20001195 Ver 17_Baseline Monitoring Report_20220831

FY2
2022 NEAT In -Line
Detention Basin Baseline
Conditions Report
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
North End Around Taxiway (NEAT) In -line
Detention Basin
Charlotte, North Carolina
August 25, 2022

This page intentionally left blank.

2022 NEAT In -Line Detention Basin Baseline Conditions Report 1.0.
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
Contents
1 Project Background 1
2 Methods 1
2.1 Monitoring Locations 1
2.2 Dimension Assessment 2
2.3 Substrate Characterization 2
2.4 Bank Erosion Hazard Index 2
2.5 North Carolina Stream Assessment Methodology (NCSAM) 3
2.6 Photographic Documentation 3
2.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 3
3 Results and Discussion 3
4 References 5
Tables
Table 3-1. Summary of Monitoring Site Characteristics 4
Appendices
Appendix A - Figures
Appendix B - NCDWR Correspondence
Appendix C - Approved Monitoring Plan
Appendix D - Stream Monitoring Location Profiles
Appendix E - Field Data Forms
August 25, 2022 I

2022 NEAT In -Line Detention Basin Baseline Conditions Report
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
This page is intentionally left blank.
ii'August 25, 2022

2022 NEAT In -Line Detention Basin Baseline Conditions Report
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
1 Project Background
In 2018, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) requested that Charlotte Douglas
International Airport (CLT) submit a phased Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404/401
Individual Permit (IP) application to permit projects proposed for the next five plus years
that would propose impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands. HDR prepared and
submitted a CWA Section 404/401 IP application in January 2020 to permit near -term
impacts to streams and wetlands associated with the North End Around Taxiway (NEAT)
Project (Appendix A, Figure 1). The purpose of the NEAT Project is to construct an in -
line detention basin to provide peak discharge reduction for rainstorm events.
The CWA Section 401 Individual Water Quality Certification was approved by the North
Carolina Division of Water resources (NCDWR) on August 21, 2020 (WQC004233) and
CWA Section 404 Individual Permit was approved by the USACE on December 15, 2020
(USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01071). A CWA Section 404/401 IP modification was
submitted in November 2021 and subsequently approved by DWR in November 2021
and approved by the USACE in February 2022. A condition of both the Section 404 and
401 permit approvals was to monitor the proposed in -line regional detention basin on
Ticer Branch for pre- and post -construction baseline conditions and ongoing routine
monitoring after construction is complete. A monitoring plan (dated August 4, 2020) to
conduct this work was approved by the USACE and NCDWR as a condition of the
permits. Approval of proposed monitoring locations on Ticer Branch (S1) and an
associated unnamed tributary to Ticer Branch (Stream 2 [S2]) was received from
NCDWR on May 23, 2022, and pre -construction monitoring was conducted on June 29,
2022.
Permanent impacts to Ticer Branch were authorized for the placement of a reinforced
concrete box culvert and earthen berm that would be sized detain 2-, 10-, 25-, 50, and
100-year storm events to reduce peak flows downstream (Appendix A, Figure 2).
During the design storm event, Ticer Branch would overtop its banks and flood the
detention area (i.e., the floodplain), including an unnamed tributary, for stormwater
detention and attenuate within 48 hours. No other direct stream impacts are proposed as
a result of the NEAT Project in -line detention basin, however the streamside areas of S1
and S2 would require grading and removal of trees in order to provide the capacity
necessary to detain the designed storm event. A 10-foot vegetated buffer along each
stream will be maintained.
Both channels within the NEAT Project basin will require baseline conditions
documentation per the approved monitoring plan. This report summarizes the findings of
the baseline, pre -construction conditions of Ticer Branch and related unnamed tributary.
2 Methods
Monitoring Locations
Monitoring locations were selected in consultation with NCDWR prior to baseline
monitoring (Appendix B). On January 13, 2022, a site visit of the NEAT Project area
August 25, 2022 11

2022 NEAT In -Line Detention Basin Baseline Conditions Report
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
was conducted by CLT personnel and HDR Engineering of the Carolinas, Inc. (HDR).
Five monitoring locations were identified during the site visit: four along Ticer Branch
(S1-01 to S1-04) and one on S2 (S2-01) (Appendix A, Figure 2). One of the Ticer
Branch locations, S1-04, was located downstream of the detention basin/flooding limits in
order to monitor for confounding effects due to natural events. Further details on the
basis for monitoring location site selection is provided in the Proposed Monitoring
Locations memo provided to NCDWR, included in Appendix B.
Per the approved monitoring plan (Appendix C), monitoring locations within the
detention basin (S1-01, S1-02, S1-03, and S2-01) were subject to dimension, substrate
characterization, Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI), and North Carolina Stream
Assessment Methodology (NCSAM) assessments, as well as photographic
documentation. Substrate characterization, BEHI assessments, and photographic
documentation was performed for location S1-04 downstream (outside) of the NEAT
Project detention basin.
Permanent cross sections were established at each monitoring location with 4-foot rebar
("bank pin") installed at approximately top -of -bank on each side of the channel. Bank
pins were recorded using a GPS with sub -meter accuracy (Trimble Geo7x). Permanently
established cross sections will allow comparison of stream dimension through time and
identify changes (if any) in stream classification.
2.2 Dimension Assessment
Cross -sectional dimension data was collected applying standard surveying techniques
using a basic surveyor's level (CST Berger), rod, and a tape strung from bank to bank.
Cross sections were surveyed assuming height of instrument as elevation zero, typically
at the left "bank pin" (i.e., rebar), and differential leveling. Elevations were recorded at
important features such as top of bank, slope breaks, bankfull indicators, edge of water,
and thalweg.
Channel parameters, based on The Key to the Rosgen Stream Classification of Natural
Rivers (Rosgen 1994), were calculated from the plotted elevation data. These
parameters (entrenchment ratio, width/depth ratio, sinuosity, slope, and substrate) were
used to assign a channel classification type for each cross-section location.
2.3 Substrate Characterization
A Wolman pebble count (Wolman 1954) was performed at all monitoring locations to
characterize the existing surface grain size distribution of substrate. The Wentworth grain
size classification scale (Wentworth 1922) was used to assign size classes to substrate.
Substrate particle sizes were plotted by size class and frequency to determine
distributions for each cross section.
2.4 Bank Erosion Hazard Index
Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) assessments (Rosgen 2001) were conducted for
each bank at all monitoring locations. This included an evaluation of root depth -to -bank
height, percentage of root density and surface protection, and bank angle.
2 'August 25, 2022

2022 NEAT In -Line Detention Basin Baseline Conditions Report FN Charlotte Douglas International Airport
2.5 North Carolina Stream Assessment Methodology (NCSAM)
The North Carolina Stream Assessment Methodology (NCSAM) (NCDWQ 2010) was
used to assess stream quality and function at monitoring locations within the NEAT
Project detention basin (S1-01, S1-02, S1-03, and S2-01). This included an assessment
of hydrological influence, water quality, and biology for each location. Baseline, pre -
construction NCSAM assessments assumed no construction activity within the vegetated
buffer.
2.6 Photographic Documentation
Photographs were taken at each monitoring location to visually document the existing
conditions of the channel. Photographs looking upstream, downstream, and each bank
(left and right) were made with the survey tape in view for visual reference.
2.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
A biologist with Rosgen training (Wildland Hydrology, Inc., est. 1985) lead the field
assessments for baseline condition monitoring. All data transcribed from field data
sheets were reviewed for quality control by a second HDR scientist for accuracy, and
review documentation was maintained for records.
3 Results and Discussion
The field site visits were conducted on June 29, 2022 for pre -construction baseline
monitoring. Three of the monitoring locations located on Ticer Branch (S1-01, S1-02, and
S1-03) had at least one streambank undergoing active degradation (erosion). Dimension
assessments following geomorphic survey and applying Rosgen technique classified all
three survey locations on Ticer Branch as F-type streams. Conversely, the intermittent
tributary to Ticer Branch was classified as a B-type stream (S2-01), which exhibited more
stability than locations on Ticer Branch. Streambank erosion potential was still rated high
at S2-01; limited flow due to the natural intermittent flow regime limits risk of streambank
erosion along this tributary, however upstream impervious area and resultant stormwater
runoff contributes to erosion potential.
All cross-section locations scored high on the NCSAM assessment except for S2, which
scored medium for the USACE rating due to limited aquatic life tolerance and in -stream
habitat. Generally, the streams within the NEAT Project detention basin exhibit high
functionality based on hydrology, water quality, and aquatic habitat. Geomorphic
parameters, classifications, and scores for BEHI and NCSAM are summarized in
Table 3-1 below. Complete stream profiles are provided in Appendix D and field data
forms in Appendix E.
August 25, 2022 13

2022 NEAT In -Line Detention Basin Baseline Conditions Report
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
Table 3-1. Summary of Monitoring Site Characteristics
Ticer Branch (S1)
S1-01
S1-02
S1-03
S1-04
Unnamed
Tributary (S2)
S2-01
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.9
25.1
26.7
N/A
4.7
Flood -prone Width(ft)
17.9
39.9
29.7
N/A
6.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.8 1.4 1.5 N/A 0.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.5
2.0 2.1 N/A 0.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area
(ft2)
13.3 33.8 38.8 N/A 0.9
Width/Depth Ratio
19.1 18.6
18.4 N/A 23.9
Entrenchment Ratio 1.1
1.6 1.1 N/A 1.3
Sinuosity 0.97 0.97 0.97 N/A 1.29
Dso (mm)
8.7 (medium 24 (coarse 21 (coarse
gravel) gravel) gravel)
0.24
19 (coarse
gravel)
Rosgen Type II Classification F4 F4 F4 N/A B4c
BEHI
Left Bank High (39.43)
High Very High High
(32.07) (40.46)
(35.49)
High (37.97)
Right Bank
Moderate
(26.02)
High High Low
(37.45)
(39.08) (14.17)
High (34.49)
NCSAM Score
Medium
High High High N/A (USACE)
High (NCDWR)
4'August 25, 2022

2022 NEAT In -Line Detention Basin Baseline Conditions Report FN Charlotte Douglas International Airport
4 References
Rosgen, D. L., 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena (22): 169-199
. 2001. A Practical Method for Computing Stream Bank Erosion Rate. In: Pages 9-15 in
Proceedings of the 7th Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Mar 25-29, U.S.
Interagency Committee on Water Resources, Subcommittee on Sedimentation, Reno,
Nevada, pp. 9-15.
N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2010. Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and their Origins, Version 4.11. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC. Web link:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=Oddc6eal-d736-4b55-8e50-
169a4476de96&groupld=38364
Wentworth, C.K. 1922. A Scale of Grade and Class Terms for Clastic Sediments. The Journal of
Geology 30(5): 377-392.
Wolman, M.G. (1954) A Method of Sampling Coarse River -Bed Material. Transactions —American
Geophysical Union, 35, 951-956. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/TR035i006p00951
August 25, 2022 15

2022 NEAT In -Line Detention Basin Baseline Conditions Report
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
This page is intentionally left blank.
6'August 25, 2022

2022 NEAT In -Line Detention Basin Baseline Conditions Report FN Charlotte Douglas International Airport
AM
Appendix A - Figures
August 25, 2022

2022 NEAT In -Line Detention Basin Baseline Conditions Report
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
This page is intentionally left blank.
August 25, 2022

LEGEND
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
Streams
Wetlands
Open Water 0 Miles 0.5
DATA SOURCE: Bing aerial imagery; surface waters and wetlands
delineated in 2019.
FY(CLT
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS'.
INTERNATIONAL AIPPOIIT
NEAT Basin Project Area
Charlotte Douglas
InternationalAirport
NEAT BASIN PROJECT AREA
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FIGURE 1
2022 NEAT BASIN BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

LEGEND
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
Detentation Basin Flood Limits
30-ft Vegetated Grass Buffer Along 50-yr Floodp
NEAT Basin Grading Limits
Cross Section Monitoring Locations
Streams
Wetlands
Open Water 0 Feet 200
DATA SOURCE: Bing aerial imagery; surface waters and wetlands delineated in 2019.
F�2
CCU'
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS.
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
107V,ei i a .`a►k. fit.. ;5V14‘*
Ticer Branch (S2)
Perennial
NEAT BASIN MONITORING LOCATIONS
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FIGURE 2
PATH: IICLTSMAINIGIS_DATAIGISIPROJECTSW129_CDIA11010]fi29_NEAT_BASIN_MONITORINGI].2_WORK_IN_PROGRESSIMAP_DOCSIMXDIBASELINE MONITORING REPORTFIGURE_2_MONITORING LOCATIONS.MXD - USER: EBRADSHAWS - DATE: 8/ 2022
2022 NEAT BASIN BASELINE MONITORING REPORT

2022 NEAT In -Line Detention Basin Baseline Conditions Report FN Charlotte Douglas International Airport
B
Appendix B - NCDWR
Correspondence
August 25, 2022

2022 NEAT In -Line Detention Basin Baseline Conditions Report
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
This page is intentionally left blank.
August 25, 2022

