20201841 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan_2022_20221107

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20201841
Version* 1
Select Reviewer: *
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 11/07/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 11/7/2022
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? * 0 Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name: *
Matthew Reid
Project Information
ID#:*
20201841
Existing ID#
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
• DMS Mitigation Bank
Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
Cleveland
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload:
Signature
............................................
Print Name: *
Signature:*
Email Address: *
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
Existing Version
BridgeforkDairy _100171 _M P_2022. pdf 36.79MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Matthew Reid

MITIGATION PLAN
FINAL
November 2022
Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
Cleveland County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 0301-01
DIMS ID No. 100171
Broad River Basin
HUC 03050105
USACE Action ID No. 2020-01962
RFP #: 16-20190301 (Issued: 12/20/2019)
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
MITIGATION PLAN
BRIDGEFORK DAIRY MITIGATION SITE
Cleveland County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 0301-01
DMS Project No. 100171
DWR Project No. 2020-18441
Broad River Basin
HUC 03050105
USACE Action ID No. 2020-01962
W I LDLANDS
€N GI Nr r R I NG
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
167-B Haywood Rd,
Asheville, NC 28806
Phone: [phone]
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title
33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2)
through (c)(14).
• North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS) In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010.
These documents govern DMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation.
Contributing Staff:
Eric Neuhaus, PE, Project Manager
Shawn Wilkerson, Principal in Charge
Christine Blackwelder, Lead Quality Assurance
Greg Turner, PE, Stream and BMP Design
Win Taylor, PWS, Wetland Delineations
Jeffrey Turner, Project Scientist
Emily Israel, Land Stewardship
Catherine Warner, Construction Documents

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
October 24, 2022
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site /
Cleveland County
USACE ID: SAW-2020-01962
NCDMS Project # 100171
NCDWR # 2020-1841
Paul Wiesner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
00RM► ravivi[37iL�
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team
(NCIRT) during the 30-day comment period for the Bridgefork Dairy Draft Mitigation Plan, which
closed on August 20, 2022. These comments are attached for your review.
Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns
have been identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved with this
correspondence. However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached
comment memo, which must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.
The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues
identified above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final
Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the
document. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit,
you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the
USACE Mitigation Office at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the project.
Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit
authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily
addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan, but this does
not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation credit. As you

are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the project that may
require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions
regarding this letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation
Rule, please contact me at Kimberly.d.brown ing(ab-usace.army.miI or [phone].
Sincerely,
Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager
for Tyler Crumbley, Deputy Chief
USACE Regulatory Division
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Marc Recktenwald, Matthew Reid—NCDMS
Shawn Wilkerson, Eric Neuhaus--WEI

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG/Browning
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
October 5, 2022
SUBJECT: NCDMS Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site - NCIRT Comments during 30-day Mitigation
Plan Review, Cleveland County, NC
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received during the 30-day comment period in
accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule in response to the Notice of NCDMS
Mitigation Plan Review.
USACE AID#: SAW-2020-01962
NCDMS #: 100171
NCDWR#: 20201841
30-Day Comment Deadline: August 20, 2022
DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. Page 5, Section 3.3.1 — Has any evidence of past/present beaver activity been observed
onsite?
2. Page 5, Bridgefork Creek Reach 1 a — Is the existing culvert under Patterson Road perched?
3. Page 19, Section 3.5 —
a. The new alignment of UT1 was designed to avoid working in the deepest pond
sediments, but is this location the appropriate natural valley low point?
b. Please describe what's ultimately done with pond bottom sediments in the MYO As -built
Baseline Report.
c. As part of the site constraints assessment and coordination, did NCDOT, Kings
Mountain Water or the electric utility company note any future maintenance plans?
DWR is concerned that stream credit appears to abut others' outfall structures along
UT2 and UT6. Was a credit setback considered in order to minimize the impact/risk of a
future encroachment request?
d. Also, there was no mention in Section 3.3.1-UT3 of the existing culvert being located
within the proposed project easement or in Section 6.6.7 that the culvert is proposed to
remain in place (Sheet 1.4.1). Why does the project easement include this structure
rather than start downstream of it? Dependent on the justification, DWR may request
that the easement be modified or require communication that DEQ Stewardship and
Kings Mountain Water have developed an acceptable plan for future structure
maintenance involving minimal buffer disturbance.
4. Page 20, Section 4.2 — Wetland credit areas appear to extend to the project conservation
easement boundary. Is there any risk of hydrologic trespass from these areas?

5. Page 23, Table 19 — The approaches and activities for UT4 Reach 1 and UT4 Reach 2 are in
the incorrect rows. Please update.
6. Page 29, Section 6.5 — DWR appreciates the reference to the Cleveland County
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
7. Page 31, Section 6.6.1 - Please clarify supplemental planting "as needed". If supplemental
planting of understory/shrub species is being proposed to support an enhancement credit ratio,
DWR expects that all designated areas shown as Shaded Planting Zone on Figure 10 will be
supplementally planted with the listed Partially Forested Buffer Planting Zone species. And if
requesting a 2.5:1 ratio, DWR requires survival data be collected during monitoring. This
comment also applies to Bridgefork Creek Reach 2 and UT4 Reach 1. This was a discussion
point on enhancement reaches during the IRT site walk.
8. Page 31, Section 6.6.2 — Please show on a figure the extent of the P2 bench cut area(s)
greater than 12 inches within or adjacent to any wetlands, as well as any areas where P2
benches overlap proposed wetland credit areas. Is there a drainage effect concern with
proposing wetland credit within or adjacent to P2 bench cuts? Will removed hydric soil be
reused onsite?
9. Page 32, Section 6.6.5 — Please confirm whether the entire pond dam footprint will be removed
during construction after dewatering.
10. Page 32, Section 6.6.8 — The included design sheets do not callout any bank grading or debris
removal areas along UT4. Without knowing the extent of the functional uplift proposed, DWR
cannot support the requested 2.5:1 ratio. Based on the information provided, we believe a 4:1
ratio is more appropriate. Please submit any additional information for consideration prior to
finalizing the final mitigation plan. Also, please refer to the IRT site walk meeting minutes, "it
was noted that if bank work/grading were done as part of the work along UT4, the IRT would
require representative monitoring cross -sections be performed along the reach".
11. Page 34, Section 6.8 — General section note, DWR appreciates that pre -construction baseline
groundwater gauge data was collected, and we were glad to see a reference wetland
identified.
12. Page 34, Section 6.8.1 — Please confirm that reestablishment area Wetland 2A does not
overlap the pond dam footprint.
13. Page 34, Section 6.8.2 — Wetland K was evaluated to have a High NCWAM score. To account
for existing high wetland functions and lack of proposed monitoring stations to demonstrate
uplift, DWR believes an enhancement ratio of 2.5:1 is more appropriate for Wetland 2B.
Wetland approaches/ratios was a discussion point at the IRT site walk.
14. Page 34, Section 6.8.2 — Figure 2 shows three existing drainage ditches. Please add callouts
to fill ditches on design sheets.
15. Page 35, Section 6.8.3 — Regarding the preliminary/detailed soil investigation, is the single soil
profile provided representative of all nine proposed wetland credit areas? Why were no borings
taken within proposed wetland rehab areas? Also, has a sampling effort or any investigation of
the pond bottom sediments been performed?
16. Page 36, Section 6.8.3 — Is the proposed sediment cap expected to assist with access to
properly install bareroot plantings during construction and/or avoid sediment cracking during
monitoring? These are two challenges that DWR has observed in past proposed pond bottom
wetland credit areas.
17. Page 36, Section 6.9 — As part of Land Management, please provide a brief description of
proposed soil restoration to address equipment/haul road compaction, low nutrients/organics,
pH, etc. In addition to the pond bottom and P2 bench cut areas, there are several steep slopes

