative Appeal Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Floor M9
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8803
AND
PHILIP.A. SHANNINgU SACE.ARMY.MIL

SAW-2021-01538
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official:. —� -
� � rY
Date of JD: 03/04/2022 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
hops://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/.
Copy Furnished:
Property Owner: North State Environmental, Inc.
Darrell Westmoreland
Address: 2889 Lowery Street
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
Telephone Number: 336-725-2010
E-mail: darrell(&nsenv.com

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
A licant: Water & Land Solutions, Kyle Obermiller File Number: SAW-2021-01538 Date: 03/04/2022
Attached is:
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
®
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.army.miUMissions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFE Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be
appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further
consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
MR. PHILIP A. SHANNIN
Attn: Christopher Hopper
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REVIEW OFFICER
Raleigh Regulatory Office
CESAD-PDS-O
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
60 FORSYTH STREET SOUTHWEST, FLOOR M9
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8803
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
PHONE: [phone]; FAX [phone]
EMAIL: PHILIP.A.SHANNIN(aUSACE.ARMY.MIL
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15-day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opporturn to participate in all site invest] ations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Christopher Hopper, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Philip Shannin, Administrative
Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 03-MAR-2022
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD:
Mcintyre, Adam
Water & Land Solutions, Llc
11030 Raven Ridge Road
Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
SAW, WLS Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Rolling Meadows Site, SAW-2021-01538
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR AQUATIC
RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Davidson County City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.: 35.9166960 Long.:-80.304871
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17
Name of nearest waterbody: Reedy Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
X Field Determination. Date(s): August 20, 2021
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO
REGULATORY JURISDICTION.
Site Number
Latitude (decimal
Longitude
Estimated amount
Type of aquatic
Geographic
degrees)
(decimal degrees)
of aquatic
resource (i.e.,
authority to which
resource in review
wetland vs. non-
the aquatic
area (acreage and
wetland waters)
resource "may be"
linear feet, if
subject (i.e.,
applicable)
Section 404 or
Section 10/404
Reedy Creek
35.91053
-80.31553
4550 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
S100
35.91358
-80.3045
2250 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
S101
35.91351
-80.30457
410 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
S200
35.91173
-80.30494
198 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
W01
35.91199
-80.30499
0.834 acres
Wetland
Section 404
1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review
area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain
an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed
the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be
appropriate.
Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established time frame, the
district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action.
Page 1 of 3

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide
General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre -construction notification"
(PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit
applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware
that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which
does not make an official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has
the option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the
right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP
or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can accept a permit authorization and
thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever
mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity
in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the
applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a
proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area
affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any
administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either
an AJD or a PJD, the.JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can
be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal,
it becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists
over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional
aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as
soon as is practicable. This PJD finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there
"may be" navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic
features in the review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:
' Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established time frame, the
district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action.
Page 2 of 3

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where indicated
for all checked items:
_X_ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor: Water & Land Soultions
Map: Figure 4: Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project Existing Hydrography Map
_X_ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
_X_ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
_ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
USGS NHD data.
_ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
_X_ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Welcome, NC. USGS 7.5 min. quad
_X_ Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Web Soil Survey (July 8, 2021)
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
_X_ Photographs: _X_ Aerial (Name & Date): NC OneMap true color aerial (undated)
_ or _X_ Other (Name & Date): Site photos (June 30, 2021)
_ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
_X_ Other information (please specify): LiDAR Image
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by
the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations.
March 3, 2022
Signature and date of Regulatory staff
member completing PJD
Signature and date of person requesting
PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the
signature is impracticable)'
' Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established time frame, the
district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action.
Page 3 of 3

Figure
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Existing
WATER & LAND
HUC8 Upper Yadkin 03040101
Davidson County, North Carolina
Hydrography Map
4
SOLUTIONS
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plan e_N orth_Carol in a_F I PS_3200_Feet
Date: 8/10/2021
Data sources - Soils data source: USDA. Imagery data source: NC One Map

Appendix G- Agency Correspondence
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Initial Evaluation Letter
Meeting Minutes- NCIRT Draft Prospectus Site Meeting
NC State Historic Preservation Office Comments