Memo
Date: Monday, March 28, 2022
Project: Charlotte Douglas International Airport North End Around Taxiway Project
To: Sue Homewood, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality — Division of Water
Quality
From: Charlotte Douglas International Airport
Subject: DWR Project No. 20001195 V17 Proposed Monitoring Locations
Dear Ms. Homewood
In 2018, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) requested that Charlotte Douglas
International Airport (CLT) submit a phased Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404/401 Individual
Permit (IP) application to permit projects proposed for the next five plus years that would
propose impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands. HDR prepared and submitted a CWA
Section 404/401 IP application in January 2020 to permit near -term impacts to streams and
wetlands associated with the North End Around Taxiway (NEAT) Project.
The CWA Section 401 Individual Water Quality Certification was approved by the North Carolina
Division of Water resources (NCDWR) on August 21, 2020 (WQC004233) and CWA Section
404 Individual Permit was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on
December 15, 2020 (USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01071). A condition of both the Section
404 and 401 permit approvals was to monitor the proposed in -line regional detention basin on
Ticer Branch for pre- and post -construction baseline conditions and ongoing routine monitoring
after construction is complete. A monitoring plan (dated August 4, 2020) to conduct this work
was approved by the USACE and NCDWR permit approvals as a condition of the permits.
Approval by NCDWR of the proposed monitoring locations is a required condition of the 401
Water Quality Certification. Construction of the NEAT Project commences in June 2022 with Old
Dowd Road construction (part of the NEAT basin) beginning in September 2022.
Basis for Selection of Monitoring Locations
The CLT NEAT Project area is located in the Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregion, which is
characterized by lower topographic elevations, less relief, irregular plains, less precipitation, red,
clayey soils, and more cropland than the Inner Piedmont regions to the east and west (Griffith et
al. 2002). Rosgen type "C" and "E" streams are typical in the Piedmont region (Doll et al. 2003,
SCDNR 2020), which are generally low -gradient, slightly entrenched riffle/pool streams
exhibiting moderate -to -high sinuosity (Rosgen 1996).
Bankfull discharge, the point at which the water begins to overflow the channel onto a
floodplain, is the single most important parameter used in Rosgen Level II stream classifications
1

Charlotte Douglas International Airport 1 NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
Memo
(Rosgen 1996). The stage of bankfull discharge is related to channel dimensions such as width,
width/depth ratio, and entrenchment ratio, which are all metrics used to make Level II Rosgen
classifications. The appropriate location for the determination of bankfull channel widths for type
C and E streams are at riffle locations. Riffles are channel bed features where the greatest
elevation changes occur with water surface and thalweg slopes approximately parallel. The
presence of "deflectors" such as rocks, Togs, other debris, nickpoints, or unusual constrictions
that make the stream especially narrow, or that create exceptionally wide backwater conditions
must also be considered and avoided if at all possible.
Induced change in channel stability can be determined by implementing a quantitative,
comparative analysis approach that identifies the differences due to climate, geology, and
morphology from management impacts on streams (Rosgen 1996). A monitoring program which
includes pre- and post -construction monitoring will capture existing (baseline; pre -construction)
conditions of streams subject to detention and the ability to detect any changes post -
construction. Ideally, the post -construction conditions of streams remain the same as the
baseline, pre -construction condition. All monitoring locations will have established baseline
condition for comparison to post -construction condition.
A second element of the monitoring program should also include a comparison of
measurements outside of the area of effect (Rosgen 1996). If a significant storm event or other
natural incident occurs and causes changes in the channel morphology, it is important to be
able to determine the cause of effect (i.e., storm event versus stream management). Therefore,
in order to decipher effects from the NEAT Project versus natural events, monitoring location
S1-04 on Ticer Branch has been located outside of the detention basin grading and flood limits.
Proposed Monitoring Locations
On January 13, 2022, a site visit of the NEAT Project area was conducted by CLT personnel
and HDR Engineering of the Carolinas, Inc. (HDR). The weather was partly cloudy and
approximately 50°F at the time of survey. No significant rainfall events occurred within the week
prior to survey and Mecklenburg County was experiencing moderate drought conditions
following a period of severe drought, therefore flow conditions in the surveyed streams were
relatively low.
The NEAT Project area consists of a forested area with species composition typical of urban
(disturbed) areas, dominated by sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), white oak (Quercus alba),
red oak (Quercus rubra), and Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), with other species
consisting of tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). The understory comprises saplings and shrubs of sweet gum, green
ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and red maple (Acer
rubrum), and invasive Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and autumn olive (Elaeagnus
umbellata). The herbaceous layer consists of non-native and nuisance species such as
Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). A maintained sewer line easement bisects the NEAT
Project area.
2

Charlotte Douglas International Airport 1 NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
Memo
Five monitoring locations were identified during the site visit: four along Ticer Branch (S1-01 to
S1-04) and one on Stream 2 (a tributary to Ticer Branch [S2-01 ]) (Figure 1). All sites were
located at stream riffles. A summary of site characteristics and justification is provided in
Table 1. Justifications provided describe reasoning behind the proposed locations based on
potential effects from detention basin flooding or other confounding effects, such as a temporary
stream crossing, stream confluences, debris jams, etc.
Table 1. Proposed Stream Locations for NEAT Project Basin Monitoring
Stream
Monitoring
Location
Coordinates
Latitude
Longitude
Justification
Photo
Numbers
Stream 1
(Ticer Branch)
S1-01 35.238210 -80.963577
• Within detention basin flood limits
• Upstream of planned temporary
stream crossing
Stream 1
(Ticer Branch)
S1-02 35.237453 -80.965157
• Within detention basin flood limits
• Outside (downstream) of influence
of S2 confluence
3-4
Stream 1
(Ticer Branch)
S1-03 35.237266 -80.965789
• Within detention basin flood limits
• Outside (downstream) of influence
of large log jam
5-6
Stream 1
(Ticer Branch)
• Outside (downstream) of detention
S1-04 35.236790 -80.967622 basin flood limits
• Outside of grading limits
7-8
Stream 2
S2-01 35.237179
• Within detention basin flood limits
-80.964087 • Upstream of confluence with S1
9-10
In summary, the proposed stream monitoring locations consist of three locations along Ticer
Branch and one location on Stream 2 to provide sufficient pre- and post -construction monitoring
of stream geomorphology within the bounds of the construction and flood limits. One additional
location is proposed for outside of these limits in order to monitor for confounding effects due to
natural events. As stated above in the Basis for Selection of Monitoring Locations, all monitoring
locations would be established at riffles, as this is the most appropriate location for the
determination of bankfull channel widths for Rosgen C and E type streams. The exact locations
chosen were selected with consideration (avoidance) of deflectors such as rocks, log jams, nick
points, etc. which could potentially affect monitoring results and obscure NEAT Project effects.
HDR, on behalf of CLT, submits this summary of proposed monitoring locations and in
accordance with 401 Water Quality Certification No. WQC004233, requests concurrence and
approval of the proposed monitoring locations as a requirement of the 401 Water Quality
Certification. A site map and photos of the proposed stream locations are attached. Please
contact Jimmy Jordan (Environmental Manager, CLT) or Erin Settevendemio (Senior
Environmental Scientist, HDR) with any questions or concerns.
3

Charlotte Douglas International Airport 1 NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
Memo
Sincerely,
Erin Settevendemio
Eric Rysdon
Project Manager Aviation Project Manager
Attachments
A Site Figure
B Representative Photographs
4

Charlotte Douglas International Airport 1 NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
References
References
Doll, B.A., G.L. Grabow, K.R. Hall, J. Halley, W.A. Harman, G.D. Jennings, and D.E. Wise.
2003. Stream Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook. NC Stream Restoration
Institute, NC State University. 128 pp.
Griffith, G., J. Omernik, and J. Comstock. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina, Regional
Descriptions. Corvallis, OR.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO. 378 pp.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2020. South Carolina Piedmont,
Ecoregion 45 Stream Morphology Results. Accessed January 2022. [URL]:
https://www.dnr.sc.gov/environmental/docs/piedmontsummarymay2020.pdf.
5

Charlotte Douglas International Airport I NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
References
This page intentionally left blank.
6

Charlotte Douglas Internatioanl Airport I NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
Appendices
A
Site Figure

Charlotte Douglas Internatioanl Airport I NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.

• WiLIME.
LEGEND
30-ft Vegetated Grass Buffer
Along 50-yr Floodplain
1 Ticer Branch Detentation
1 Flood Limits
DATA SOURCE: Mecklenburg County 2019
Aerial Imagery
FY
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS.
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
PATH: 11CLTSMAINIGIS_DATAIGISIPROJECTS14129_CDIA1102511071_NEAT_BIOASSESSMENT17.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESSIMAP_DOCSIMXDIWORKINGIFIELD_WORK_202201.MXD - USER: GMARCHICA - DATE: 1/2112022

This page intentionally left blank.

Charlotte Douglas Internatioanl Airport I NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
Appendices
B
Representative
Photographs

Charlotte Douglas Internatioanl Airport I NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.

Charlotte Douglas International Airport I NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
Representative Photographs
Photograph 1 Monitoring location S1-01 — downstream.
Photograph 2 Monitoring location S1-01 — upstream.
1

Charlotte Douglas International Airport I NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
Representative Photographs
Photograph 3 Monitoring location S1-02 — downstream.
Photograph 4 Monitoring location S1-02 — upstream.
2

Charlotte Douglas International Airport I NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
Representative Photographs
Photograph 5 Monitoring location S1-03 — downstream
Photograph 6 Monitoring location S1-03 — upstream
3

Charlotte Douglas International Airport I NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
Representative Photographs
Photograph 7 Monitoring location S1-04 — downstream
Photograph 8 Monitoring location S1-04 — upstream
4

Charlotte Douglas International Airport I NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
Representative Photographs
Photograph 9 Monitoring location S2-01 (tributary) — downstream.
Photograph 10 Monitoring location S2-01 (tributary) — upstream.
5

Charlotte Douglas International Airport I NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
Representative Photographs
This page intentionally left blank.
6

This page intentionally left blank.

HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
440 S Church Street, Suite 1200
Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
704.338.6700
NC License F0116
hdrinc.com
© 2022 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved

Settevendemio, Erin
From: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 9:01 AM
To: Settevendemio, Erin
Subject: RE: [External] FW: DWR Project No. 20001195 V17 - Proposed NEAT Basin Monitoring
Locations
Categories: CLT Airport
CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Sorry Erin,
You answered my question sufficiently, I have no other concerns or comments.
Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality
336 776 9693 office
336 813 1863 mobile
[e-mail]
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105
From: Settevendemio, Erin <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 8:58 AM
To: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: DWR Project No. 20001195 V17 - Proposed NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi Sue,
I just wanted to follow up on this and see if you had any additional questions or thoughts about the proposed
monitoring locations for the NEAT Basin project?
Thanks,
Erin
Erin Bradshaw Settevendemio, M.s., FP-C
1

D 704.973.6869 M 518.534.2798
hdrinc.com/follow-us
From: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 10:52 AM
To: Settevendemio, Erin <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: DWR Project No. 20001195 V17 - Proposed NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Yes, that answers my question. Thanks.
Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality
336 776 9693 office
336 813 1863 mobile
[e-mail]
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105
From: Settevendemio, Erin <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 10:36 AM
To: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: DWR Project No. 20001195 V17 - Proposed NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi Sue,
The most -downstream monitoring location on Ticer Branch is approximately 53 feet downstream of the nearest grading
limits and outside of the detention basin and flooding limits. Therefore, it should not have any impacts from
construction and should not experience effects, if any, from the detention basin flooding. However, that is the primary
reason we wanted to have a downstream location- to be able to determine whether there are effects downstream of
the detention basin when none are anticipated. Stream areas outside of the construction limits are outside of the
404/404 permit limits, and stream in these areas will be marked to prevent any unpermitted disturbances.
The proposed location was the best site in that downstream reach with a well -formed riffle for evaluation, as compared
to a location closer to the culverts.
Does this answer your question? Essentially, we'd like to use this location as a "check" that effects do not extend beyond
the limits of the detention basin.
2

Thanks,
Erin
Erin Bradshaw Settevendemio, M.S., FP-C
D 704.973.6869 M 518.534.2798
hdrinc.com/follow-us
From: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 2:10 PM
To: Settevendemio, Erin <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: DWR Project No. 20001195 V17 - Proposed NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Erin,
I want to apologize again for how long it took me to review the document. I only have one question: are you certain
that the downstream location is located such that it will not be impacted by any construction activities? I know it's tight
there between the basin and the roadway but I don't want the data to be invalid because of any construction related
impacts.
Thanks.
Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality
336 776 9693 office
336 813 1863 mobile
[e-mail]
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105
From: Settevendemio, Erin <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 10:07 AM
To: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: DWR Project No. 20001195 V17 - Proposed NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Thanks for the update! Don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.
Thanks,
3

Erin
Erin Bradshaw Settevendemio, M.S., FP-C
D 704.973.6869 M 518.534.2798
hdrinc.com/follow-us
From: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 10:05 AM
To: Settevendemio, Erin <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: DWR Project No. 20001195 V17 - Proposed NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I'm very sorry, it got buried and I haven't reviewed it yet. I promise to complete a review by the end of this week and let
you know. Thank you for reaching out again.
Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality
336 776 9693 office
336 813 1863 mobile
[e-mail]
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105
From: Settevendemio, Erin <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 9:04 AM
To: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] FW: DWR Project No. 20001195 V17 - Proposed NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Good Morning Ms. Homewood,
I just wanted to check in on this submission and make sure you didn't have any questions or are in need of any
additional information? Let me know if I can assist in any way.
Thanks,
Erin Bradshaw Settevendemio
Erin Bradshaw Settevendemio, M.S., FP-C
D 704.973.6869 M 518.534.2798
4

hdrinc.com/follow-us
From: Settevendemio, Erin
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 4:13 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Jordan, Jimmy <[e-mail]>; Rysdon, Eric <[e-mail]>; Thames, Kelly
<[e-mail]>
Subject: DWR Project No. 20001195 V17 - Proposed NEAT Basin Monitoring Locations
Good afternoon Ms. Homewood,
Please see attached memo describing the proposed NEAT Basin monitoring locations for DWR Project No. 20001195
V17. You will receive a hard copy of the document in the mail.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Erin Bradshaw Settevendemio
Erin Bradshaw Settevendemio, M.S., FP-C
Senior Environmental Scientist
HDR
440 S. Church Street, Suite 900
Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
D 704.973.6869 M 518.534.2798
Erin. BradshawSettevendemio(o�hdrinc.com
hdrinc.com/follow-us
5

This page intentionally left blank.