shown on the design sheets within and immediately adjacent to the project proposed for re-
grading and stabilization.
18. Page 37, Section 6.9 — In the MYO Baseline Report, please summarize what species were
treated prior to and during construction. The presence of Murdannia Keisak is particularly
concerning, so please provide a bit more information on the planned treatment of this species.
19. Page 37, Section 6.10 —
a. Given the site proximity to previously timbered areas, is pine or sweet gum colonization
a concern? Is veg management anticipated?
b. DWR recommends adding "no mow" signs along any internal utility crossings not
bordered by fence.
20. Page 38, Table 28 —
a. Dimension - Please add the entrenchment ratio for proposed B channels.
b. Hydrology - Please shift the semi -colon. Bankfull events are to be in separate years.
Minimum consecutive flow days is an annual performance standard.
c. Wetland — Please add start/end dates for the preliminary growing season.
d. Vegetation — Considering 70% of plantings for the Wetland Planting Zone are canopy
species, DWR does not agree with the proposed vigor standard modification without
further justification. DWR would support a vigor exemption for shrub and subcanopy
species across planting zones.
21. Page 40, Table 29 —
a. DWR requests a representative cross section be added to the approx. 200-ft restoration
reach of UT2.
b. In addition to permanent and mobile plots within the Figure 10 Open Planting Zone and
Wetland Planting Zone (which have an associated performance standard), DWR
requires stem survival data for supplemental planting within the Shaded Planting Zone
to support the 2.5:1 enhancement ratios. (Potential monitoring approaches were
recently discussed with Wildlands at the DMS Honey Mill IRT site visit)
22. General Comment — Please make sure to QAQC spelling, spacing, and formatting in the plan
narrative.
23. Figures 2 & 10 — Have red box comments already been incorporated into the figures? In the
future, DWR would appreciate figures at this scale and with this much detail to be
saved/printed as 11x17.
24. Figure 10 —
a. Please change the UT3 preservation line color to match the legend.
b. There appear to be green and red groundwater gauges shown, which is confusing, and
they don't add up to the eight gauges noted in Table 29. Due to this discrepancy, DWR
may request changes to the number/locations of gauges once a revised figure is
submitted for review.
25. Sheet 0.3 —
a. Is the proposed log sill meant to be the angle log drop shown in the details? No log sill
detail was provided.
b. Since there are no callouts or details for channel/ditch plugs or partial backfilling, the
assumption is that all old channels and ditches will be backfilled to meet grade. Correct?
26. Sheet 1.2.3 — Please confirm with USACE, but I don't believe a vernal pool and stone outlet
BMP can be excavated out of an existing jurisdictional wetland area.
27. Sheet 2.7 — Please confirm whether the proposed floodplain pool is the same as the proposed
shallow vernal pool. If not, please provide a legend icon and typical detail for the floodplain
pool (including information on max. depth, outlet, materials/stone, planting/seeding).

28. Sheet 3.0.0 —
a. Please add CE lines to all wetland grading sheets.
b. This sheet shows Wetland Area 1 B not abutting the CE line in the northeast corner near
the utility break. This makes sense based on the topography shown on Sheet 1.1.1.
Figures 8 & 10 appear to show the wetland credit area extending to the easement line.
This is likely just a scale thing, but I wanted to confirm.
c. I appreciate the inclusion of wetland grading sheets. However, I find it very difficult to
assess proposed changes when the icon pattern covers the existing topography. What's
most helpful for me is a figure showing categorized proposed changes in wetland
elevations 0-6", 6-12" and >12" (often color -coded), so I can quickly assess minor to
moderate to more substantial changes in elevation and soil characteristics.
29. Sheet 4.0.0 —
a. Please double check species identified in the subcanopy stratum, particularly whether
swamp rose and elderberry should be considered shrubs.
b. Willow live stakes are included in the wetland planting zone percent stems total. Please
clarify if you're proposing to count live stakes as part of the density and vigor
performance standard monitoring.
c. Please consider adding milkweed species to seed mixes (as appropriate) for pollinator
habitat.
d. Regarding the sheet note, please see DWR comment on "as needed" buffer planting.
e. DWR greatly appreciates the attention given to species diversity and planting zones.
f. Please add CE lines to all planting plan sheets.
30. Sheet 7.8 (Educational Inquiry) — What is the purpose of the cattle slats?
31. Sheet 7.9 — Why isn't a single culvert feasible or a baseflow/floodplain pipe pairing? DWR
would prefer either of these options over a double culvert set at the same elevation in the
stream bed, which may over -widen the channel and scour the banks.
32. General Comment — With all the vernal pool outlets and BMPs, please try to embed the stone
lined areas as much as possible to limit layered stone voids that may become wildlife traps.
NCWRC Comments, Travis Wilson:
1. The ford crossings show the use of cattle slats; are these being used for structural stability to
help retain substrate in the ford? Or, are they intended to deter cattle from crossing the stream?
2. Crossing at the top of UT4 states the crossing will be determined in the final mit plan. The type
of crossing and configuration should be available in the draft mit plan. It's understood structure
sizes may not be known until a more detailed design and hydraulic analysis has been completed.
3. The culvert Detail on page 7.9 shows two lines of smaller diameter (24") pipe conveying the
normal flow channel. A single line of larger pipe, sized to carry the normal/low flow should be
used in this detail, if additional high flow pipes are necessary to convey flood flow they can be
incorporated within the cross-section at a higher elevation.
NCWRC Comments. Olivia Munzer:
1. We recommend planting only crimson clover rather than white clover for temporary and
permanent seeding (outside easement). White clover is a more aggressive, perennial species
compared to the annual crimson clover. White clover forms mats and can outcompete native
species.