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA28403-1343
March 22, 2022
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW-2021-01538
Re: NCIRT Initial Review of the WLS Yadkin 01—Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site
Mrs. Catherine Roland
Water & Land Solutions
7721 Six Forks Rd, Suite 130
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mrs. Roland:
This letter is regarding your prospectus document dated January 2022, for the
proposed Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site, a modification to the WLS Yadkin 01 UMBI.
The proposal consists of the establishment and operation of a private commercial
stream and wetland mitigation bank, located on Kendlebrook Farm Road, in the Reedy
Creek Community, Davidson County, North Carolina (35.9166960N,-80.304871 °W).
The Corps determined the Prospectus was complete and issued a public notice on
January 13, 2022. The purpose of this notice was to solicit the views of interested State
and Federal agencies and other parties either interested in or affected by the proposed
work. Attached are comments received in response to the public notice from the US
Environmental Protection Agency, NC State Historic Preservation Office and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. As of the date of this correspondence, the Corps has not received
comments from the Catawba Nation.
The Corps has considered the comments received from members of the Interagency
Review Team (IRT) and information that was discussed during an IRT site review on
August 30, 2021. We have determined that the proposed mitigation bank appears to
have the potential to restore, enhance, and preserve aquatic resources within the Upper
Yadkin River Basin, 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040101. Therefore, WLS
may proceed with preparation of a draft mitigation plan.
Please provide a response to the attached comments with your draft mitigation plan
submittal and provide documentation that you have satisfied the concerns in the
attached correspondence from SHPO. We appreciate your interest in restoring and
protecting waters of the United States. If you have questions regarding this letter or the

mitigation bank development process, please contact me by email at
Kimberly. D.Browning(a)usace.army.mil or telephone [phone].
Respectfully,
Digitally signed by
Kimberly Danielle Kimberly Danielle Browning
Browning Date: 2022.03.2213:41:52
-04'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List

USFWS Comments, Byron Hamstead (February 23, 2022):
The public notice for this project indicates that the USACE has made "no effect"
determinations for listed species. We are obligated to say that, Our concurrence with
"no effect" determinations from action agencies is not required. In accordance with the
ESA, it is the responsibility of the appropriate federal action agency or its designated
representative to review its activities or programs and to identify any such activities or
programs that may affect endangered or threatened species or their habitats. If it is
determined that the proposed activity may adversely affect any species federally listed
as endangered or threatened, formal consultation with this office must be initiated.
We offer these comments:
IPaC(htti)s://ii)ac.ecosi)here.fws.gov/ <Blockedhttps://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/> ) lists
two federally protected species for this location that are subject to ESA consultation:
northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii).
NLEB
We can confirm that the 4(d) rule for this species exempts incidental take associated
with any tree clearing at the project location. Although not required, we encourage
project proponents to avoid clearing of suitable roost trees during this animal's maternity
roosting season (May 15 - August 15) and especially during the pup season (June 1 -
July 31). If clearing of suitable roost trees is not proposed, we would not object to a "no
effect" determination from the action agency for this species.
Schweinitz's sunflower
This species occurs in a variety of transitional habitats such as maintained roadsides,
utility rights of way, forest openings, forest edges, old pastures, etc. This species
prefers full sun but tolerates partial shade. It does not tolerate full shade/full canopy
cover and can be outcompeted by dense understory vegetation -especially exotic
invasive species. This is also not a riparian species and areas along Reedy Creek
would not provide suitable habitat. Suitable habitat for this plant may occur among the
uplands within the subject parcels, but if those areas would be undisturbed (or better,
protected under easement), we would not object to a "no effect" determination from the
action agency.