2022 NEAT In -Line Detention Basin Baseline Conditions Report FN Charlotte Douglas International Airport
AM
Appendix C - Approved
Monitoring Plan
August 25, 2022

2022 NEAT In -Line Detention Basin Baseline Conditions Report
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
This page is intentionally left blank.
August 25, 2022

EA Appendices
CLT Airport Expansion
SAW-2018-01071
EA Appendix E
Monitoring Plan

CLT Airport Expansion I SAW-2018-01071
In -Line Detention Monitoring Plan
August 4, 2020
Proposed Monitoring Plan
Introduction
The City of Charlotte — Aviation Department (Applicant) submitted a Department of the Army Phased
Individual Permit (IP) on January 31, 2020, for the proposed expansion of the Charlotte Douglas
International Airport (CLT or Airport) in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. A component of the Phased
IP proposes stormwater detention in -line with existing channels. During the Public Notice period, the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Water Resources (DWR) requested a monitoring plan of those channels
subject to in -line detention.
In the application, in -line detentions are proposed on Ticer Branch (Stream 1 [Si]) for the North End
Around Taxiway (NEAT) element and on Coffey Creek (S25) for the South Crossfield Taxiway (SCF)
element. The purpose of an in -line detention is to provide peak discharge reduction for storm events up to
the 100 year event. Both in -line detentions propose permanent impacts as a result of a culvert and berm
that would be sized to reduce peak flows downstream. For purposes of analysis storm frequencies
modeled include the 2-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year storm events. Additionally, each detention basin also
proposes a culverted stream crossing for road access within a basin for construction and maintenance.
During the design storm event, the streams would overtop their banks and flood the detention area (i.e.
the stream's floodplain) for stormwater detention, but attenuate within 48 hours. Beyond the culvert and
berm and access road culvert in each basin, no other direct impacts as a result of the in -line detention are
proposed to the stream channels. However, the streamside areas of both Ticer Branch and Coffey Creek
would require an earthen embankment, grading, and removal of trees in order to provide the capacity
necessary to detain the designed storm event. A 10-foot vegetated buffer along each stream will be
maintained.
In the Ticer Branch in -line detention, S1 and S2 are proposed to experience flooding of streamside area.
In the Coffey Creek in -line detention, S25, S32, and S34 are proposed to experience flooding of
streamside area. All five channels will require monitoring per the USACE and DWR request.
Monitoring Locations
The location and number of monitoring locations within both the Ticer Branch and Coffey Creek detention
areas and one monitoring location downstream of each detention basin will be identified. These locations
will be submitted to the DWR prior to baseline monitoring implementation. For the Ticer Branch detention
basin, one location will be located downstream of the detention, but before Ticer Branch enters a culvert
that goes beneath 1-485. For the Coffey Creek detention basin, one location will be downstream of the
detention but upstream of the next downstream stream confluence. Permanent monitoring locations will
be field located using GPS grade accuracy, and set prior to construction by setting permanent
monuments on both stream banks to facilitate comparison of data collected during future monitoring
events.
Monitoring locations within the detention basins will be subject to dimension, substrate, Bank Erosion
Hazard Index (BEHI), and North Carolina Stream Assessment Methodology (NCSAM) assessments, as
well as photographic documentation. Monitoring locations downstream of the detention basins will be
subject to substrate and BEHI assessments, as well as photographic documentation.
Page I 1

CLT Airport Expansion I SAW-2018-01071
In -Line Detention Monitoring Plan
August 4, 2020
All monitoring locations are subject to baseline pre- and post -construction events. The monitoring
locations within the detention basins will be subject to both the annual and quarterly monitoring events.
The monitoring locations downstream of the detention basins will be monitored on a quarterly basis only,
within 30 days of a 2-year storm event or greater (a 2-year storm defined as a rain event of at least 2.28
inches within 6 continuous hours). A storm event greater than the 2-year is a 10-year or greater storm (a
10-year storm defined as a rain event of at least 3.72 inches within 6 continuous hours).
Timing/Frequency
BASELINE MONITORING
The baseline monitoring events will take place pre -construction and post -construction. The purpose of the
pre -construction event is to capture existing conditions of streams subject to detention. The post -
construction event is to document any changes between pre -construction and post -construction and
construction conditions; ideally, the post -construction conditions of streams would be the same as
existing conditions pre -construction with the exception of the streamside areas being converted to
detention areas. If a 2-year storm occurs between the pre -construction and post -construction events, it
should be documented and noted that the post -construction baseline would capture any changes from
said storm event prior to the detentions becoming operational. The data collected immediately following
construction would be expected to be representative of conditions that subsequent monitoring events
would be compared to, taking into account normal stream dynamics and fluctuation.
Baseline monitoring event data collection will include dimension, substrate, Bank Erosion Hazard Index
(BEHI), and NCSAM assessments, as well as photographic documentation.
ANNUAL MONITORING
Annual monitoring events will be held on an annual basis for a period of five years post -construction of
both the Ticer Branch and the Coffey Creek detention basins. This annual monitoring will occur
regardless of storm event occurrence. The first annual monitoring event shall occur six months after the
post -construction baseline event occurs. If at the end of the five year period of monitoring, the results
during the monitoring events have not significantly changed since the post -construction baseline
condition, then the annual monitoring requirements shall be successfully satisfied.
Annual monitoring event data collection will include dimension, substrate, Bank Erosion Hazard Index
(BEHI), and NCSAM assessments, as well as photographic documentation at locations within the
detention basins.
ANNUAL MONITORING POST -STORM
Annually, monitoring shall occur within 30 days following the first 10-year storm event or greater for a
period of five years post -construction of both the Ticer Branch and the Coffey Creek detention basins.
Only one annual monitoring event per 10-year or greater storm event is necessary. This post -storm
annual monitoring event could be additional to quarterly events or become the quarterly event, depending
on storm frequency timing.
Post -storm annual monitoring event data collection will include substrate and BEHI assessments, as well
as photographic documentation at locations within the detention basins and downstream of the detention
basins.
QUARTERLY MONITORING
On a quarterly basis, monitoring shall occur within 30 days following the first 2-year storm event or greater
(2-year+) of the respective quarter up to two years. Only one monitoring event per quarter per 2-year+
storm event is necessary. If a 2-year+ storm event does not occur, then monitoring during that respective
Page 12

CLT Airport Expansion I SAW-2018-01071
In -Line Detention Monitoring Plan
August 4, 2020
quarter is not required. If at the end of the two year period of quarterly monitoring, the results during the
monitoring events have not significantly changed since the post -construction baseline condition, then the
quarterly monitoring requirements shall be successfully satisfied.
Quarterly monitoring event data collection will include substrate and BEHI assessments, as well as
photographic documentation.
Table 1. Summary of Monitoring Requirements
onitori
Events
Duration
Location
Monitoring
Requirements
Storm
Event
Within
Pre -Construction 1 time detention
basins
Dimension,
substrate, BEHI, n/a
NCSAM, photos
Within Dimension,
Post -Construction 1 time detention substrate, BEHI,
basins NCSAM, photos
1
n/a
Annual
1x/year for Within Dimension,
5 years detention substrate, BEHI, n/a
basins NCSAM, photos
Conducted regardless of storm
event.
Within and
Annual 1x/year for downstream Substrate, BEHI, 10-year or
(Post -Storm) 5 years of detention photos greater
basins
Conducted the 1st time a 10-
year+ event occurs in a year.
Could occur additional to the 4
quarterly events or could be
equal to and take the place of
a quarterly event. If no 10-
year+ storms occur in a year,
then annual monitoring post -
storm would not occur.
2-year or Would only be conducted if a
Downstream greater, 2-year+ storm event occurs in
Quarterly 4x/year for Substrate, BEHI, whichever a quarter. If no 2-year+ storms
(Post -Storm) 2 years of detention photos comes 1st occur in a quarter, then
basins in a monitoring in that quarter
quarter would not occur.
Methods
DIMENSION ASSESSMENT
Dimensional data will be collected based on The Key to the Rosgen Stream Classification of Natural
Rivers which is a classification system that assigns a channel type based on channel slope, width to
depth ratio, bed material, entrenchment ratio, and sinuosity. Permanent cross section monitoring will be
conducted at one or more riffle features that are established during the baseline monitoring events on
each channel subject to in -line detention. A stream classification type will be determined at each cross
section during the baseline events as well as subsequent monitoring events. Graphical representations of
cross sections will be provided and as data is collected year to year, the graphical representations will be
overlaid to each other for comparison.
Data collected in dimensional assessment will be presented as a list of parameters (Table 1) resulting in a
Rosgen Classification channel type, which represents the measure of all dimension assessment
parameters. Classifying a channel type based on Rosgen methodology on an annual basis allows for
observation in shifts of channel geomorphology, if any. Geomorphological evolution is a natural channel
Page 13

CLT Airport Expansion I SAW-2018-01071
In -Line Detention Monitoring Plan
August 4, 2020
process, that when observed, doesn't necessarily indicate channel degradation, but does provide insight
as to whether or not a channel is widening, incising, straightening, or experiencing sediment loading
based on the measured parameters.
The Rosgen Classification channel type is not expected to significantly change from baseline conditions;
however, if channel type changes do occur, then it would be expected that one or more parameter has
significantly been altered from the baseline channel classification type. Further analysis of the individual
parameters (i.e. substrate) would need to be evaluated to determine if degradation has occurred.
SUBSTRATE
A Wolman pebble count is a characterization of the composition of streambed and bank substrate
material. Monitoring substrate during monitoring events can indicate changes in stream character, erosion
rates, and sediment supply. Wolman pebble counts categorize substrate types into silt/clay, sands,
gravels, cobbles, boulders, and bedrock, which are sub -categorized within the substrate types based on
diameter size. The data collected from a substrate sample can be analyzed by sizes (diameter in mm)
and by distribution of size. For example, D5o is the median diameter of a substrate sample and also the
diameter size at which 50% of the substrate particles are smaller and 50% of the substrate particles are
larger than the mean diameter distributed across a sample.
Wolman pebble count methodology will be utilized to calculate the D5o of the stream bed material to
establish baseline particle size and distribution at the permanent cross -sections to aid in determining
Rosgen classification channel type. The post -construction baseline D5o will also be the parameter to
which future substrate analysis would be compared. If future substrate monitoring indicates a trend of the
D5o shifting to a smaller particle size diameter (by more than 20% of original size) after three substrate
monitoring events, then DWR will be notified and remedial actions will be evaluated for consideration.
BANK EROSION HAZARD INDEX
While stream bank erosion is a natural process that occurs in every watershed, excessive erosion has
serious adverse consequences for the physical and biological function of streams and rivers. It is often
difficult, however, to distinguish between streambanks that are eroding at a natural rate from those that
are or have the potential to erode at unnaturally high rates due to altered watershed hydrology or
sediment loads. The Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) is a methodology for assessing streambank
erosion condition and potential that assigns point values to bank condition. BEHI will be assessed utilizing
the modified BEHI procedure that includes ratios of root depth to bank height, root density in percentage,
surface protection in percent, and bank angle in degrees.
The BEHI scoring falls into six categories ranging from Very Low to Extreme. In reference to the post -
construction baseline BEHI scores, if future monitoring events produce a BEHI score two categories
greater than the baseline from three subsequent events, then DWR will be notified and remedial actions
will be evaluated for consideration. DWR will be contacted if the baseline score is "Extreme", for further
discussion and possible procedure modification.
NORTH CAROLINA STREAM ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
The North Carolina Stream Assessment Methodology (NCSAM) will be utilized to assess stream quality
and function at each cross section. The assessment length at each cross section will be 100 feet
upstream and downstream of the cross section location. The NCSAM method provides for an evaluation
of streamside riparian vegetation as well as a field assessment of hydrological influence, water quality,
and biology within a reach. However, due to the nature of the detention construction, the streamside
areas will be cleared of trees with the exception of a 10-foot vegetated buffer. The NCSAM assessments
Page 14