2. Consider adding another 1-2 flowering herbaceous species to your wetland seed mix.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. Please include a grading map in the figures that shows the different depths that will be
graded. You can use different colors/patterns to show 0-6", 6-12', greater than 12".
2. Figure 10:
a. Please move the stream gauge on UT4A to the upper 1/3 of the restoration reach,
closer to the photo point.
b. The legend doesn't clarify what the redish-pink dots in the wetlands represent. Are the
existing groundwater gauges? Will they remain? If not, please add additional gauges
to wetland 1 B and 2A, and shift the gauge near 4B so that it captures the wetland.
c. Is the preservation portion of UT3 supposed to be preservation for no credit? If so,
please adjust the map; this figure contradicts what's depicted on Figure 8.
d. Random plots will be requested in the supplemental planting areas throughout
monitoring, particularly along UT4 where invasives are removed.
e. UT2: Section 3.3 lists this reach as perennial and the DWQ ID Form lists it as
intermittent, and the pJD map shows the reach as perennial. Please clarify. If UT2 is
intermittent and has a 16-acre drainage area, please place a flow gauge near the
photo point.
3. Page 34 and Sheet 1.2.3: The shallow vernal pool/retention pond and stone outlet cannot
be placed in a jurisdictional area.
4. At the IRT site visit, the IRT questioned whether UT4 would remain stable after the extensive
removal of invasives with an Ell approach and requested cross sections on this reach.
5. Section 3.3: 1 appreciate the detailed existing conditions. This is helpful with the review.
6. Page 19: In addition to DWR's comments above on this section, please clarify that the
overhead utility crossings and the variable width waterline easement on UT1 are external to
the conservation easement. The design sheets indicate that the crossings are external, but
Table 16 and Figures 8 & 10 show these as internal easements. Our preference is to exclude
all existing utility easements, primary roads (i.e., NCDOT, city/county roads), maintained
residential driveways, greenways, or access corridors reserved for future development.
Additionally, why does the conservation easement boundary extend to Patterson Rd, to
include a 68' wide utility easement? This should be removed from the easement. Please give
me a call if you need to discuss.
7. Section 4.1: Was the pedestrian survey that was completed on March 9, 2020 conducted
during the appropriate survey window? Most are conducted during the growing season. Also,
keep in mind that plant surveys are only valid for 1-2 years, depending on the species. Due
to the presence of suitable habitat for Hexastyllis naniflora, but lack of onsite evidence for the
species' presence, the probability for project -mediated loss is insignificant and discountable.
I would concur with a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determination for this species,
not a "no effect.". I would encourage you to reach out to USFWS for written concurrence
because The Corps will need this to process the 404-permit.
8. Table 19: 1 think the descriptions for UT4 Reach 1 and 2 are mixed up. Reach 1 should be
Ell.
9. Section 6.5, page 29: What is the potential for future development to contribute additional
sediment? It appears that there are several developments close to the project currently.
10. Section 6.6.8: Please estimate the amount of bank grading that is proposed on UT4 in order
to justify the 2.5:1 ratio.
11. Section 6.8: On future projects, please keep wetland labels consistent with the pJD map. It's
confusing to have to refer to both Figures 2 and 8 in order to understand which wetlands this
section is referencing.

12. Section 6.10: What is the potential for hydrologic trespass onto adjacent fields? Stream
restoration work may have an impact on the hydrology of the adjacent land, resulting in
increased flooding and/or reestablishment of wetlands on those parcels. Given that the soils
and topography on the site do not immediately change at the edge of the conservation
easement, it seems logical that wetland reestablishment right next to the property line will
impact both sides of the boundary. There is also no way of ensuring that the adjacent
landowners will not construct new ditches immediately adjacent to your project that would
result in drainage of wetlands restored on your site. With no guarantee that the adjacent
parcel will not be transferred to a different landowner in the future, this potential site constraint
should be discussed in the text.
13. Table 28, page 38:
a. Please include the Entrenchment Ratio of no less than 1.4 for B channels.
b. If you would like to use a modified growing season that is not listed in the WETS
tables, you will need to measure the soil temperature using a continuous monitoring
device, and document vegetative indicators such as bud burst and leaf drop. Ideally,
this data would be collected prior to submitting the final mitigation plan so you have
accurate dates, similar to collecting pre -data for hydroperiods. If you decide to use a
modified growing season, once you establish the dates (assuming it's a normal year),
you will need to stick with those dates throughout the life of the project for consistency.
Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Isenhour, USACE
FROM: Eric Neuhaus, PE
DATE: November 2, 2022
RE: Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
Broad River Basin HUC 03050105
Cleveland County, NC
DMS ID No. 100171
DEQ ID No. 0301-01
RFP Number 16-20190301
SAW-2020-01962
Response to NCIRT Mitigation Plan Comments
Wildlands received NCIRT comments on the Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation plan via Kim Isenhour's October
5, 2022 letter. We have made the necessary revisions to the draft documents and are submitting
revised versions of the documents along with this memorandum. Below we provide your comments
followed by our responses in italics.
DWR Comments. Erin Davis
1) Page 5, Section 3.3.1— Has any evidence of past/present beaver activity been observed onsite?
a) Beaver activity has been observed at the Site along Bridgefork Creek Reach 3 from the
confluence with UT5 downstream to below the project's extent. Wildlands will work with USDA
on beaver management if needed during the monitoring period.
2) Page 5, Bridgefork Creek Reach 1a — Is the existing culvert under Patterson Road perched?
a) The culvert at the upstream extent of Bridgefork Creek is perched approximately 8-inches. The
stream channel downstream of the pipe is heavily influenced by existing bed rock that provides
stable grade control.
3) Page 19, Section 3.5
a) The new alignment of UT1 was designed to avoid working in the deepest pond sediments, but is
this location the appropriate natural valley low point?
• The stream is placed at the lowest elevation of the proposed valley. The valley is being
extensively re -graded with average widths of 75 to 100 feet. While the stream will be built
further towards the left valley wall, the channel will maintain floodprone widths exceeding
30 feet and entrenchment ratios greater than 5.0 through this section of the reach.
b) Please describe what's ultimately done with pond bottom sediments in the MYO As -built
Baseline Report.
• Discussion of pond sediments will be included in the MYO Report.

c) As part of the site constraints assessment and coordination, did NCDOT, Kings Mountain Water
or the electric utility company note any future maintenance plans? DWR is concerned that
stream credit appears to abut others' outfall structures along UT2 and UT6. Was a credit setback
considered in order to minimize the impact/risk of a future encroachment request?
NCDOT, Kings Mountain, and Duke Energy will have rights to maintain their associated
easements per their own standards. Special coordination or altered maintenance plans were
not discussed with any of these parties. Work abutting the water line at the upstream extent
of UT1 has been coordinated with King's Mountain Water, including a previous site visit with
the utility.
A credit setback at the crossing locations was evaluated and it was determined that there is
adequate space within the internal breaks to maintain the utilities and farm crossings
without encroachments on the conservation easement. Wetland crediting was offset from
internal crossings/utilities by at least 3 feet in all locations to avoid potential encroachment
within the floodplain.
d) Also, there was no mention in Section 3.3.1-UT3 of the existing culvert being located within the
proposed project easement or in Section 6.6.7 that the culvert is proposed to remain in place
(Sheet 1.4.1). Why does the project easement include this structure rather than start
downstream of it? Dependent on the justification, DWR may request that the easement be
modified or require communication that DEQ Stewardship and Kings Mountain Water have
developed an acceptable plan for future structure maintenance involving minimal buffer
disturbance.
• Wildlands determined it was best to extend the conservation easement to the associated
boundaries (property, utility easement) to capture the headwater of UT3. The culvert is
proposed to remain in place as majority of the pipe is covered in earth. No credit is sought
for the first 387 LF of UT3 and minor maintenance related to the culvert would not impact
credited assets or buffer. Wildlands can facilitate contact for Kings Mountain Water
maintenance with long term stewardship as needed.
4) Page 20, Section 4.2 — Wetland credit areas appear to extend to the project conservation easement
boundary. Is there any risk of hydrologic trespass from these areas?
• Wetland credit is offset a minimum of 3-feet, and an average of 5-feet, from the conservation
easement line in all locations. This buffer, along with increases in topography beyond the
conservation easement, mitigate risk for hydrologic trespass.
5) Page 23, Table 19 —The approaches and activities for UT4 Reach 1 and UT4 Reach 2 are in the
incorrect rows. Please update.
• Approaches for UT4 Reach land UT4 Reach 2 were corrected in Table 19.
6) Page 29, Section 6.5 — DWR appreciates the reference to the Cleveland County Comprehensive Land
Use Plan.
• Wildlands attempts to gather all available documentation and incorporate information into the
design as applicable.
7) Page 31, Section 6.6.1 - Please clarify supplemental planting "as needed". If supplemental planting
of understory/shrub species is being proposed to support an enhancement credit ratio, DWR
2