Memorandum to the Record
February 14, 2022
Agency Comments for the Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site (SAW-2021-
01538) Prospectus Associated with the WLS Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation
Bank in Davidson County, NC
Kim,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback and comments on the Rolling Meadows
Mitigation Site (the Site or Project) Prospectus as an addition/modification to the WLS Yadkin
O1 Umbrella Mitigation Bank (UMB). Water and Land Solutions, LLC (WLS), has presented a
potentially suitable plan to provide compensatory mitigation for jurisdictional stream impacts
associated with the US Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 permit program.
The Site is in the Reedy Creek Community of Davidson County approximately 7 miles north of
Lexington and within the Reedy Creek targeted local watershed of the Upper Yadkin River. With
this project, WLS will restore, enhance, and protect approximately 7,065 linear feet of stream
and 9.26 acres of wetland within a 53-acre conservation easement providing compensatory
mitigation credits in the Upper Yadkin River Basin Service Area (HUC 03040101).
Note: It is understood that site visits have been made by IRT members during the development of
site feasibility to provide mitigation credit. In that regard, I feel it necessary to denote that I have
not been on -site during this process and that my comments may reflect a lack of on -site
observation and evaluation.
The EPA Region 4 Ocean, Wetlands and Stream Protection Branch offers the following site -
specific comments as they pertain to the Rolling Meadows Prospectus dated January 2022. Page
numbers refer to the entire pdf document offered for review:
1. Table 3/Page 12:
o Error for S 101 watershed drainage area (sq. mi).
2. Section 4.1.4/Page 13 Existing Reach Conditions:
o I do not see any discussion on S200 (shown on several maps) or the associated
wetland area that is upstream/adjacent to HS03. Some notes shown on Figure 7
(Page 37) list this feature as unverified. I recommend that WLS verify this
wetland/stream area and address it in the draft mitigation plan.
3. Section 4.2.8/Page 17:
o Recommend the sponsor verify that there are no active or proposed livestock
operations or pastureland use in adjacent parcels to justify the lack of fencing
need.
4. Table 8/Page 27:
o Recommend adding remedial actions for beaver activity/damage in the routine
maintenance components of Table 8.
5. Figure 8/Page 38:

o It appears that a culvert is missing on the Functional Stressors map. This culvert is
at the confluence of S100 and Reedy Creek (mentioned in Section 5.2).
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback, comments and concerns with the Rolling
Meadows Mitigation Site Prospectus in Davidson County, NC. WLS has provided a potentially
suitable plan to offset impacts and provide compensatory stream and wetland mitigation credits
within the Yadkin River 01 watershed geographic service area. If you or the sponsor have any
questions or need clarification on any of the comments stated above, please contact me at 404-
562-9225 or at [e-mail].
Best Regards,
Todd Bowers
Comments submitted to Kimberly Browning (SAW-PAI) via email on February 14, 2022.

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary D. Reid Wilson
February 11, 2022
Kim Browning
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
Kimberly.D.Browningga,usace. army.mil
Re: Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site (Corps Action ID Number: SAW-2021-01538),
Davidson County, ER 22-0175
Dear Ms. Browning
Thank you for your letter of January 13, 2022, transmitting the environmental review documentation for the
above -referenced project. We have reviewed the information provided and offer the following comments:
Five archaeological sites are located within one-half mile of the project area, most of which are Native
American sites that contained lithic tools and ceramics. Most of these have never been systematically
surveyed or assessed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Given the proximity to previously recorded sites, the topographic setting, and proximity of Reedy Creek,
there is potential for significant archaeological sites to be located within the project area. We recommend
the project area be systematically surveyed prior to any ground disturbing activities within the project area.
This work should be conducted by an experienced archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualification Standards. A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or
expressed an interest in contract work in North Carolina is available at:
hllps://archaeology.ncdcr.gov/archaeological-consultant-list. The archaeologists listed, or any other
experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
Please note that our office requests consultation with the Office of State Archaeology Review
Archaeologist to discuss appropriate field methodologies prior to the archaeological field investigation.
You can find the Review Archaeologist for your region at htt2s://archaeology.ncdcr.gov/about/contact-0.
OSA's Archaeological Standards and Guidelines for Background Research, Field Methodologies,
Technical Reports, and Curation can be found online at: https://files.nc.gov/dncr-
arch/OSA_Guidelines_Dec20l7.pdf.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or environmental.reviewgncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
cc Chris Hopper, USACE christopher.d.ho]2]2er cgusace.army.mil

WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
EMPOWERING PEOPLE.
RESTORING THE ENVIRONMENT,
Meeting Minutes
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site
Subject: NCIRT Draft Prospectus Site Meeting
Date Prepared: September 1, 2021
Meeting Date and Time; August 30, 2021 @ 10:00 am
Meeting Location: On Site (Davidson County, NC)
Attendees: USACE: Todd Tugwell, Kim Browning, Casey Haywood (NCIRT)
NCDEQ DWR: Erin Davis (NCIRT)
WLS: Kayne VanStell, Daniel Ingram, Catherine Manner
Soil Scientist: George Lankford
These meeting minutes document notes and discussion points from the North Carolina Interagency
Review Team (NCIRT) Draft Prospectus Site Meeting for the Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project (Yadkin
River Basin, CU 03040101). The proposed bank site is located in Davidson County, near Lexington,
North Carolina. The meeting began at 10:00 am with a general summary of the overall project concepts.
After the site overview, attendees toured the project site to review existing conditions and proposed
mitigation types, restoration approaches, and design concepts. In general, the project site review notes
are presented below in the order they were discussed/visited.
• Group started by walking down S100. Group discussed that the culvert under the road would
remain and that the channel would be brought to the culvert elevation so it would not remain
perched.
• Todd suggested putting in a wetland gauge to see if you could later capture wetland credit in that
area. Todd also stated this needs to contemplated in the mitigation plan.
• IRT noted to consider that the site earthwork would not balance and material source was
something to be aware of.
• IRT agreed with Restoration approach on S100.
Reedy Creek Upper
• Kayne, Catherine, Erin, and Casey walked up towards the powerline. The group discussed
possibility of starting the project above the power line. Casey/Erin approved of extending the
conservation easement above the powerline, which would allow the priority level 2 restoration
approach to start further upstream. Erin suggested more than a 50ft buffer if possible.
[phone] • [e-mail]
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130, Raleigh, NC 27615, United States
www.wateriandsolutions.com

WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
EMPOWERING PEOPLE.
RESTORING THE ENVIRONMENT,
• Daniel, Todd, Kim and George walked to W01 and verified the wetland and stream delineation.
Todd and Kim concurred with the delineation and do not think any further site visits will be
needed for the PJD.
• Todd stated that he agreed S200 should terminate in W01 as mapped and it is not appropriate to
excavate a "connection" to Reedy Creek. Todd and Kim also suggested we utilize the updated
buffer tool to claim additional stream credit in that area in lieu of the very small potential
preservation credit.
• The group met back up at the confluence of S100 and Reedy Creek Upper. There was a
discussion about how stream credit should be calculated at the confluence. Todd stated that it
should be calculated to the top of bank in this area (S100 clipped at wetted perimeter as shown
on draft figure).
• IRT agreed with Enhancement Level I on this reach transitioning into Restoration. IRT was
agreeable with the idea of extending the conservation easement above power line if WLS found it
feasible.
Reedy Creek Lower
S1
• The group drove along the left floodplain of Reedy Creek Lower.
• George dug a soil boring in the HS01 area and group concurred with the hydric determination.
• Todd stated that WLS should include a beaver maintenance plan in the mitigation plan.
• IRT agreed with the Restoration approach for the Reedy Creek Lower reach.
• Erin suggested, if possible, to treat the area of Kudzu that extends onto the adjacent property.
• The group discussed the necessity of backfilling the existing Reedy Creek channel along the
adjacent property line and potential legal implications if the landowner retains water rights. WLS
stated their attorney would review during title search.
• Group ended site visit with reach S101. Todd stated a flow gauge should be put on S101 to make
document jurisdictional flow.
• Kim stated that when WLS is designing the planting plan for the site that she would rather have
an appropriate target community and is less concerned about the vigor.
• The tie into Reedy creek was discussed and the IRT is not concerned that S100 and S101 are
running parallel to each other before they tie into Reedy Creek.
• The IRT agreed with the Restoration approach for the S101 reach.
General Comments/Summary
• Overall, the IRT members agreed the project is suitable to provide compensatory stream and
wetland mitigation.
• WLS will provide a Final Prospectus after the decision is made to extend the conservation
easement to include more of Reedy Creek Upper above the powerline or keep the current
conservation easement which ends at the powerline.
[phone] • [e-mail]
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130, Raleigh, NC 27615, United States
www.wateriandsolutions.com

WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
EMPOWERING PEOPLE.
RESTORING THE ENVIRONMENT,
• The IRT suggested that WLS run the updated draft buffer tool to gain credit in areas with wider
buffers. Todd stated that the project would be exempt from crossing deductions at the top and
bottom of the conservation easement as well on both sides of the powerline.
• The IRT agreed with the proposed wetland areas proposed for wetland rehabilitation and
reestablishment.
• WLS offered to reach out to WRC and USFWS at the time of the public notice to conduct a
second site visit.
The above minutes represents Water & Land Solutions' interpretation and understanding of the meeting
discussion and actions. If recipients of these minutes should find any information contained in these
minutes to be in error, incomplete, please notify the author with appropriate corrections and/or additions
within five business days to allow adequate time for correction and redistribution.
[phone] • [e-mail]
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130, Raleigh, NC 27615, United States
www.wateriandsolutions.com

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary D. Reid Wilson
February 11, 2022
Kim Browning
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
Kimberly.D. Browning(2usace. army. mil
Re: Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site (Corps Action ID Number: SAW-2021-01538),
Davidson County, ER 22-0175
Dear Ms. Browning
Thank you for your letter of January 13, 2022, transmitting the environmental review documentation for the
above -referenced project. We have reviewed the information provided and offer the following comments:
Five archaeological sites are located within one-half mile of the project area, most of which are Native
American sites that contained lithic tools and ceramics. Most of these have never been systematically
surveyed or assessed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Given the proximity to previously recorded sites, the topographic setting, and proximity of Reedy Creek,
there is potential for significant archaeological sites to be located within the project area. We recommend
the project area be systematically surveyed prior to any ground disturbing activities within the project area.
This work should be conducted by an experienced archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualification Standards. A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or
expressed an interest in contract work in North Carolina is available at:
https://archaeology.ncdcr.gov/archaeological-consultant-list. The archaeologists listed, or any other
experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
Please note that our office requests consultation with the Office of State Archaeology Review
Archaeologist to discuss appropriate field methodologies prior to the archaeological field investigation.
You can find the Review Archaeologist for your region at https://archaeology.ncdcr.gov/about/contact-0.
OSA's Archaeological Standards and Guidelines for Background Research, Field Methodologies,
Technical Reports, and Curation can be found online at: https://files.nc.gov/dncr-
arch/OSA Guidelines Dec20l7.Ddf.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or environmental.reviewggncdcr. og_v. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
(1� Sincerely,
«
1�r Ramona Bartos, Deputy
(� State Historic Preservation Officer
cc Chris Hopper, USACE chri stopher. d.hopper2usace. army. mil

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary D. Reid Wilson
Terri Russ
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
terri.russ(a�terracon.com
Re: Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site, 35.916696,-80.304871, Davidson County, ER 22-0175
Dear Ms. Russ:
Thank you for your letter of March 11, 2022, transmitting the archaeological survey report associated with
the above -referenced undertaking. We have reviewed the submittal and offer the following comments.
Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) conducted an intensive archaeological survey of the proposed
wetland restoration project area. One newly recorded archaeological site (31DV769) was documented. The
site is categorized as a relatively low -density surface scatter of lithic along with two Native American
ceramic sherds. The site was recorded through surface inspection of a recently tilled agricultural field and
the boundaries were delineated by the surface scatter of artifacts. A majority of the site is located outside of
the proposed project area. One shovel test was excavated on the site within the project area. No artifacts
were recovered from the shovel test and the soil consisted of a mottled plow zone directly atop subsoil.
Terracon recommends that the site be considered not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP). Given the lack of subsurface testing outside of the project area, we do not concur that the
site as a whole should be considered not eligible for the NRHP. We instead consider the site to be
unassessed; however, given that a majority of the site is located outside of the project area, and no intact
deposits were observed within the project area, we concur that no additional archaeological investigations
are warranted at 31DV769 in association with the current project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

ER 22-0175, April 21, Page 2 of 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
environmental.reviewkncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
�L�
Sinc
wduL
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
cc: Chris Hopper, USACE
Kim Browning, USACE
christopher.d.hopper(cr�,usace.army. mil
Kimberly.D.Brownin(cr�,usace.army.mil
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

Appendix H- Site Photographs
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project

ff.cJ-
:II'
IL k
5 d.
mo�
i�
. ..
J
R
rr �•. .'yr.` "dui' t�.. : .. -- • -- - .�i.'ik - •i �''. ..� •' *►4. 4p _

,.
� . e� •
T�f.
e
CL
2
,,.
O
JA
•I