CLT Airport Expansion I SAW-2018-01071
In -Line Detention Monitoring Plan
August 4, 2020
should take into consideration the NCSAM matrices that assess vegetated buffer parameters so that the
detention construction itself does not influence the NCSAM scores.
PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION
Photographs looking upstream and downstream at each monitoring location will be taken during the
baseline monitoring to visually document the existing conditions of the channels. Photographs will also be
taken post -construction, and at annual and quarterly monitoring events. Photographs will be provided in
both the annual and quarterly reports, but will also be displayed side by side over time as the
photographs are collected.
Summary
The proposed monitoring plan for the channels subject to in -line detention will consist of multiple
measurements and assessments noted above that will provide a way to track the geomorphology,
substrate, stability, and quality of the channels over time. Pre- and post -construction baseline conditions
will be presented with a short cover letter and report of findings will be provided to the USACE and DWR
for review. Subsequently, after each annual and quarterly monitoring event, a short cover letter and report
of findings will be provided for review.
At each cross section identified within the detention basins, dimensional data, substrate characterization,
NCSAM, BEHI will be assessed and described above. A variation of the following table will be utilized to
report baseline, annual, and quarterly data at each cross-section. At each monitoring location identified
downstream of the detention basins, substrate characterization and BEHI will be assessed and described
above.
Table 2. Example Table for Assessment Data
Stream # Stream # Stream #
Cross Section # Cross Section # Cross Section #
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Dso (mm)
Rosgen Classification
NCSAM Score
BEHI
A variation of the following table will be utilized to report overall data after each collection event over time.
Table 3. Example Table of Results Summary
Feature
Cross
Section #
Year
(Baseline)
(Post -Construction)
Year
IEHI Rosgen
Dso NCSAM BEHI Rosgen
Dso NCSAM BEHI
ss
Stream #
Stream #
Stream #
Stream # #
Page 15

01
CLT Airport Expansion I SAW-2018-01071
In -Line Detention Monitoring Plan
August 4, 2020
Feature
Cross
Section #
#
Year
(Baseline)
Year
(Post -Construction)
Rosgen pso NCSAM BEHI Rosgen pso NCSAM BEHI Rosgen pso NCSAM BEHI
Class Class Class
Methodology References
The Key to the Rosgen Stream Classification of Natural Rivers:
https://wildlandhydrology.com/resources/docs/River%20Restoration%20and%20Natural%20Channel%20
Design/Rosgen 2011 Natural Channel Design.pdf
Wolman Pebble Count:
https://dep.wv.gov/WWE/qetinvolved/sos/Documents/SOPs/PebbleCount Methods.pdf
Bank Erosion Hazard Index:
https://dep.wv.gov/WWE/getinvolved/sos/Documents/SOPs/BEHI-Overview. pdf
North Carolina Stream Assessment Methodology:
https://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/requlatory/publicnotices/2013/NCSAM Draft User Man
ual 130318.pdf
Page 16

This page intentionally left blank.

2022 NEAT In -Line Detention Basin Baseline Conditions Report FN Charlotte Douglas International Airport
D
Appendix D - Stream
Monitoring Location
Profiles
August 25, 2022

2022 NEAT In -Line Detention Basin Baseline Conditions Report
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
This page is intentionally left blank.
August 25, 2022

MONITORING LOCATION S1-01 Ticer Branch
Charlotte -Douglas International Airport NEAT Basin Monitoring
Baseline Pre -Construction Condition
June 29, 2022
evation (;
2i
1
0
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4 -
- 5 -
- 6 -
- 7 -
- 8 -
- 9 -
- 10
- 11 -
- 12 -
0
Wbkf = 15.90
S1-01 Riffle
Dbkf = 0.83
Abkf = 13.25
5 10 15
Bankfull Width
•
20 25 30 35
Horizontal Distance (feet)
Flood -Prone Width
40 45 50 55
Water Surface
Parameter
Baseline Pre -Construction
Condition
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) (ft)
15.9
Floodprone Width(ft)
17.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf) (ft)
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (Abkf) (ft2) 13.3
Width/Depth Ratio
19.1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.1
Sinuosity
0.97
D50 (mm)
Rosgen Stream Type
8.7 (medium gravel)
F4
NCSAM score. The overall NCSAM score for monitoring location S1-01
was High, with medium and high ratings for factors related to water
quality and habitat. However, the hydrology function class was rated Low
due to low scores related to streamside area attenuation factors and a
medium score for stream stability (specifically, stream geomorphology).
Stream Characterization. Monitoring location S1-01 was classified as an F4 Rosgen Stream Type. F4 streams are gravel -dominated,
entrenched, deeply incised meandering channels. The top of bank elevation is substantially higher than the bankfull stage and typically
encompassess flood elevations. F4 channels have slopes that are generally less than 2%, exhibit riffle/pool bed features, and have high to
very high width/depth ratios. Sediment supply in the F4 stream type is moderate to high depending on erodibility conditions. Depositional
features are common in this stream type and over time promote development of floodplain inside of the channel in order to dissipate energy
of water during rain events. Streambank erosion rates are typically high during the process of forming the intra-channel floodplain and was
observed at S1-01 (see BEHI). The left bank was substantially higher in elevation than the right and showed signs of prior anthropogenic
activities, potentially formed as a berm to contain floodwaters to the north. The streambed consisted of 53% bedrock, with gravel and sand
located on a despositional bar on the right side of the channel.
Stream Profile 1: S1-01

MONITORING LOCATION S1-01 Ticer Branch
BEHI rating. The left bank of location S1-01 exhibits High erosion potential, with Extreme index scores for
bank height/bankfull height ratio, weighted root density, and bank angle. The right bank exhibited good root
depth/bank height ratio, low bank angle, and high surface protection resulting in Low or Very Low erosion
potential.
Substrate Characterization. Monitoring location S1-01 had a D50 of 8.7 mm (medium gravel). Approximately
53% of samples were classified as bedrock, gravel (31%) and sand (16%) comprising the remaining samples.
BANK EROSION HAZARD INDEX
Left Bank
Right Bank
Erodibility Variables
Index
Score
Erosion
Potential
Index
Score
Erosion
Potential
Bank Height / Bankfull Height Ratio
10.00
Extreme
8.64
Very High
Root Depth / Bank Height Ratio
5.11
Moderate
3.38
Low
Weighted Root Density
10.00
Extreme
8.88
Very High
Bank Angle
10.00
Extreme
3.90
Low
Surface Protection
4.32
Moderate
1.23
Very Low
Overall Score
39.43
High
26.02
Moderate
percent finer than
100%
90% -
80% -
70%
60% -
50%
40% -
30% -
20% -
10% -
0%
silt/clay
sand
S1-01 Riffle
gravel
cobble
boulder
9
— 8
— 7
11
— 6
I— 5
h 4
— 3
— 2
T
1
0
0.01 0 1 1 10 100 1000 10000
cumulative % # of particles
particle size (mm)
sapped 10 aagwnu
Size (mm)
D16
0.72
D35
2.4
D50
8.7
D65
12
D84
28
D95
48
Substrate Type
silt/clay
0%
sand
16%
gravel
31
cobble
0%
boulder
0%
bedrock
53%
wood/detritus
0%
Size Distribution
mean
4.50
dispersion
7.70
skewness
-0.23
Stream Profile 1: S1-01

MONITORING LOCATION S1-02 Ticer Branch
Charlotte -Douglas International Airport NEAT Basin Monitoring
Baseline Pre -Construction Condition
June 29, 2022
S1-02 Riffle
Wbkf = 25.10 Dbkf = 1.35 Abkf = 33.79
3i
evation (feet)
1 O 1 N
1
1
I
1
11
VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIr
w
-2
I
-3
-4
-5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Horizontal Distance (feet)
• • • • - Bankfull Width — —Flood-Prone Width Water Surface
Parameter
Baseline Pre -Construction
Condition
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) (ft)
25.1
Floodprone Width(ft)
39.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf) (ft)
1.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (Abkf) (ft2)
33.8
Width/Depth Ratio
18.6
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
Sinuosity
0.97
D50 (mm)
24 (coarse gravel)
Rosgen Stream Type
F4
NCSAM score. The overall NCSAM score for monitoring location S1-02
was High, indicating good stream function classes for hydrology, water
quality, and habitat. All scores were high except for a rating of medium for
wooded riparian buffer (hydrology function class) and streamside area
vegetation (water quality function class), likely related to an adjacent
sewerline easement which limits the expanse of wooded buffer in this
area due to regular vegetation maintenance.
Stream Characterization. Monitoring location S1-02 was classified as an F4 Rosgen Stream Type. F4 streams are gravel -dominated,
entrenched, deeply incised meandering channels. The top of bank elevation is substantially higher than the bankfull stage and typically
encompassess flood elevations. F4 channels have slopes that are generally less than 2%, exhibit riffle/pool bed features, and have high to
very high width/depth ratios. Sediment supply in the F4 stream type is moderate to high depending on erodibility conditions. Depositional
features are common in this stream type and over time promote development of floodplain inside of the channel in order to dissipate energy
of water during rain events. Streambank erosion rates are typically high during the process of forming the intra-channel floodplain and was
observed at S1-02 (see BEHI). The right bank was substantially higher in elevation than the left bank, with a sewerline right-of-way adjacent
to the stream. The sewerline easement is regularly maintained to control/eliminate woody vegetation growth, which can limit water quality
filtering, floodwater energy dissipation (i.e., floodplain), and streambank stability. The streambed consisted primarily of particles gravel size
or larger.
Stream Profile 2: S1-02

MONITORING LOCATION S1-02 Ticer Branch
BEHI rating. Both banks at location S1-02 exhibit High erosion potential. The left bank had Extreme erosion
potential due to low root density, and high erosion potential related to bank heigh/bankfull height ratio and root
depth/bank height ratio. However, bank angle was estimated to be at 60°, providing low bank erosion
potential. The right bank at location S1-02 had Extreme and Very High ratings for bank height/bankfull height
ratio, weighted root density, and bank angle.
Substrate Characterization. Monitoring location S1-02 had a D50 of 24 mm (coarse gravel). Approximately
68% of the streambed comprises particles of gravel or larger size.
BANK EROSION HAZARD INDEX
Left Bank
Right Bank
Erodibility Variables
Index
Score
Erosion
Potential
Index
Score
Erosion
Potential
Bank Height / Bankfull Height Ratio
7.31
High
10.00
Extreme
Root Depth / Bank Height Ratio
6.54
High
5.30
Moderate
Weighted Root Density
10.00
Extreme
8.36
Very High
Bank Angle
3.90
Low
8.68
Very High
Surface Protection
4.32
Moderate
5.11
Moderate
Overall Score
32.07
High
37.45
High
percent finer than
100%
90% -
80% -
70% -
60% -
50%
40% -
30%
20% -
10% -
0%
silt/clay
sand
S1-02 Riffle
gravel
-..117.°°"'ilj
T
1
1
/
cobble
1
1
0.01 0 1 1 10
100
boulder
12
— 10
8
6
— 4
— 2
III L 1 LI li 0
1000 10000
cumulative % # of particles
particle size (mm)
saioflJEd fo Jag wnu
Size (mm)
D16
1
D35
12
D50
24
D65
40
D84
110
D95
220
Substrate Type
silt/clay
9%
sand
11%
gravel
45%
cobble
19%
boulder
4%
bedrock
0%
wood/detritus
13%
Size Distribution
mean
10.50
dispersion
14.30
skewness
-0.25
Stream Profile 2: S1-02

MONITORING LOCATION S1-03 Ticer Branch
Charlotte -Douglas International Airport NEAT Basin Monitoring
Baseline Pre -Construction Condition
June 29, 2022
S1-03 Riffle
Wbkf = 42.6 Dbkf = 2.42 Abkf = 102.96
1 1
I I
1
Iti
— 2
c
0
TIF
3
>
a)
4
I
5
6
7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Horizontal Distance (feet)
Bankfull Width — — Flood -Prone Width Water Surface
Parameter
Baseline Pre -Construction
Condition
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) (ft)
26.7
Floodprone Width(ft)
29.7
Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf) (ft)
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (Abkf) (ft2)
38.8
Width/Depth Ratio
18.4
Entrenchment Ratio
1.1
Sinuosity
0.97
D50 (mm)
21 (coarse gravel)
Rosgen Stream Type
F4
NCSAM score. The overall NCSAM score for monitoring location S1-03
was High, indicating good stream function classes for hydrology, water
quality, and habitat. All scores were high except for a rating of medium for
wooded riparian buffer (hydrology function class) and streamside area
vegetation (water quality function class), likely related to an adjacent
sewerline easement which limits the expanse of wooded buffer in this
area due to regular vegetation maintenance.
Stream Characterization. Monitoring location S1-03 was classified as an F4 Rosgen Stream Type. F4 streams are gravel -dominated,
entrenched, deeply incised meandering channels. The top of bank elevation is substantially higher than the bankfull stage and typically
encompassess flood elevations. F4 channels have slopes that are generally less than 2%, exhibit riffle/pool bed features, and have high to
very high width/depth ratios. Sediment supply in the F4 stream type is moderate to high depending on erodibility conditions. Depositional
features are common in this stream type and over time promote development of floodplain inside of the channel in order to dissipate energy
of water during rain events. Streambank erosion rates are typically high for F4 streams, and this was observed on the left bank at location S1-
03 (see BEHI). A sewerline right-of-way is present adjacent to this reach of Ticer Branch; the easement is regularly maintained to
control/eliminate woody vegetation growth, which can limit water quality filtering, floodwater energy dissipation (i.e., floodplain), and
streambank stability. The streambed consisted primarily of particles gravel size or smaller.
Stream Profile 3: S1-03