expects that all designated areas shown as Shaded Planting Zone on Figure 10 will be
supplementally planted with the listed Partially Forested Buffer Planting Zone species. And if
requesting a 2.5:1 ratio, DWR requires survival data be collected during monitoring. This comment
also applies to Bridgefork Creek Reach 2 and UT4 Reach 1. This was a discussion point on
enhancement reaches during the IRT site walk.
a) Zones shown for supplemental planting on the planting plan and Figure 10 will be
supplementally bare rooted based on disturbance from invasive removal, debris removal, or if
the areas are currently unforested. Species and quantities will be recorded. Additional mobile
vegetation plots have been proposed within these areas as depicted in Figure 10. Text within the
report was update accordingly.
8) Page 31, Section 6.6.2 — Please show on a figure the extent of the P2 bench cut area(s) greater than
12 inches within or adjacent to any wetlands, as well as any areas where P2 benches overlap
proposed wetland credit areas. Is there a drainage effect concern with proposing wetland credit
within or adjacent to P2 bench cuts? Will removed hydric soil be reused onsite?
a) Colored coded grading depth of P2 cuts adjacent to and within proposed and existing wetlands
for credit are now shown on the wetland grading sheets (3.0-3.2.1). Grading over 12" shown
within Wetland 3A is attributed to side cast material left from ditch excavation. Existing bed
elevations, along with bench and bankfull indicators at the downstream extents of Bridgefork
Creek Reach 1B ultimately dictated stream elevation and associated floodplain grading within
Wetland 4. Hydric soils will be harvested, reapplied, and proposed Wetland 4 will be roughened
to promote extended retention times and microtopography upon grading completion.
9) Page 32, Section 6.6.5 —Please confirm whether the entire pond dam footprint will be removed
during construction after dewatering.
a) The entire dam and pond footprint is being re -graded as part of the project. The goal is to restore
a natural valley shape along UT1 while stabilizing and maintaining the existing stormflow from
Andrew Jackson Highway (NC-74) south of the project.
10) Page 32, Section 6.6.8 —The included design sheets do not callout any bank grading or debris
removal areas along UT4. Without knowing the extent of the functional uplift proposed, DWR
cannot support the requested 2.5:1 ratio. Based on the information provided, we believe a 4:1 ratio
is more appropriate. Please submit any additional information for consideration prior to finalizing
the final mitigation plan. Also, please refer to the IRT site walk meeting minutes, "it was noted that if
bank work/grading were done as part of the work along UT4, the IRT would require representative
monitoring cross -sections be performed along the reach".
a) Enhancement measures along UT4 including bank grading, debris removal, and intensive
invasive treatment were added to the design plans (Sheets 1.5.1 and 1.5.2) to support the
proposed 2.5:1 credit ratio. A monitoring cross section was added along the reach where bank
grading will occur, per IRT request.
11) Page 34, Section 6.8 — General section note, DWR appreciates that pre -construction baseline
groundwater gauge data was collected, and we were glad to see a reference wetland identified.
• Thank you for your comment. Wildlands makes every effort to accurately evaluate the baseline
hydrologic conditions of the Site.
12) Page 34, Section 6.8.1— Please confirm that reestablishment area Wetland 2A does not overlap the
pond dam footprint.
3

Wetland 2A boundary was revised slightly to ensure none of the credited boundary overlaps the
existing pond dam footprint.
13) Page 34, Section 6.8.2 — Wetland K was evaluated to have a High NCWAM score. To account for
existing high wetland functions and lack of proposed monitoring stations to demonstrate uplift,
DWR believes an enhancement ratio of 2.5:1 is more appropriate for Wetland 2B. Wetland
approaches/ratios was a discussion point at the IRT site walk.
• Wetland K (Proposed Wetland 28) was revised to a wetland enhancement approach at a 2.5:1
mitigation credit ratio. Section 6.8.3 - Wetland Enhancement was added to the report and
mitigation crediting was revised throughout the report.
14) Page 34, Section 6.8.2 — Figure 2 shows three existing drainage ditches. Please add callouts to fill
ditches on design sheets.
• Callouts to fill ditches have been added to plan sheets.
15) Page 35, Section 6.8.3 — Regarding the preliminary/detailed soil investigation, is the single soil
profile provided representative of all nine proposed wetland credit areas? Why were no borings
taken within proposed wetland rehab areas? Also, has a sampling effort or any investigation of the
pond bottom sediments been performed?
The provided soil profile is representative of soil conditions found within proposed Wetlands 1A,
18, 1C, 3A, 38, 4A, and 48. Wetland Area 2 is primarily within the pond. No soil profiles were
done within the pond, but a basic probe was done to estimate depth of sediment/leaf pack
within the pond for construction. Wetland Re -habilitation boundaries are based on the
jurisdictional determination. Given the level of detail and ACOE involvement on the PJD,
including a field investigation, additional soil borings are not provided by an LSS for wetland
rehab areas.
16) Page 36, Section 6.8.3 — Is the proposed sediment cap expected to assist with access to properly
install bareroot plantings during construction and/or avoid sediment cracking during monitoring?
These are two challenges that DWR has observed in past proposed pond bottom wetland credit
areas.
• Generally, the sediment cap is to help with workability of the material within the proposed
wetland area, including grading and channel construction. It will also help provide a workable
surface for proposed bareroot/herbaceous plantings.
17) Page 36, Section 6.9 —As part of Land Management, please provide a brief description of proposed
soil restoration to address equipment/haul road compaction, low nutrients/organics, pH, etc. In
addition to the pond bottom and P2 bench cut areas, there are several steep slopes shown on the
design sheets within and immediately adjacent to the project proposed for regrading and
stabilization.
• The Land Management Section has been updated to include discussion of soil amendments and
ripping of compacted soils.
18) Page 37, Section 6.9 — In the MYO Baseline Report, please summarize what species were treated
prior to and during construction. The presence of Murdannia keisak is particularly concerning, so
please provide a bit more information on the planned treatment of this species.
4