MONITORING LOCATION S1-03 Ticer Branch
BEHI rating. Bank erosion potential at location S1-03 was rated Very High and High for left and right banks,
respectively. All erodibility variables were rated Moderate or higher. The left bank had severe, active erosion
while the right bank appeared stable, likely due to protection provided by a depositional area on the right side
of the streambed.
Substrate Characterization. Monitoring location S1-03 had a D50 of 21 mm (coarse gravel). The majority of
particles at this location were gravel or smaller (sand and silt/clay).
BANK EROSION HAZARD INDEX
Left Bank
Right Bank
Erodibility Variables
Index
Score
Erosion
Potential
Index
Score
Erosion
Potential
Bank Height / Bankfull Height Ratio
8.71
Very High
8.60
Very High
Root Depth / Bank Height Ratio
5.86
Moderate
5.86
Moderate
Weighted Root Density
10.00
Extreme
8.71
Very High
Bank Angle
5.90
Moderate
7.90
High
Surface Protection
10.00
Extreme
8.00
Very High
Overall Score
40.46
Very High
39.08
High
percent finer than
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
S1-03 Riffle
J111/ ',Ic y
JQI IIA
lJ. 1 UN GI
IiVAJAJIG
AJVU IIAGI
-
• -
I
-
0.01
01
cumulative % # of particles
1
10
particle size (mm)
100
1000
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
10000
seloclJEd fo Jag wnu
Size (mm)
D16
1.4
D35
14
D50
21
D65
30
D84
49
D95
67
Substrate Type
silt/clay
4%
sand
15%
gravel
72%
cobble
5%
boulder
0%
bedrock
0%
wood/detritus
4%
Size Distribution
mean
8.30
dispersion
8.70
skewness
-0.33
Stream Profile 3: S1-03

MONITORING LOCATION S1-04 Ticer Branch
Charlotte -Douglas International Airport NEAT Basin Monitoring
Baseline Pre -Construction Condition
June 29, 2022
BANK EROSION HAZARD INDEX
Left Bank
Right Bank
Erodibility Variables
Index
Score
Erosion
Potential
Index
Score
Erosion
Potential
Bank Height / Bankfull Height Ratio
10.00
Extreme
10.00
Extreme
Root Depth / Bank Height Ratio
7.69
High
NA
NA
Weighted Root Density
10.00
Extreme
NA
NA
Bank Angle
3.90
Low
3.17
Low
Surface Protection
3.90
Low
1.00
Very Low
Overall Score
35.49
High
14.17
Low
percent finer than
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
+cumulative
silt/cla
Y
i
sand
S1-04 Riffle
g
ravel
1
1
1
1
1
I I
1
1
cobble
boulder
JI
0/0
01 1
—# of particles
10 100
particle size (mm)
1000
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
10000
seippud fo Jegwnu
Stream Description.
Ticer Branch is a
perennial stream.
Monitoring location S1-
04 had a D50 of 0.24
mm (fine sand), with
the majority (55%) of
substrate of gravel
size or smaller. Other
particles consisted of
wood/detritus (14%
and artificial materials
such as lining and
riprap (21%). The right
bank was completely
lined with riprap. The
left bank comprised
sands, clay, and
gravel, gently sloping
to a floodplain area.
S1-04 had High and
Moderate streambank
erosion risk driven by
bank height/bankfull
height ratio root depth,
and root density.
Stream Profile 4: S1-04

MONITORING LOCATION S2-01 Tributary to Ticer Branch
Charlotte -Douglas International Airport NEAT Basin Monitoring
Baseline Pre -Construction Condition
June 29, 2022
1 I
Wbkf = 4.70
S2-01 Riffle
Dbkf = 0.20
Abkf = 0.92
Elevation (feet)
n 61 1 W N L, O -
I
I
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Horizontal Distance (feet)
Bankfull Width Flood -Prone Width Water Surface
Parameter
Baseline Pre -Construction
Condition
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) (ft)
4.7
Floodprone Width(ft)
6.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf) (ft)
0.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (Abkf) (ft2)
0.9
Width/Depth Ratio
23.9
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
Sinuosity
1.29
D50 (mm)
19 (coarse gravel)
Rosgen Stream Type
B4c
NCSAM score. The overall NCSAM score for monitoring location S2-01
was Medium for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) streams and
High for NCDWR intermittent streams. The USAGE Medium score was
driven by low scores for aquatic life tolerance (Water Quality function
class) and in -stream habitat (Habitat function class), which inherently
scored low due to the intermittent stream type.
Stream Characterization. Monitoring location S2-01 was classified as an B4c Rosgen Stream Type. B4c streams have broader valleys
found in the Piedmont (as compared to A -type streams often observed in mountain areas) but do not have a well developd floodplain. They
are moderately entrenched with a moderate slope and exhibit substrate dominated by gravel. Bedform morphology may be influenced by
debris constrictions and local confinement which produces pocket water. Streambank erosion rates are normally low, as are the channel
aggradation/degradation process rates. Although streambanks at location S2-01 were rated as having high erosion potential, little active
erosion was evident except on the lower portion of the left streambank. Generally, the streambed does not appear to be actively aggradating
or downcutting, and streambanks are relatively stable.
Stream Profile 5: S2-01

MONITORING LOCATION S2-01 Tributary to Ticer Branch
BEHI rating. Both banks at location S2-01 exhibit High erosion potential. Most erodibility variables were
similar between left and right banks except for surface protection, which was low on the left bank and high on
the right bank (resulting in Very High and Low erosion potential, respectively).
Substrate Characterization. Monitoring location S2-01 had a D50 of 19 mm (coarse gravel). Seasonal flow in
this intermittent stream results in accumulation of woody material and/or detritus, which consisted of 40% of
samples at this location. Tree roots spanning the streambed were also significant (18%).
BANK EROSION HAZARD INDEX
Left Bank
Right Bank
Erodibility Variables
Index
Score
Erosion
Potential
Index
Score
Erosion
Potential
Bank Height / Bankfull Height Ratio
10.00
Extreme
10.00
Extreme
Root Depth / Bank Height Ratio
5.80
Moderate
7.88
High
Weighted Root Density
10.00
Extreme
10.00
Extreme
Bank Angle
3.17
Low
3.90
Low
Surface Protection
9.00
Very High
2.71
Low
Overall Score
37.97
High
34.49
High
percent finer than
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
S2-01 Riffle
0111./li1Cty
JCII IIA
IJ.I CIVGI
%al.)IJIJ I
AJVUIIAGI
I I
I
I
_
_
0.01
01
cumulative % # of particles
1
10
particle size (mm)
100
1000
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
10000
seloclJEd fo Jag wnu
Size (mm)
D16
0.57
D35
5.3
D50
19
D65
40
D84
70
D95
200
Substrate Type
silt/clay
3%
sand
11%
gravel
21
cobble
7%
boulder
0%
bedrock
0%
wood/detritus
40%
roots
18%
Size Distribution
mean
6.30
dispersion
18.50
skewness
-0.33
Stream Profile 5: S2-01

This page intentionally left blank.

2022 NEAT In -Line Detention Basin Baseline Conditions Report FN Charlotte Douglas International Airport
AM
Appendix E - Field Data
Forms
August 25, 2022

2022 NEAT In -Line Detention Basin Baseline Conditions Report
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
This page is intentionally left blank.
August 25, 2022

Applied Fluvial Geomorphology
Day 2: Field Day
SURVEY DATA i CEC e EEC'TION 17
SITE: 5 (— 0 t Date: co J2 fi, _
Location: -Dt h W P-1
Party /Notes: ,le-_ W., t' -.t HUC:
_
—__.
r._
— —
— —
--
---
--
r
Distance,
Height of
REMARKS
Point, or Back -Sight
Instrument
Fore -Sight
COMMENTS
STATION
B S
H I
F S
Elevation
NOTES
Item
ft
tt
ft
_.-11
0
)'
3.Zg
2'17—
(ft
2
l,o.
(-
It ID
3
5,D
S 39
4
C . '-f/
(p ' 2-
5
-7 , 3
tp. 3
t
L—t 0 i3
6
T,0
7 (a
7
/a.Z
/
//92
1
Lr-:
8
ii, 0
/
/2.95
9
//.
/.?•L
Lt,t4
10
/L/.-/
/2 ,is
r
11
/7 9
/2. 27
L
12
VI. Co
f3T7
7."1
13
2_p.9
/ ,3/
14
2,2 .0
/-s,e-i
/
.12 - V\./
15
Z3. 0
/2.9l
16
2 .'1-
/ 2-
17
2(P.l
/2_ 11
(
P[3F
18
2.1-3
/0.1-1
'.
19
/.0
o/. 51
20
3 Lt. s
o 22-
,x= c9 t.:a
21
.?,,,- k;
7. Z
22
i/Q
,
7.2r
ti
23
t"-b ''
1'VI
1
24
7.
25
26
27
28
A22 Copyright © 2015 Wildland Hydrology

Applied Fluvial Geomorphology
Day2: Field Day
SURVEY DATA
SITE: CD I A 4,
Location: S1- 02
CROWe DEMON 1
Date: I? 21 l
Party / Notes: HUC:
Distance,
Point, or
STATION
Back -Sight
BS
Height of
Instrument
HI
item I
1
ft
ft
ft
LI.2"L
Fore -Sight
FS
ft
Elevation
ft
I REMARKS
COMMENTS)
NOTES
2
3 (0.
4 9D
5 !o•o
6
7 D
8 1,5,
9 t-1D
10 19.-L
-7•03
11 '2-1. 2.
`7-ID
12 1 .:-i
13 2 r;-,
2`j
1•71
14 2V• �"
_1 •..-i
15 2--
16 29. 3
17 30,h'
Loci?
18
�1.
cj 3
19 ?)2
5-
20
21
22
1•r7
23
-49
24
25
26
27
28
-4- F�
1 ,
3L t
T T
"7- 3,1-
-1 Tiy-
A22 Copyright © 2015 Wildland Hydrology

o
I �o
.0
4t . O
k•

Applied Fluvial Geomorphology
Day 2: Field Day
SURVEY DATA 1 :----1> CROBLO - BECTION 2
SITE: CD!P - 0 CA T 5'1- O.?) Date: (r2 /2--112z.
STATION
B S
H I
F S
Elevation
NOTES
COMMENTS,
REMARKS
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ilteml
29
30 C)
31 3
32 c,;,1)
33 -1. o
2 f._.i..
_.) • 1 )
34 q 0
35 i 0. i
Li r.:cri
LT 0...:3
36
37
I-1 Lp
38
39 1) , g'
9. c-)
L_EW
40 15, ?
9. to i
41 1-1 , -2_,
9./ 2.
42
43 PI C)
9, `!-
44 21 o
9 3c)
45
46 'LH '1
1.27
47 Ii_10.--!
0. , ,. 0
48 .:5_,Er. 0
49 2-1
50
51
9/.? ?
52
53 ,-.. =,
54 :,;':,', r
55 903
z.-F.,.,.-
,•., -
pA5r-
56 Hi• '2.--•
',f) -1 C
58 1....1.
Copyright © 2015 Wildland Hydrology
C uf
A23

-I br-)
2 C)
1k14
N o A

Applied Fluvial Geomorphology
Day 2: Field Day
SURVEY DATA r 0.a0oggg - SECTION 1
SITE: CD1A NtiA� - Date:(of2if
zz_
r
Location: Cl- 09
Party / Notes: HUC:
--__
-- ----
--
--
--
----
--
--
Distance,
Height
of
REMARKS
Point, or
Back -Sight
Instrument
Fore -Sight
COMMENTS
STATION
B S
H I
F S
Elevation
NOTES
Item
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
1
1.9
4 no L-7 V by Rm6
7 2
0
14.3�
-f 3
J2".�
-. , qi
4
Z , 0
-Liy
5
5•O
(i12
6
q. c,
6141
7
12.4.
G.LH
8
14.D
5,11
9
Pp .1)
0.1)
10
1$ o
(o.?S
11
20.0
(0.39-
12
.4z -0
-
13
2 S
(D i
14
7_5-0
—7,31
15
2 .9
?', z. c.
LDS
16
2(0.6-
(G•�l
17
2.9•o
8.-13
18
31•0
(7".L}
19
31 z
y,c5
20
.z)3 . c,-
c9' .� `i
21
3y_ly
9 1-1-1
Le,v\l
22
2-,(0-la-1v
23
3--4.?
°I 113
24
31-o
10.b1
25
39.9
I 0,11
26
y,° Fi
ID,03
27
L-tl,i
€11I
28
(711 5
cif. `i i0
r t.)
A22 Copyright ©2015 Wildland Hydrology

Applied Fluvial Geomorphology
Day 2: Field Day
SURVEY DATA CROW BECTION 2
SITE: .°7- 5\ )A Date: /421
STATION
B S
HI
F S
Elevation
fteml ft
29
30
31
32
33
34
ft
ft
0
c/) LI -1
toi
1
-7
ft
ft
NOTES
COMMENT
REMARKS
12,71-.0
of On
35 41
36
37
38 1 • 0
HO
39
40
12.,4
Vc•
-7, 16)
-1 to
41
3
42
43
44
1 'A C)
45
46
LO
47
48
49
loi 0
2, 1 0
L-1-
50
.1 0
2,)
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Copyright © 2015 Wildland Hydrology
A23

Project: GNP( /J Q-'c'`
Wolman Pebble Count
r
Site: Date: I`z- i
Habitat Type (circle): Riffle `, Pool
Particle
Millimeters
Size Class
Dot Count
Total
silt/clay
0 - 0.062
Silt/clay
very fine sand
0.062 - 0.125
Sand
fine sand
0.125 - 0.25
' '
medium sand
0.25 - 0.5
t .1
3
coarse sand
0.5 - 1
`-' •
..
5
very coarse sand
1 - 2
:1
(p
very fine gravel
2 - 4
Gravel
' '
3
fine gravel
4 - 6
°
fine gravel
6 - 8
1'
2
medium gravel
8 - 11
N
8
medium gravel
11 - 16
; !
S
coarse gravel
16 22
r %
1-1
coarse gravel
22 - 32
' s
2
very coarse gravel
32 - 45
• `
•
Li
very coarse gravel
45 - 64
' '
A
3
small cobble
64 - 90
Cobble
medium cobble
90 - 128
large cobble
128 - 180
very large cobble
180 - 256
small boulder
256 - 362
Boulder
small boulder
362 - 512
medium boulder
512 - 1024
large boulder
1024 - 2048
very large boulder
2048 - 4096
bedrock
a
a Z % r1
53
clay hardpan
detritus/wood
artificial
Total
l0 '3

Wolman Pebble Count
Project: Site: Date:
Habitat Type (circle): Riffle Pool
Particle
Millimeters
Size Class
Dot Count
Total
silt/clay
0 - 0.062
Silt/clay
.%r
`
very fine sand
0.062 - 0.125
Sand
fine sand
0.125 - 0.25
medium sand
0.25 - 0.5
coarse sand
0.5 - 1
>
very coarse sand
1 - 2
t
very fine gravel
2 - 4
Gravel
fine gravel
4 - 6
fine gravel
6 - 8
medium gravel
8 11
r1
medium gravel
11 - 16
I" ,
coarse gravel
16 - 22
k f
coarse gravel
22 - 32
5
very coarse gravel
32 - 45
h
very coarse gravel
45 - 64
ea
. ,
small cobble
64 - 90
Cobble
at '
medium cobble
90 - 128
,+.p
large cobble
128 - 180
. ,
very large cobble
180 - 256
small boulder
256 - 362
Boulder
O A
small boulder
362 - 512
medium boulder
512 - 1024
large boulder
1024 - 2048
very large boulder
2048 - 4096
bedrock
clay hardpan
detritus/wood
,
-artificial .
Total
101

Project: Gt\ F \T
Site:
Wolman Pebble Count
C Date:
Habitat Type (circle): Riffle '. Pool
Particle
Millimeters
Size Class
Dot Count
Total
silt/clay
0 - 0.062
Silt/clay
;1
5
very fine sand
0.062 - 0.125
Sand
fine sand
0.125 - 0.25
medium sand
0.25 - 0.5
coarse sand
0.5 - 1
In
8
very coarse sand
1 - 2
k#
8
very fine gravel
2 - 4
Gravel
j
fine gravel
4 - 6
fine gravel
6 - 8
.'
2-
medium gravel
8 - 11
ri
S
medium gravel
11 - 16
1-4
8
coarse gravel
16 - 22
P .71
1(0
coarse gravel
22 - 32
tg LI
`g
very coarse gravel
32 - 45
jst ; ;
1 y
very coarse gravel
45 - 64
j$
I to
small cobble
64 - 90
Cobble
; e
L{
medium cobble
90 - 128
large cobble
128 - 180
very large cobble
180 - 256
2
small boulder
256 - 362
Boulder
small boulder
362 - 512
medium boulder
512 - 1024
large boulder
1024 - 2048
very large boulder
2048 - 4096
bedrock
clay hardpan
detritus/wood
.-"
S
artificial
Total
1 Up

Project: CD\ P\
Wolman Pebble Count
Site: S (-` O + Date: 47 29
Habitat Type (circle):
Particle
Millimeters
Size Class
Dot Count
Total
silt/clay
0- 0.062
Silt/clay
z ig
1 q
very fine sand
0.062 - 0.125
Sand
fine sand
0.125 - 0.25
• I.
1 y
medium sand
0.25 - 0.5
coarse sand
0.5 - 1
very coarse sand
1 - 2
•
t
very fine gravel
2 - 4
Gravel
fine gravel
4 - 6
*
1
fine gravel
6 - 8
medium gravel
8 - 11
medium gravel
11 - 16
1'
•
Jr
coarse gravel
16 - 22•
•
4
coarse gravel
22 - 32
' ,
very coarse gravel
32 - 45
3
very coarse gravel
45 - 64
; ;
5
small cobble
64 - 90
Cobble
•
medium cobble
90 - 128
large cobble
128 - 180
very large cobble
180 - 256
I
small boulder
256 - 362
Boulder
11
1
small boulder
362 - 512
•
medium boulder
512 - 1024
large boulder
1024 - 2048
very large boulder
2048 - 4096
bedrock
clay hardpan
detritus/wood
: .
I Li
artificial
f '�' '.
'
2.2
ic'N
Total
1 03

Project: CoIA Need
Wolman Pebble Count
Site: 57. C ` Date: (0/267l
Habitat Type (circle
Pool
Particle
Millimeters
Size Class
Dot Count
Total
silt/clay
0 - 0.062
Silt/clay
a, .
3
very fine sand
0.062 - 0.125
Sand
fine sand
0.125 - 0.25
; '
3
medium sand
0.25 - 0.5
coarse sand
0.5 - 1
• • ;
•
c{
very coarse sand
1 - 2
••
• •
4
very fine gravel
2 - 4
Gravel
fine gravel
4 - 6
t
fine gravel
6 - 8
2
medium gravel
8 - 11
• '
Z,
medium gravel
11 - 16
•
1
coarse gravel
16 - 22
• •
2
coarse gravel
22 - 32
' '
'Z,
very coarse gravel
32 - 45
a S
5
very coarse gravel
45 - 64
' t
(o
small cobble
64 - 90
Cobble
•
medium cobble
90 - 128
2
large cobble
128 - 180
very large cobble
180 - 256
• •
0
3
small boulder
256 - 362
Boulder
small boulder
362 - 512
medium boulder
512 - 1024
large boulder
1024 - 2048
very large boulder
2048 - 4096
bedrock
clay hardpan
detritus/wood
g lEf D31 i21
110
aril - -\S
1
1g
Total
1 OQ

Worksheet 5-8. Form to calculate Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) variables and an overall BEHI rating
(Rosgen, 1996, 2001a). Use Figure 5-19 with BEHI variables to determine BEHI score.
Stream: c
Location: C...,_;
Station: Observers: j
Date: to 1261 12 L Stream Type:
Valley Type:
BEHI Score
Study Bank Height / Bankfull Height ( C) (Fig. 5-19)
Study
Bankfull
Bank
2, g
Height
1. 1(A)/(B)=
2_5S
V--fr
Height (ft) _
(A)
(ft) _
(B)
(C)
h t i Y1
Root Depth / Study Bank Height ( E )
Root
Study
Depth
1.-3‘
Bank
L— c�
(D)/(A)=
OW1�0�
(ft) _
(D)
Height (ft) =
J (A)
(E)
Weighted Root Density ( G )
Root
Density
10
(F)x(E) =
1,.E
V� v�
as % =
(F)
(G)
I+ 91n
Bank Angle (H )
Bank
Angle
t
LovJ
as Degrees
=
(H)
Surface Protection (I )
Surface
Protection
as % =
Bank Material Adjustment:
Bedrock (Overall Very Low BEHI)
Boulders (Overall Low BEHI)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points if uniform medium to large cobble)
Gravel or Composite Matrix (Add 5-10 points depending on
percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Dd.Zdd 10 points)
SiIt/Clayt(no adjustment)
Copyright ©2006 Wildland Hydrology
Stratification Adjustment
Add 5-10 points, depending on
position of unstable layers in
relation to bankfull stage
Bank Material
Adjustment ‘i 14- clay
f'
Adjective Rating
and
Total Score
lv1,2CLel,s1
2(, O2
Bank
Angle
kid
),
<n o
a
Start
of
Bank
WARSSS page 5-56

Worksheet 5-8. Form to calculate Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) variables and an overall BEHI rating
(Rosgen, 1996, 2001a). Use Figure 5-19 with BEHI variables to determine BEHI score.
Stream: S\
Location: CC;/2\ FPT
Station: Observers: J\L es 1(-3-
Date: (1 /7 4-D'Z Stream Type:
Valley Type:
BEHI Score
Study Bank Height / Bankfuli Height ( C) (Fig. 5-19)
Study
Bankfull
Bank
(
r_
Height
(A) / (B) =
t . O D
tx.,y
y
Height (for.
• W (A)
(ft) =
t • 3
(B)
(C)
Root Depth / Study Bank Height ( E )
Root
Study
Depth
(ft) _
1..3 (D)
Bank
Height (tt) =
( _
Vr I r V (A)
(DMA). (A) _
oI
(E)
tJ(oct,�Y c'• ,
Weighted Root Density ( G )
Root
Density
as %
(F)
(F)x(E) =
(G)
Bank Angle (H )
Bank
Angle
as Degrees =
155 (H)
Surface Protection (I )
Surface
Protection
as % =
5c3(1)
Bank Material Adjustment:
titer.
.AoU
Bedrock (Overall Very Low BEHI)
Boulders (Overall Low BEHI)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points if uniform medium to large cobble)
Gravel or Composite Matrix (Add 5-10 points depending on
percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sarid Add 10 points)
VIt/Clab(no adjustment)
Bank Material ••
ik
Adjustment
Stratification Adjustment
Add 5-10 points, depending on
position of unstable layers in
relation to bankfull stage
11
ciky
Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Extreme
5-9:5 1 10-19.5 1 20-29.5 1 30-39.5 1 40-45
Copyright © 2006 Wildland Hydrology
46 - 50
Bankfull
Adjective Rating
and
Total Score
31.*
Root
epth (D)
Bank
Angle
a �H)
v0
U O
r
(1) 2
d
Start
of
Bank
WARSSS page 5-56

Worksheet 5-8. Form to calculate Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) variables and an overall BEHI rating
(Rosgen, 1996, 2001a). Use Figure 5-19 with BEHI variables to determine BEHI score.
Stream: Location:
Station: Observers:
Date: Stream Type:
Valley Type:
BEHI Score
Study Bank Height / Bankfull Height ( C) (Fig. 5-19)
Study
Bankfull
Bank
Height
(A)/(B)
--
Height (ft).
(A)
(ft) =
(B)
(C)
Root Depth / Study Bank Height (E )
Root
Study
Depth
Bank
(D) / (A) _
(ft) =
(D)
Height (ft) =
(A)
(E)
Weighted Root Density ( G )
Root
Density
(F)x(E) =
^
)
as % =
(F)
(G)
Bank Material Adjustment:
Bank Angle ( H
Bank
Angle
as Degrees =
(H)
Surface Protection (I )
Surface
Protection
rtr..` C�
as% =
( I )
Bedrock (Overall Very Low BEHI)
Boulders (Overall Low BEHI)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points if uniform medium to large cobble)
Gravel or Composite Matrix (Add 5-10 points depending on
percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt/Clay (no adjustment)
Stratification Adjustment
Add 5-10 points, depending on
position of unstable layers in
relation to bankfull stage
Bank Material
Adjustment
11
Very Low
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
Extreme
5-9.5 110-19.5 120-29.5 130-39.5 I 40-45
Vertical distance (ft)
12
11
10
9
6
7
6
5
4
3
2
0
0
Bank Sketch
2 3 4
Horizontal distance (ft)
Copyright © 2006 Wildland Hydrology
5
6
46-50
Bankfull
Adjective Rating
and
Total Score
Root
epth (D)
Bank
Angle
SH)
c
0
t o
W
to o
a
Start
of
Bank
WARSSS page 5-56

Worksheet 5-8. Form to calculate Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) variables and an overall BEHI rating
(Rosgen, 1996, 2001a). Use Figure 5-19 with BEHI variables to determine BEHI score.
Stream: C - 6-)
Station:
Date:
/? °l
Stream Type:
Location: (INN NEAT
Observers: J 14- EP 3 F ( -
Valley Type:
BEHI Score
Study Bank Height / Bankfull Height ( C) (Fig. 5-19)
Study
Bankfull
Bank
-, n
Height
:�
(A)/(B)=
I. yr
LLyh
Height (ft) =
_ ,-/ (A)
(ft) =
(B)
(C )
Root Depth / Study Bank Height ( E
Root
Study
_
Depth
(ft) _
(D)
Bank
Height (ft) =
(A)
(D) / (A) =
0, 2'S
(E)
N\ 1 h
Weighted Root Density ( G )
Root
Density
as % =
+
i
(F)
(F)x(E) _
Ico
(G)mr(
4
f k"{
Bank Material Adjustment:
Bank Angle (H )
Bank
Angle
as Degrees =
(H)
Surface Protection (1)
Surface
Protection
as% =
(1)
Bedrock (Overall Very Low BEHI)
Boulders (Overall Low BEHI)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points if uniform medium to large cobble)
Gravel or Composite Matrix (Add 5-10 points depending on
percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt/Clay (no adjustment)
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Copyright © 2006 Wildland Hydrology
High
Very High Extreme
46-50
Bank Material
Adjustment
Stratification Adjustment
Add 5-10 points, depending on
position of unstable layers in
relation to bankfull stage
i
Bankfull
Adjective Rating
and
Total Score
^
m
zZ ' N
_.._. ---_-gym 3 �
32-0-1
Root
epth (D)
Bank
Angle
SH)
Start
of
Bank
WARSSS page 5-56