a) Discussion of invasive treatments prior to and during construction will be included in the MYO
Report. During construction treatment will include privet and invasive vines, both mechanical
removal and cut stump by contractors. Murdannia cannot be treated in dormant season but will
primarily be treated in -stream and where it is threatening woody vegetation.
19) Page 37, Section 6.10 —
a) Given the site proximity to previously timbered areas, is pine or sweet gum colonization a
concern? Is veg management anticipated?
• There is potential pine and/or sweet gum colonization due to previously timbered adjacent
areas. This is low risk and should colonization begin to occur, Wildlands will follow the
Maintenance Plan (Appendix 10) to address the issue.
(1) The previously timbered parcel is adjacent to UT4 (Enhancement 11) and UT4A
(Restoration).
(2) Treatments would include cutting or foliar using 3% Triclopyr 3.
b) DWR recommends adding "no mow" signs along any internal utility crossings not bordered by
fence.
• "No -Mow" Conservation easement signs will be placed along internal utility crossings not
bordered by a fence.
20) Page 38, Table 28 —
a) Dimension - Please add the entrenchment ratio for proposed B channels.
• Table 28 has been updated to include an entrenchment ratio of greater than or equal to 1.4
for B channels.
b) Hydrology - Please shift the semi -colon. Bankfull events are to be in separate years. Minimum
consecutive flow days is an annual performance standard.
• Table 28 was updated to say that the bankfull event criteria is required for separate
monitoring years.
c) Wetland —Please add start/end dates for the preliminary growing season.
• Start and end dates of 311 and 11120 were added for the preliminary growing season
defined within Table 28.
d) Vegetation — Considering 70% of plantings for the Wetland Planting Zone are canopy species,
DWR does not agree with the proposed vigor standard modification without further
justification. DWR would support a vigor exemption for shrub and subcanopy species across
planting zones.
• The vigor standard modification for wetland zones was removed from Table 28.
21) Page 40, Table 29 —
a) DWR requests a representative cross section be added to the approx. 200-ft restoration reach of
UT2.
• One riffle cross-section was added to UT2. Table 29 and Figure 10 were updated accordingly.
5

b) In addition to permanent and mobile plots within the Figure 10 Open Planting Zone and
Wetland Planting Zone (which have an associated performance standard), DWR requires stem
survival data for supplemental planting within the Shaded Planting Zone to support the 2.5:1
enhancement ratios. (Potential monitoring approaches were recently discussed with Wildlands
at the DMS Honey Mill IRT site visit)
• Mobile vegetation plots were added to supplemental planting areas as shown on Figure 10
to monitor vegetation within supplementally planted areas. Species and quantities will be
recorded.
22) General Comment — Please make sure to QAQC spelling, spacing, and formatting in the plan
narrative.
• A QA/QC review was done of the revised report.
23) Figures 2 & 10 — Have red box comments already been incorporated into the figures? In the future,
DWR would appreciate figures at this scale and with this much detail to be saved/printed as 11x17.
• Red box comments shown on Figure 2 and 10 were from a previous internal review and were
removed from the figures.
• Figures 2 and 10 are included as 11x17 exports within the report.
24) Figure 10 —
a) Please change the UT3 preservation line color to match the legend.
• UT3 is a preservation (no credit) reach, as stated in Table 19. The color was updated
accordingly on Figure 10.
b) There appear to be green and red groundwater gauges shown, which is confusing, and they
don't add up to the eight gauges noted in Table 29. Due to this discrepancy, DWR may request
changes to the number/locations of gauges once a revised figure is submitted for review.
Groundwater gauges were all updated to green on Figure 10. There are nine proposed
groundwater gages shown on Figure 10 and indicated in Table 29.
25) Sheet 0.3 —
a) Is the proposed log sill meant to be the angle log drop shown in the details? No log sill detail was
provided.
Detail 1 on Sheet 7.5, labeled "Angled Log Drop" corresponds to the Proposed Log Sill symbol
on Sheet 0.3. The detail has been relabeled as "Log Sill" for consistency.
b) Since there are no callouts or details for channel/ditch plugs or partial backfilling, the
assumption is that all old channels and ditches will be backfilled to meet grade. Correct?
• Ditches/old channel will be filled as part of the project. No partial backfilling or plugging of
channels/ditches will be done at the Site.
26) Sheet 1.2.3 — Please confirm with USACE, but I don't believe a vernal pool and stone outlet BMP can
be excavated out of an existing jurisdictional wetland area.
• All vernal/floodplain pools and associated outlets were removed from jurisdictional wetland
features.
0

27) Sheet 2.7 — Please confirm whether the proposed floodplain pool is the same as the proposed
shallow vernal pool. If not, please provide a legend icon and typical detail for the floodplain pool
(including information on max. depth, outlet, materials/stone, planting/seeding).
• The "Proposed Floodplain Pool" on Sheet 2.7 is the same as the "Proposed Shallow Vernal
Pool." The label on Sheet 2.7 has been changed for consistency.
28) Sheet 3.0.0 —
a) Please add CE lines to all wetland grading sheets.
• The CE lines are now shown on the wetland grading sheets.
b) This sheet shows Wetland Area 1B not abutting the CE line in the northeast corner near the
utility break. This makes sense based on the topography shown on Sheet 1.1.1. Figures 8 & 10
appear to show the wetland credit area extending to the easement line. This is likely just a scale
thing, but I wanted to confirm.
• The wetland crediting polygons have a 3-foot buffer from the existing utility easement. For
Figures 8 and 10 it is a scale issue. They do not extend into the utility easement.
c) I appreciate the inclusion of wetland grading sheets. However, I find it very difficult to assess
proposed changes when the icon pattern covers the existing topography. What's most helpful
for me is a figure showing categorized proposed changes in wetland elevations 0-6", 6-12" and
>12" (often color -coded), so I can quickly assess minor to moderate to more substantial changes
in elevation and soil characteristics.
• The color coding in the increments requested is now included on the wetland grading sheets
3.0-3.2.1.
29) Sheet 4.0.0 —
a) Please double check species identified in the subcanopy stratum, particularly whether swamp
rose and elderberry should be considered shrubs.
• The stratum for swamp rose and elderberry was updated to "shrub". -
b) Willow live stakes are included in the wetland planting zone percent stems total. Please clarify if
you're proposing to count live stakes as part of the density and vigor performance standard
monitoring.
Stems planted in the floodplain will be counted towards the density and vigor performance
standard. Vegetation plots are located so as to avoid including any live stakes placed on the
stream banks.
c) Please consider adding milkweed species to seed mixes (as appropriate) for pollinator habitat.
• Swamp milkweed was added to the Permanent Wetland Seeding mix.
d) Regarding the sheet note, please see DWR comment on "as needed" buffer planting.
• See response to DWR comment 7 above.
e) DWR greatly appreciates the attention given to species diversity and planting zones.
Thank you for your comment. Wildlands tries to develop a species list that is representative
of the target community and includes a large amount of species diversity.
7

f) Please add CE lines to all planting plan sheets.
• The CE lines are now included in the planting plan sheets.
30) Sheet 7.8 (Educational Inquiry) — What is the purpose of the cattle slats?
The cattle slats provide a hardened bed for vehicle and animal crossings while allowing fine
instream sediments to pass through the fords. Animals prefer the slats to large sub
pavement material within the fords.
31) Sheet 7.9 — Why isn't a single culvert feasible or a baseflow/floodplain pipe pairing? DWR would
prefer either of these options over a double culvert set at the same elevation in the stream bed,
which may over -widen the channel and scour the banks.
• A single round or pipe arch culvert is not feasible at the UT4 crossing because the road
elevation above the culvert would be too high for the required maximum crossing side
slopes, road width, and easement break width. However, the crossing has been redesigned
with a large central culvert and smaller, parallel, culverts on either side. The side culverts
have invert elevations set 6" higher than the adjacent thalweg.
32) General Comment — With all the vernal pool outlets and BMPs, please try to embed the stone lined
areas as much as possible to limit layered stone voids that may become wildlife traps.
• Stone within outlets and BMPs will be embedded where possible.
NCWRC Comments, Travis Wilson
1. The ford crossings show the use of cattle slats; are these being used for structural stability to help
retain substrate in the ford? Or, are they intended to deter cattle from crossing the stream?
The cattle slats provide a hardened bed for vehicle and animal crossings while allowing fine
instream sediments to pass through the fords. Animals prefer the slats to large sub
pavement material within the fords.
2. Crossing at the top of UT4 states the crossing will be determined in the final mit plan. The type of
crossing and configuration should be available in the draft mit plan. It's understood structure sizes may
not be known until a more detailed design and hydraulic analysis has been completed.
• A detail of the UT4 crossing was/is shown on Sheet 7.9. The note referred to in the comment
above was a carryover from Draft submittal to NCDMS and was removed from the plan set.
3. The culvert Detail on page 7.9 shows two lines of smaller diameter (24") pipe conveying the normal
flow channel. A single line of larger pipe, sized to carry the normal/low flow should be used in this detail,
if additional high flow pipes are necessary to convey flood flow they can be incorporated within the
cross-section at a higher elevation.
• The UT4 crossing has been redesigned to use a single central pipe that is embedded and can
efficiently convey baseflow as well as two flanking, smaller diameter pipes for additional
capacity. The smaller pipes have inverts set 6" higher than the adjacent thalweg elevations.
M