1 _q
Worksheet 5-8. Form to calculate Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) variables and an overall BEHI rating
(Rosgen, 1996, 2001a). Use Figure 5-19 with BEHI variables to determine BEHI score.
Stream: 0 3
Location:
Station: Observers:
Date: -41-
Stream Type:
Valley Type:
BEHI Score
Study Bank Height / Bankfull Height ( C) (Fig. 5-19)
Study
Bankfull
Bank
Height
(A) / (B) =
2, C)'_
Height (ft) _
(A)
(ft) =
(B)
(C)
1-1' 1
Root Depth / Study Bank Height ( E )
Root
Study
Depth
Bank
(D) / (A)
(ft) =
(D)
Height (ft) =
(A)
(E)
Weighted Root Density ( G )
Root
Density
(F)x(E) =
as % _
(F)
(G)
Bank Material Adjustment:
Bank Angle (H )
Bank
Angle
as Degrees =
(H)
Surface Protection (I )
Surface
Protection
as% _
(1)
/fc
Bedrock (Overall Very Low BEHI)
Boulders (Overall Low BEHI)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points if uniform medium to large cobble)
Gravel or Composite Matrix (Add 5-10 points depending on
percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt/Clay (no adjustment)
Very Low
er
12
11
10
9
6
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
Low
Moderate
Bank Sketch
High
2 3 4
Horizontal distance (ft)
Copyright © 2006 Wildland Hydrology
5
Very High Extreme
6
Stratification Adjustment
Add 5-10 points, depending on
position of unstable layers in
relation to bankfull stage
Bank Material
Adjustment
1'
Adjective Rating
and
Total Score
Root
epth (D)
Bank
Angle
U O
`C U
7 �
U) O
a`
Start
of
Bank
WARSSS page 5-56

Worksheet 5-8. Form to calculate Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) variables and an overall BEHI rating
(Rosgen, 1996, 2001a). Use Figure 5-19 with BEHI variables to determine BEHI score.
Stream: Location:
Station: Observers:
Date: Stream Type:
Valley Type:
BEHI Score
Study Bank Height / Bankfull Height ( C) (Fig. 5-19)
Study
Bankfull
Bank
Height
(A)/(B)=2sc
Height (ft).
(A)
(ft) =
(B)
(C)
Root Depth / Study Bank Height ( E )
Root
Study
�"�
Depth
Bank
(D)/(A)_
lc;
(ft) _
(D)
Height (ft) =
(A)
(E)
Weighted Root Density ( G )
Root
Density
(F)x(E) _--,
as % =
(F)
(G)
Bank Material Adjustment:
Bank Angle (H )
Bank
Angle
Vloc}'-E vRI%
as Degrees =
(H)
Surface Protection (I )
Surface
Protection
as % =
(1)
Bedrock (Overall Very Low BEHI)
Boulders (Overall Low BEHI)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points if uniform medium to large cobble)
Gravel or Composite Matrix (Add 5-10 points depending on
percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt/Clay (no adjustment)
Stratification Adjustment
Add 5-10 points, depending on
position of unstable layers in
relation to bankfull stage
Bank Material
Adjustment
11
Very Low
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
Extreme
5-9.5 1 10-19.5 120-29.5 1 30-39.5 1 40-45
46-50
Adjective Rating
and
Total Score
ate!- yAr1
12
10
0 7
6
to 5
4
3
2
1
0
0
Bank Sketch
2 3 4
Horizontal distance (ft)
Copyright © 2006 Wildland Hydrology
5
6
Bankfull
•
J =
Root
epth (D)
Bank
Angle
.S")
((lc
� m
uJ o
0
Start
of
Bank
WARSSS page 5-56

Worksheet 5-8. Form to calculate Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) variables and an overall BEHI rating
(Rosgen, 1996, 2001a). Use Figure 5-19 with BEHI variables to determine BEHI score.
Stream:
Location:
Station:
Observers:
Date: le/ Z i/ZZ' Stream Type:
Valley Type:
BEHI Score
Study Bank Height / Bankfull Height ( C) (Fig. 5-19)
Study
Bankfull
Bank
Height (ft) =
(A)
Height
(ft) =
1 :=
J (B)
(A)/(B)=
(C)
r
t-x , �r,....
Root Depth / Study Bank Height ( E )
Root
Study
Depth
Bank
(D) / (A) =
tJ j�
(ft) =
(D)
Height (ft).
(A)
(E)
Weighted Root Density ( G )
Root
I
1— )
Density
(F)x(E) =
t%��it-
as % =
(F)
(G)
Bank Material Adjustment:
BankAngle(H)
Bank
Angle
as Degrees =
(H)
Surface Protection (I )
Surface
Protection
of et l
as% =
( I )
''_O,i
Bedrock (Overall Very Low BEHI)
Boulders (Overall Low BEHI)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points if uniform medium to large cobble)
Gravel or Composite Matrix (Add 5-10 points depending on
percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt/Clay (no adjustment)
Bank Material
Adjustment
Stratification Adjustment
Add 5-10 points, depending on
position of unstable layers in
relation to bankfull stage
Very Low
Low
Moderate
High
Very High 1 Extreme
5-9.5 1 10-19.5 120-29.5 1 30-39.5 1 40-45 46 50
Adjective Rating
and
Total Score
as
N
V
al
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
Bank Sketch
2 3 4
Horizontal distance (ft)
5
6
Bankfull
Copyright © 2006 Wildland Hydrology
Root
epth (D)
Bank
Angle
S")
O
.5
a1
(0 o
o_
Start
of
Bank
WARSSS page 5-56

CIS
Worksheet 5-8. Form to calculate Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) variables and an overall BEHI rating
(Rosgen, 1996, 2001a). Use Figure 5-19 with BEHI variables to determine BEHI score.
Stream:
Location:
Station:
Observers:
Date: (0/2,9 Stream Type:
Valley Type:
Study Bank Height / Bankfull Height ( C
BEHI Score
(Fig. 5-19)
Study
Bankfull
Bank
Height
1
(A)/(B)
i-•
Height (ft) =
(A)
(ft) =
(B)
(C)
Root Depth / Study Bank Height ( E )
Root
Study
Depth
(
9
Bank
l
`
(D) / (A) _
0.1"1�
(ft) _
(D)
Height (ft) _
-J
(A)
(E)
Weighted Root Density ( G )
Root
Density
as % _
(F)
(F) x (E)
.. (G)
; •
; ;
•�.
Bank Material Adjustment:
Bank Angle (H )
Bank
Angle
as Degrees =
(H)
Surface Protection (I )
Surface
Protection
as % =
(I)
Bedrock (Overall Very Low BEHI)
Boulders (Overall Low BEHI)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points if uniform medium to large cobble)
Gravel or Composite Matrix (Add 5-10 points depending on
percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
"Silt/Clay-(no adjustment)
Very Low
Moderate
High
Very High
5-9.5 1 10-19.5 1 20-29.5 1 30-39.5 1 40-45
Bank Sketch
Horizontal distance (ft)
Copyright © 2006 Wildland Hydrology
Extreme
Bank Material
Adjustment
Stratification Adjustment
Add 5-10 points, depending on
position of unstable layers in
relation to bankfull stage
Bankfull
Adjective Rating
and
Total Score
Root
epth (D)
Bank
Angle
- (H)
U o
� U
7 4%
or)
o`
Start
of
Bank
WARSSS page 5-56

Worksheet 5-8. Form to calculate Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) variables and an overall BEHI rating
(Rosgen, 1996, 2001a). Use Fogure 5-19 with BEHI variables to determine BEHI score.
Stream:
Station:
Date: (p (Z'\
Stream Type:
Location: cz1,4 c f),,
Observers: l ' r
Valley Type:
BEHI Score
Study Bank Height / Bankfull Height ( C) (Fig. 5-19)
Study
Bankfull
Bank
3
Height
0.
(A )/ (B) _ �
U,t�,
Height (ft) _
(A)
(ft) _
(B)
(C)J�'`'f
Root Depth / Study Bank Height ( E
Root
Study
4 tv
Depth
h 5
Bank
%_
(D)/(A)-
a
l 11
(ft) _
(D)
Height (ft) =
(A)
(E)
Weighted Root Density ( G
Root
Density
5
(F)x(E)
O.4,,9
t j-yi�,y,f,
as % =
(F)
(G)1
Bank Material Adjustment:
Bank Angle (H )
Bank
Angle
as Degrees =
Surface Protection (I )
Surface
Protection
as% =
Low
Bedrock (Overall Very Low BEHI)
Boulders (Overall Low BEHI)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points if uniform medium to large cobble)
Gravel or Composite Matrix (Add 5-10 points depending on
percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt/Clay (no adjustment)
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Copyright © 2006 Wildland Hydrology
High
Very High Extreme
46 - 50
Bank Material
Adjustment
Stratification Adjustment
Add 5-10 points, depending on
position of unstable layers in
relation to bankfull stage
Bankfull
Adjective Rating
and
Total Score
1"1i*
3 4 Ca-l.
Root
epth (D)
Bank
Angle
St')
Start
of
Bank
c
WARSSS page 5-56

Worksheet 5-8. Form to calculate Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) variables and an overall BEHI rating
(Rosgen, 1996, 2001a). Use Figure 5-19 with BEHI variables to determine BEHI score.
Stream: �' j. \��-' \0 x,\§- Location: CDkf\ NEAT
Station: Observers:S (,
Date:
Stream Type:
Valley Type:
BEHI Score
Study Bank Height / Bankfull Height ( C) (Fig. 5-19)
Study
Bankfull
Bank
3
3
Height ht
(A )/ (B)
11
Height (ft).
(A)
(ft) =
I
(B}
I
(C)
t.)*C
le"
Root Depth / Study Bank Height ( E )
Root
Study
Depth
1
Bank
3
(D) / (A) -
0
3
µQ , ka it-
(ft) _
-1-
(D)
Height (ft) =
.3
(A)
(E)
Weighted Root Density ( G )
Root
Density
\0
(F) x (E) =
o3
�Y#Ycrt.
as % _
(F)
(�)
Bank Angle (H )
Bank
Angle
as Degrees =
(H)
Surface Protection (I )
Surface
Protection
as% =
Bank Material Adjustment:
V e v
Bedrock (Overall Very Low BEHI)
Boulders (Overall Low BEHI)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points if uniform medium to large cobble)
Gravel or Composite Matrix (Add 5-10 points depending on
percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt/Clay (no adjustment)
Bank Material
Adjustment
Stratification Adjustment
Add 5-10 points, depending on
position of unstable layers in
relation to bankfull stage
Very Low
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
Extreme
5-9.5 1 10-19.5 1 20-29.5 1 30-39.5 40-45
46 - 50
Adjective Rating
and
Total Score
Vertical distance
12
11
10
9
8.
7
6
4
3
0
Bank Sketch
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Horizontal distance (ft)
Copyright © 2006 Wildland Hydrology
Bankfull
Root
epth (D)
Bank
Angle
ASH)
N
U
lfl
7 0_.
v� o
a.
Start
of
Bank
WARSSS page 5-56

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies Draft User Manual: March 2013
USACE AID #: NCDWQ #
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" 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): A`If y, y _ [Qu,a fv�.�� 2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name: G 1 P 4. Assessor name/organization: E S} R.Q, / tI DR
5. County: MIZ.661e..�-ioW6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: jon USGS 7,5-minute gold: Ti c p t
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): - jp , 163 S f -' 3 z Fs:
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): 5 I -o I 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): •
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): q, 1 ` ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): Z� SF 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? ❑Yes ®No
14. Feature type: 121Perennial flow ['Intermittent flow ['Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: EMountains (M)
®Piedmont (P) Dinner Coastal Plain (I)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for [�a `� ❑b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
['Outer Coastal Plain (0)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ESize 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) ®Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) ['Size 4 (z 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? EIYes ENo If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
['Section 10 water ['Classified Trout Waters EWater Supply Watershed (El Ell pm ❑IV ❑V)?
EEssential Fish Habitat EPrimary Nursery Area EHigh Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
©Publicly owned property ❑NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect ENutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish 0303(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)
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 A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
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).
[s4 < 10% of channel unstable
❑ B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑ C > 25% of channel unstable
vil

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
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
OA 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" 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)
gJ 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
OYes ©No Is stream 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 11)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
CIA
EB
❑C
❑D
❑E
Multiple a vatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(includin 'y lichens, and algal mats)
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
Little or no habitat
11. Bedform and Substrate — assessment reach metric
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
Submerged aquatic vegetation
Low -tide refugia (pools)
Sand bottom
5% vertical bank along the marsh
Little or no habitat
11 a. ❑Yes wNo Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es). (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
©A Riffle -run section
❑ B Pool -glide section
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. 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
❑ ❑
❑ 0
❑ ❑
J� ❑
E ❑
.® 0
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑1E1
P
0
0
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
Silt (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
A#ificial (rip. rap,. concrete,. etc.) t)O4
11d. ❑Yes []No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR 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. ENo Water ❑Other:
12b. gYes DNo 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.
❑ EAdult frogs
❑ EAquatic reptiles
❑ ©Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (includ liverwortt lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ®Beetles (including water pennies)
❑ MCaddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula) 1
® ['Crustacean
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp) -I" LAJ„ V I
❑ ®Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans (true flies)
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ©Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ®Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ©other fish Ia1`m�sl(not`Co�rb+cula)n, a.}v �bia .1- -6.,,,, .1 s+.�y� t hv' P'`sl S�t`+
® ❑Sa€arnanders/tadpoles o pA,.. RAU` ( �, vi 5
O ['Snails
O ❑Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
O ❑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
EA ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B I� B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C LIC 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) I.
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
EA ❑A Unaltered or majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water z 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 EY Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
EN EN
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods affecting assessment reach (ex: beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
OE 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)
DB Obstruction not passing flow during tow -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
DC Urban stream (> 24% impervious surface for watershed) `Tr4al' ' 5``'0../S - 2,c)11 O LC❑ - `1•1 f
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
OF None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
EA Stream shading is appropriate for the stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
DC Stream shading is gone or largely absent
ix