NCWRC Comments, Olivia Munzer:
1. We recommend planting only crimson clover rather than white clover for temporary and permanent
seeding (outside easement). White clover is a more aggressive, perennial species compared to the
annual crimson clover. White clover forms mats and can outcompete native species.
• White clover is wildlife and pollinator friendly, landowners request it, and it helps suppress
other weeds. At 5lbs/acre, we do not foresee it outcompeting the native species. The
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement ladino clover rate was reduced from 10lbs/acre to
5lbs/acre.
2. Consider adding another 1-2 flowering herbaceous species to your wetland seed mix.
• Swamp milkweed was added to the Permanent Wetland Seed mix.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. Please include a grading map in the figures that shows the different depths that will be graded. You
can use different colors/patterns to show 0-6", 6-12', greater than 12".
• Color coded grading figures are included on the wetland grading sheets 3.0-3.2.1.
2. Figure 10:
a. Please move the stream gauge on UT4A to the upper 1/3 of the restoration reach, closer to the
photo point.
• A stream gage was added on UT4A in the upper third of the reach, just below the photo
point. The riffle cross-section will still have a crest gage to monitor bankfull events.
• The legend doesn't clarify what the redish-pink dots in the wetlands represent. Are the existing
groundwater gauges? Will they remain? If not, please add additional gauges to wetland 1B and
2A, and shift the gauge near 4B so that it captures the wetland.
The red gages shown on Figure 10 were from a previous internal review and were
removed from the figure. Groundwater gauges were all updated to green on Figure 10.
There are nine proposed groundwater gages shown on Figure 10 and indicated in Table
29. Wetlands 1B and 2A both include a groundwater gage. The gage originally placed
near wetland 4B was relocated and the other gages were moved slightly so that it is
included within a wetland boundary. Wetland 1B now has two gages.
• Is the preservation portion of UT3 supposed to be preservation for no credit? If so, please adjust
the map; this figure contradicts what's depicted on Figure 8.
UT3 is a preservation (no credit) reach, as stated in Table 19. The color was updated
accordingly on all other Figures.
Random plots will be requested in the supplemental planting areas throughout monitoring,
particularly along UT4 where invasives are removed.
• As discussed above (7.a), mobile vegetation plots were added to supplemental planting
areas.
• UT2: Section 3.3 lists this reach as perennial and the DWQ ID Form lists it as intermittent, and
the pJD map shows the reach as perennial. Please clarify. If UT2 is intermittent and has a 16-acre
drainage area, please place a flow gauge near the photo point.
0

UT2 is a perennial stream. The stream was revised during the JD permitting process from
an intermittent to a perennial stream, but the old DWQ form was mistakenly included in
the report. The JD was approved on 1011412021. The updated DWQ form for UT2 is
included in the report.
3. Page 34 and Sheet 1.2.3: The shallow vernal pool/retention pond and stone outlet cannot be placed
in a jurisdictional area.
All vernal/floodplain pools and associated outlets were removed from jurisdictional
wetland features.
4. At the IRT site visit, the IRT questioned whether UT4 would remain stable after the extensive
removal of invasives with an Ell approach and requested cross sections on this reach.
• At the IRT visit, Wildlands had anticipated doing wholesale grinding/clearing of understory
invasives along UT4 based on preliminary evaluation of the site at the proposal phase. After
evaluation with our internal adaptive management team, it was determined that the best
approach along most of the reach was to use multiple rounds of heavy hand cutting and
painting along UT4 to address the invasive vegetation while preserving existing native
vegetation. Based on this approach stability should not be compromised along UT4.
• At the downstream extents of UT4 a monitoring cross-section was added to monitor stability
along banks proposed for grading/disturbance.
5. Section 3.3: 1 appreciate the detailed existing conditions. This is helpful with the review.
6. Page 19: In addition to DWR's comments above on this section, please clarify that the overhead
utility crossings and the variable width waterline easement on UT1 are external to the conservation
easement. The design sheets indicate that the crossings are external, but Table 16 and Figures 8 &
10 show these as internal easements. Our preference is to exclude all existing utility easements,
primary roads (i.e., NCDOT, city/county roads), maintained residential driveways, greenways, or
access corridors reserved for future development. Additionally, why does the conservation
easement boundary extend to Patterson Rd, to include a 68' wide utility easement? This should be
removed from the easement. Please give me a call if you need to discuss.
• The variable width waterline easement at the upstream extent of UT1 is external to the
conservation easement. The overhead utility along UT1 is an internal crossing as described in
Table 16 and shown within the plans and figures. It was determined best to include this area
as an internal crossing in case of future relocation of the utility line in this area and in case of
future cattle/livestock use. The overhead electric line appears as though it could be moved to
run along Patterson Road and/or US-74 based on the existing layout. Currently, cattle have
access to the left floodplain of UT1 and in the future the property owner may extend cattle
use to the pastures beyond the right floodplain. Considering both potential project threats,
the utility crossing was included as internal to the recorded conservation easement.
• The 68' wide utility easement is included as an internal crossing at the 1a/1b reach break of
Bridgefork Creek. Utility corridors along Bridgefork Creek were included as internal crossings
because they overlap proposed cattle fords. Leaving these areas external to the conservation
easement would leave long sections of stream within the middle of the mitigation project
subject to cattle wallowing.
• At the project's upstream extent, the proposed conservation easement extends to the
Patterson Road right-of-way via an internal utility crossing because it is in the best interest
10

of the project. If this area was not included as an internal crossing, there would be a 35-to-
40 foot gap at the upstream extent of the project that would be vulnerable to livestock
wallowing and watering. This was seen as a major threat to ecological uplift and overall
mitigation goals at the Site. A portion of the existing pipe is included within the conservation
easement; however, the pipe is within an internal easement break to allow NCDOT to
maintain or repair/replace the pipe as needed without violating the terms of the
conservation easement.
Wildlands understands regulatory preference and concerns regarding potential
encroachment issues at utility crossings. In the future, more detailed maps and discussion
will be provided during the post contract IRT walk and/or prior to mitigation plan review to
allow for more discussion and resolution of potential conservation easement issues.
7. Section 4.1: Was the pedestrian survey that was completed on March 9, 2020 conducted during the
appropriate survey window? Most are conducted during the growing season. Also, keep in mind that
plant surveys are only valid for 1-2 years, depending on the species. Due to the presence of suitable
habitat for Hexastyllis naniflora, but lack of onsite evidence for the species' presence, the probability
for project -mediated loss is insignificant and discountable. I would concur with a "may affect, not
likely to adversely affect" determination for this species, not a "no effect.". I would encourage you
to reach out to USFWS for written concurrence because The Corps will need this to process the 404-
permit.
• The pedestrian survey was conducted at the proper time of the year. The only listed species
for the project were Northern Long Eared Bat and Dwarf flowered Heartleaf. The survey
window for the heartleaf is from March -May, corresponding to its blooming window.
Because of the possibility that the survey would expire before construction, the Site was
reassessed on May 24, 2022. The determination for the Hexastyllis was updated to "may
affect, not likely to adversely affect." We received written concurrence from USFWS on
10113. This correspondence was added to Appendix 6.
8. Table 19: 1 think the descriptions for UT4 Reach 1 and 2 are mixed up. Reach 1 should be Ell.
• The descriptions for UT4 Reaches 1 and 2 in Table 19 have been corrected.
9. Section 6.5, page 29: What is the potential for future development to contribute additional
sediment? It appears that there are several developments close to the project currently.
• The potential for future development to contribute additional sediment is minimal. There is
minor residential development within the watershed, which is primarily conversion of
agricultural landuse. This landuse conversion does not typically include a major sediment
input regime change.
10. Section 6.6.8: Please estimate the amount of bank grading that is proposed on UT4 in order to
justify the 2.5:1 ratio.
• Enhancement measures along UT4 including bank grading, debris removal, and intensive
invasive treatment were added to the design plans (Sheets 1.5.1 and 1.5.2) to support the
proposed 2.5:1 credit ratio. A monitoring cross section was added along where bank grading
will occur, per IRT request.
11. Section 6.8: On future projects, please keep wetland labels consistent with the pJD map. It's
confusing to have to refer to both Figures 2 and 8 in order to understand which wetlands this
section is referencing.
11

• This will be considered in future reports, but existing and proposed wetlands vary in size,
shape, and boundary so using the same labels typically leads to confusion.
12. Section 6.10: What is the potential for hydrologic trespass onto adjacent fields? Stream restoration
work may have an impact on the hydrology of the adjacent land, resulting in increased flooding
and/or re-establishment of wetlands on those parcels. Given that the soils and topography on the
site do not immediately change at the edge of the conservation easement, it seems logical that
wetland reestablishment right next to the property line will impact both sides of the boundary.
There is also no way of ensuring that the adjacent landowners will not construct new ditches
immediately adjacent to your project that would result in drainage of wetlands restored on your
site. With no guarantee that the adjacent parcel will not be transferred to a different landowner in
the future, this potential site constraint should be discussed in the text.
• There is very limited to no potential for hydrologic trespass onto adjacent fields at the Site.
Proposed wetland areas across the site are low-lying compared to adjacent pastures outside
the conservation easement. All wetland restoration and enhancement zones are buffered a
minimum of 3 feet from the conservation easement line. Based on the topography of
proposed wetland restoration areas, as well as adjacent areas outside the conservation
easement, ditching outside the conservation easement would not be effective to drain
proposed wetlands post -construction. No text was added to Section 6.10.
13. Table 28, page 38:
a. Please include the Entrenchment Ratio of no less than 1.4 for B channels.
• Table 28 has been updated to include an entrenchment ratio of greater than or equal to 1.4
for B-type streams.
b. If you would like to use a modified growing season that is not listed in the WETS tables, you will
need to measure the soil temperature using a continuous monitoring device, and document
vegetative indicators such as bud burst and leaf drop. Ideally, this data would be collected prior
to submitting the final mitigation plan so you have accurate dates, similar to collecting pre -data
for hydroperiods. If you decide to use modified growing season, once you establish the dates
(assuming it's a normal year), you will need to stick with those dates throughout the life of the
project for consistency.
• Wildlands altered the text within Table 28 to propose a modified growing season based on
soil temperature and vegetative indicators as defined above. Text from Table 28 is include
below:
o "Free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground surface for a minimum of
11% (29 consecutive days) of the growing season under normal precipitation
conditions. In accordance with the Wilmington 2016 Guidance, soil probe
temperature data and documentation of new vegetative growth and flowering was
used to determine an appropriate growing season. Based on the documentation
provided within Appendix 4, the growing season for the site is proposed as 311 to
11120 (264 days)."
12

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
MARL RECKTENWALD
Virecror
May 2, 2022
Mr. Eric Neuhaus, PE
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
167-B Haywood Road
Asheville, NC 28806
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
Subject: Draft Mitigation Plan Comments for the
Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
Broad River Basin — CU# 03050105
Cleveland County
DMS Project ID No. 100171
Contract # 0301-01
Dear Mr. Neuhaus:
On April 1, 2022 the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) received the draft mitigation plan for the
Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site from Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (WEI).
The report establishes the proposed mitigation activities on the project site. Anticipated mitigation
on the site includes 10,932.036 Stream Mitigation Units and 2.975 Wetland Mitigation Units. The
following are our comments on the draft mitigation plan report and preliminary plan set:
General:
• Recent IRT comments have requested providers ensure that when measuring the centerline
of the channel for crediting purposes that only one channel is measured at the confluence.
Currently the tributaries are calculated to the centerline of the receiving stream. Please
revise report, tables and plans as necessary.
• Many details are not included in the Draft Mitigation Plan. Ford detail, culvert detail, BMP
detail, wetland grading plans, etc. Please include these items in future draft mitigation plans
and definitely include in the revised Mitigation Plan for IRT review.
• There are several proposed culverted crossings. Based on recent material costs/availability,
does WEI anticipate the possibility of using bridges as alternatives? If so, please include a
short discussion and general detail in the Mitigation Plan.
Title Page and Second Page:
• Please include the DWR project number: DWR#2020-1841
• Please also provide the date of issuance with the RFP#: RFP#: 16-20190301 (Issued:
1212012019)
Qj
l�i�.�r!me�i ul Enrirrmmnnrl Gu_eii�
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
91WOT.8976