19. Buffer Width — assessment 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
LB RB
OA ❑A
$
❑C EC
❑D ❑D
❑E ❑E
Wooded
LB RB
MA ❑A
B ❑B
❑C ❑C
❑D gib
❑E ❑E
20. Buffer Structure
Consider for left
LB RB
❑A
❑B
❑C
❑D
❑ E
>_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
From 50 to < 100 feet wide
From 30 to < 50 feet wide
From 10 to < 30 feet wide
< 10 feet wide or no trees
— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
❑A Mature forest
a Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
DC Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D Maintained shrubs
❑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 no stressors, check here and skip to Metric 22: Ef No Stressors
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑ A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A DA Row crops
❑B ❑B DB ❑B DB ❑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
DB .IB Low stem density
❑ C DC 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
'PA Q{A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
-❑B DB The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑ C EC The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
KA ❑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.
LIB 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 DB 46 to < 67 EC 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E z 230
Notes/Sketch:
x

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name CDIA NEAT Basin Baseline Date of Assessment 6/29/2022
Survey— S1-01
Stream Category Pa3 Assessor Name/Organization EBS, JK, RR
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
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 LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NO
HIGH
NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies Draft User Manual: March 2013
USAGE AID #: NCDWQ #
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" 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): }�, t�4T j?Atr,, 1v- ioks;rL,e+ e.,. 2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name: G�11=j
5. County: 1N16. Nearest named wafer body
7. River basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad: 1-1(.piL j}-rxln
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 3s- 231-4 5,—AO51SR
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): t 1 - U"j 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): (`)1
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3 `( 4 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): ? 2 .e( 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? EYes Qf No
14. Feature type: pPerennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ['Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ['Mountains (M) , Piedmont (P) ['Inner Coastal Plain (I) ❑Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for Da L ❑b
Tidal Marsh Stream): more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ['Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ['Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) ®Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) ❑Size 4 (z 5 mi2)
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 ❑Classrfed Trout Waters [Water Sup* Watershed (DI Ell ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area [High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
(Publicly owned property ❑NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect ['Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑ Anadromous fish 0303(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)
[IA 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
14B
�Z J �-Z"
4. Assessor name/organization: E S ) F R R / I- bR
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).
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).
gIB A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
❑ A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
Not A
Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
�A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑ C > 25% of channel unstable
vil

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
JnA A
❑ B r13
EC ❑C
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
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])
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑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" 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
No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
▪ Yes j No Is stream 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 IZINo 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 11)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for
A Multiple a u tic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(inciudin 'worts lichens, and algal mats)
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
Multiple snags and lags (including lap trees)
5% undercut banks and/or roof mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
Little or no habitat
�]B
K]C
ED
❑E
11. Bedform and Substrate — assessment reach metric
Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
OF 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
❑I Sand bottom
❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑K Little or no habitat
11 a. ❑Yes pNo Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es). (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Riffle -run section
B Pool -glide section
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. 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
❑ ❑
❑ Er
or
E
E
❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ Silt (< 0.062 mm)
❑ Detritus
❑ Artificial (rip-r-ap,-concrete;-etc.-) 470-i <
11d. ❑Yes V4No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
vih

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR 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. El 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 (includeIiverWorts)lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ®Beetles (including water pennies)
❑ giCaddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
❑ ['Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ['Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp) ' �y �]td CvvS l�}�1nJ
❑ ; i Damselfly and dragonfly larvae5 �W� `t `
❑ El(true flies) 1"
❑ ['Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
�[iO SLVP�► 4. a, v-�
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae) dw'r ��" 0 €iL.
❑ 12Midges/mosquito larvae jV{
❑ ®Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ®Other fish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tadpoles
❑ DSnails
❑ DStonefly larvae (Plecoptera [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
j_RJA �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 Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
KJA 'WIA Unaltered or majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water z 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?
(ON CAN
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑ A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑ C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods affecting assessment reach (ex: beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
®C Urban stream (>> 24% impervious surface for watershed) S-tYp.a+y 517:0. 5— 261 l 1'1 t-C t — .4
❑ 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.
Stream shading Is appropriate for the stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
JB Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
ix

19. Buffer Width — assessment 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
LB RB
MA DA
B ❑B
❑ C ❑C
❑ D ❑D
❑E CflE
Wooded
LB RB
MA ❑A
❑B ❑B
❑C ❑C
❑D ❑D
❑E LAE
20. Buffer Structure
Consider for left
LB RB
OA
B
❑C
❑ D
❑E
DA
❑B
Igc
❑D
DE
>_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
From 50 to < 100 feet wide
From 30 to < 50 feet wide
From 10 to < 30 feet wide
< 10 feet wide or no trees
— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
Mature forest
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
Maintained shrubs
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 no stressors, check here and skip to Metric 22: ONo Stressors
Abuts < 30 feel 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C
❑ D ❑D ❑D ❑D
LB RB
❑A ❑A
DB ❑B
❑C ❑C
DD ❑D
Row crops
Maintained turf
Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
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).
Lt3 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 F{E3
❑ 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 — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
,❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B 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 (ANo Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water DOther:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
DA < 46 DB 46 to < 67 DC 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 DE z 230
❑B
Notes/Sketch:
x

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name CDIA NEAT Basin Baseline Date of Assessment 6/29/2022
Survey — S1-02
Stream Category Pa3 Assessor Name/Organization EBS, JK, RR
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography HIGH
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
NO
HIGH
NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies Draft User Manual: March 2013
USACE AID #: NCDWQ #
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" 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: i
1. Project name (if any): IJ EI r &Sln- re_c ��t,L-•Uh 2. Date of evaluation: ! LZ
3. Applicant/owner name: C:bt'A 4. Assessor name/organization: Eft(
5. County: T�.et .ket. Jnv<YN 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad: 17ceA.
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 3 _ nn bta s-S0,910 57 q.gq
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): 5 6 - O 3 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 5,IC ['Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 3 3 - 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? ['Yes 171,No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow ['Intermittent flow ['Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEG'RY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑Mountains (M) "ZPiedmont (P)
['Inner Coastal Plain (I)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for ❑b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ['Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) ESize 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (z 5 mi2)
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 (❑I ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat EPrimary Nursery Area ❑High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
[J Publicly owned property ❑NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
EDocumented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Outer Coastal Plain (0)
❑ 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)
ZIA 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).
Not A
[�B
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
❑�4 A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
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).
Not A
❑A
B
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
< 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable
vii

6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
1 JA ❑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
7. 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" 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.)
❑ l 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
LIB Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream - assessment reach metric
❑Yes po Is stream 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 L1Na 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 11)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment
DA Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(including liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
In banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
Little or no habitat
TAB
❑E
reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
OF 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
❑ G Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
❑I Sand bottom
❑ J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑K Little or no habitat
11. Bedform and Substrate - assessment reach metric
11a. ['Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. ttedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es). (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Riffle -run section
B Pool -glide section
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. n 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
Et 0 0 0 0 Bedrock/saprolite
0 0 0 0 Boulder (256 - 4096 mm)
0 0 0 Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
O 0 ❑ ❑ . Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
O ,Z 0 0 0 Detritus )
4 ❑ ❑ 0 0 ,Artificiei-(rip rop; eencrete, etc.) VON C
11d. ['Yes'�JNo Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
0 0
O 0 . 0
Silt < 0.062 mm
vu'

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ElYes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
ff r1o, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. pYes ❑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
❑ LAquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ IIBeetles (including water pennies)
❑ IRICaddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp) 1� Y �� C6 4.�.1 ti o �J
❑ DDa y and dragonfly larvae 4 prokk4 `
❑ ❑Dipteranterans (true flies) bv-* 1 ,.�t4 ,t.4 , t,, Ri] � W '.
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ [Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ WjOther fish
❑ Uc Salamanders/tadpoles
❑ []Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [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 streamsire area
B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C LIC 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 Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
JA (A Unaltered or majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water z 6 inches deep
LIB ❑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?
QN ©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 that passes some flow during low -flow periods affecting assessment reach (ex: beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
gD Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑ A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑ B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight darn, sediment deposit)
pc Urban stream (' 24% impervious surface for watershed) •'.}I'Q,,ctir• r 47 t IL c t) ze it — �� •'r
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
OF 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 the stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
L1 Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
ix

19. Buffer Width — assessment 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
VIA ❑A
❑ B ❑B
❑ C ❑C
❑D EID
❑E ❑E
(YA ❑A
DB ❑B
❑C ❑C
❑D OD
❑E ❑E
20. Buffer Structure
Consider for left
LB RB
N. A ❑A
B ❑B
❑ C NC
❑D llD
❑ E ❑E
>_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
From 50 to < 100 feet wide
From 30 to < 50 feet wide
From 10 to < 30 feet wide
< 10 feet wide or no trees
— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
Mature forest
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
Maintained shrubs
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 no stressors, check here and skip to Metric 22: V1No Stressors
Abuts < 30 feel 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB
❑ A ❑A ❑A ❑A
❑ B ❑B ❑B ❑B
❑ C ❑C ❑C ❑C
❑ D ❑D ❑D ❑D
LB RB
❑A ❑A
❑B ❑B
❑C ❑C
❑D ❑D
Row crops
Maintained turf
Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
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
OA Medium to high stem density
DB R11B Low stem density
EC ❑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
le �JA The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
EC ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
ZIA FA 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 EC Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes [ (No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ENo 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 z 230
Notes/Sketch:
x

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name CDIA NEAT Basin Baseline Date of Assessment 6/29/2022
Survey — S1-03
Stream Category Pa3 Assessor Name/Organization EBS, JK, RR
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography HIGH
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
NO
HIGH
NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies Draft User Manual: March 2013
USACE AID #: NCDWQ #
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" 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): 'J EA1 ball In , y t c_ l,� �._ 2. Date of evaluation: Co ja cit y
3. Applicant/owner name: Lb' AFC 4. Assessor name/organization: f-{art_
5. County: MU_( lal4.u.SnLr.vr. 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: fl Lev 6r4kvv.
7. River basin: (�3 �,.; • t`
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 3c. 7,3 1.11-1_, -sin_/I.,I661,
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): 52-10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): "i 3
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3 ? 3 ['Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): ( 3 , 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? ❑Yes ®No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow l:/ Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑Mountains (M)
1 Piedmont (P) Dinner Coastal Plain (I) ['Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for Era Lib
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ESize 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ESize 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) ['Size 4 (Z 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ['Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
ESection 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I Ell ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
©Publicly owned property ENCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect [Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish 0303(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)
TAi 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).
�f B Not A .�Xe.0 foci.,c
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
DA A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
EB Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
[JB 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).
EA < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable
vii

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
7. 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
ED Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes" section.
OF 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.)
❑l Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
Little to no stressors
2J
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
IC No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑ Yes 1)7]No Is stream 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 11)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(including liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
JB Multiple sticks and/or tea# packs and/or emergent
vegetation
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
❑ D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑ E Little or no habitat
11. Bedform and Substrate — assessment reach metric
reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
N OF 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
F- E ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
o ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
N ❑I Sand bottom
L f ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
o n ❑K Little or no habitat
11a. ❑Yes giNo Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es). (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Riffle-run section
❑ B Pool -glide section
❑ C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. 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
C A P
❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ 0 0 Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
O 0 0 Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
14 0 ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
O 0 ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
O ❑ ❑ Silt (< 0.062 mm)
�❑ M 0 Detritus
❑ Artifsial-(trip-rap; corlirete, etc.) 1/1:204
11 d. ['Yes INo Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
viii

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR 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. V]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
❑ RAquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles (including water pennies)
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans (true flies)
❑ ['Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ElSalamanders/tadpoles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [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
IQA ®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 Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
Re% Unaltered or majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water z 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 DY Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
".;IN RAN
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)
DB Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods affecting assessment reach (ex: beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
DE 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)
VIC 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 "teat -on" condition.
EA Stream shading is appropriate for the stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑ C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
ix

19. Buffer Width - assessment 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 OA JA >- 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B �B ❑B DB 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
Consider for left
LB RB
BAB A B
❑C ❑C
❑D ED
❑E ❑E
- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
Mature forest
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
Maintained shrubs
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 no stressors, check here and skip to Metric 22: ®No Stressors
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑ B ❑B ❑B DB LIB LIB Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D OD ❑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
N.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
KIA EA The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑ C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition - First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
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 EC 67 to < 79 LID 79 to < 230 ❑E z 230
Notes/Sketch:
x

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name CDIA NEAT Basin Baseline Date of Assessment 6/29/2022
Survey — S2-01
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization EBS, JK, RR
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH HIGH
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow HIGH HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH HIGH
(4) Microtopography HIGH HIGH
(3) Stream Stability HIGH HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance LOW NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1) Habitat LOW HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat LOW MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) Substrate LOW LOW
(3) Stream Stability HIGH HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat LOW HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat HIGH HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat HIGH HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA NA
(2) Intertidal Zone NA NA
Overall
MEDIUM HIGH