3.1 Watershed Conditions
• The last sentence in this section mentions timber practices between UT4 and UT4a.
Recommend adding further discussion that the timber practices were discussed at the Post
Contract IRT Site Visit and documented in point #4 of the meeting minutes.
3.5 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift
• Does WEI plan to remove pond sediments after dewatering and bringing in new material prior
to constructing the new channel? Please add further discussion in this section regarding the
pond removal and channel construction.
4.3 401/404
• Section indicates wetlands within the conservation easement or along travel routes will be
flagged and/or marked with safety fence to prevent unintended impacts. Draft plans do not
show these areas delineated with safety fence or other means. Please verify that revised
plans for IRT review will include this measure.
6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
• Please revise the statement "A review of historic aerials from 1938 to 2016 showed that
watershed sizes and land uses have not changed considerably..." to exclude watershed sizes
since the watershed size are not usually subject to change.
• Given the location of the project in the watershed and the similar land use history upstream
of the project, the contributing area above the project is a likely source of sediment. Please
describe how the restored streams will process the sand/gravel (bedload) and/or finer
fraction of sediment inputs from eroding banks upstream of the project. The statement
'After construction, bedload supply will not be high enough to cause the project streams to
be capacity limited' does not acknowledge the upstream source.
• Rather than 'the near future', please provide a more specific time frame for development (or
absence of development) in the watershed, e.g., 10yrs, 25yrs.
6.6.2 Bridgefork Creek Reach 1b and 6.6.4 Bridgefork Creek Reach 3
• Drain tiles within the conservation easement will be removed. If drain tiles extend beyond
the conservation easement, an ephemeral pool will be placed within the conservation
easement. Can WEI quantify the number of drain tiles and expected ephemeral pools that
will be within the conservation easement? Will these ephemeral pools require maintenance?
One drain tile is located on Figure 2; if others are known, please include on figure and plans.
6.6.3 Bridgefork Creek Reach 2
• The text for Bridgefork Creek Reach 2 is somewhat unclear, the Simon evolutionary phase is
indicated as V, aggradation and widening and the BHR is 2.5 but the summary of work
proposed in section 6.6.3 indicates stable sinuosity and a bankfull bench forming at current
bed elevation and references overall channel stability. Please review and revise as necessary.
6.6.5 UT1
• Section describes the pond removal on UT1 and indicates the dam may be left in place and
the pond dewatered; please verify that the approach of leaving the dam partially in place
Q
� North Carolina Department of Environmental QuaIity I Division of Mitigation Services
,--�eD E217 West Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
UeyronnN of Enuircnmenul Ouellry 919,707,8976

was proposed at the post contract site visit and approved by DMS and the IRT. Section 6.6.4
indicates the pond will be removed but states the dam will only be breeched.
• Two "Proposed Shallow Vernal Pools" are shown on the plan (sheet 1.2.2 and 1.2.3) but not
discussed. Please include a short discussion of these features. What is the expected depth,
will they dry seasonally, maintenance, type of outlet: rip -rap, etc.
• Recommend referring the BMP in this discussion as BMP 3 as shown on sheet 1.2.5.
• Does WEI plan to bring in new material to construct the channel through pond bottom?
Please add discussion.
6.6.7 UT3
• Recommend noting that the last 70' of UT3 will consist of restoration level work consisting of
a series of constructed riffles and boulder structures; however, the reach will receive a
standard Ell ratio.
6.6.8 UT4
• Description indicates that Ell work will consist of invasive species management and debris
removal. Section 11.0 Determination of Credits states that the 2.5:1 Ell ratio will include
cattle exclusion and minor bank grading as well. Recommend revising section 6.6.8 and
discuss bank grading activities. Also, please add locations of bank grading and debris removal
(if isolated areas) to sheets 1.5.1 and 1.5.2.
6.6.9 UT4a
• Two vernal pools are shown on this reach (sheet 1.6.4 and 1.6.5). Same comment as above.
• Recommend referring to BMP as BMP 1 as shown on sheet 1.6.2.
UT5
• There is an existing conditions discussion of UT5 in section 3.3 of the draft, but there is no
discussion of the work proposed for UT5 in section 6.6. Please add a section describing the
work for this reach. The IRT requested this reach be discussed in the Post Contract Meeting
Minutes item number 22.
• There are discrepancies in how UT5 is presented in the Mitigation Plan. It is not labeled on
the monitoring map although has a monitoring station and appears to be entirely
preservation. The Project Credit Table indicates it has two reaches, one being restoration
and one being preservation. Table 19 also does not indicate any restoration. The valley for
project reach appears to be unconfined based on topo lines but is described as
confined/unconfined in the Project Attribute Table. Please QA/QC Mitigation Plan to ensure
maps, figures, tables and discussions accurately depict existing and proposed work on UT5.
6.6.11 UT6A
• Recommend referring to BMP as BMP 2 as shown on sheet 1.9.1.
6.8 Wetland Design
• Section mentions wetland grading plan. However, no grading plan was included. Please
update section with additional information regarding depth of grading and material removed.
Please include grading plan with revised draft for IRT review.
Q
� North Carolina Department of Environmental QuaIity I Division of Mitigation Services
,--�eD E217 West Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
UeyronnN of Enuircnmenul Ouellry 919,707,8976

6.8.4 Existing Hydrology
• Please identify the county's growing season. Gage data shows the growing season defined as
3/26 —11/6.
• Section indicates all gages failed to meet the wetland criteria of 25 days as defined by DMS.
DMS does not establish performance standards; it is assumed the 11% standard was
approved by the IRT based on the 2016 USACE guidance which lists acceptable standards for
Chewacla soils beginning at 10% and Wehadkee soils at 12%. Please revise or explain.
6.10 Project Risk Management:
• Please also describe the site specific conservation easement marking and type of fencing that
will be utilized to restrict livestock from encroachment.
• Will the fords be subject to livestock use? Will there be end gates?
• Consider adding discussion regarding hydrologic trespass potential to any area outside of the
conservation easement. Specifically, where drain tiles are cut back to the conservation
easement.
7.0 Performance Standards
• Please consider utilizing the most recent DMS templates, guidance and tools for the as -built
survey, record drawings, and MYO-MY7 reports. These are available on the DMS website.
Table 29 Monitoring Components:
• Nine ground water gages were used for pre -construction wetland hydrology data, but only
three gages are being proposed for monitoring. DMS recommends adding ground water
gages to wetland 113 and 2A. Please consider well placement so pre -construction data can be
compared to current year wetland gage data.
Figure 2
• There are two GWG 8 shown and no GWG6.
Figure 8, 9, 10
• UT5 appears to be shown as preservation only on these figures. Restoration reach may be
too short to display correctly. Please verify.
• Figure 8 and 10 indicates a reach break on UT1; however, no break is indicated on the Project
Credit Table or elsewhere in the report. Please update as necessary.
Figure 10
• Label UT5
Fencing: Fencing plan appears to show fence offset from conservation easement. This is the
preferred method of installation of fences. Please ensure all fencing is installed on the conservation
easement line or outside.
Fescue: The plan indicates fescue will be treated prior to or during construction. Thank you for
including this in the plan. Please consider ring spraying during monitoring if fescue persists to reduce
planted tree competition and ensure vegetative success.
Q
� North Carolina Department of Environmental QuaIity I Division of Mitigation Services
,--�eD E217 West Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
UeyronnN of Enuircnmenul Ouellry 919,707,8976

Digital Spatial Data Review Comments:
The conservation easement submitted with Mitigation Plan digital files differs from CE
boundary submitted for Task II review and displayed in the report figures, specifically the
easement boundary along Bridgefork Creek Reach 3 as well as internal crossings are missing
from mitigation plan submission.
o The 68 ft. wide Duke Energy and 20 ft wide AT&T ROWs are shown as internal
crossings. These should be indicated as ROWS
o The 30-foot Duke ROW on upper UT 1 is missing from the digital drawings
• Please ensure the most up to date and accurate easement is applied to the finalized
Mitigation Plan and design sheets.
• Please verify there is no need to separate Wetland 3A into separate polygons.
• Please note that UT 5 Reach 2 is designated in the Mitigation Plan as restoration but in the
digital data as preservation; this break will need to be included in a revised submission.
• Reach 1 and 2 designations will need to be added to UT 4 to separate reaches by including a
break due to Ell and R treatment.
Digital Data: Excel Templates
• Please refer to template for Project Attribute Table and use current template. At a
minimum, the required information as specified in the template should be included in the
table.
• The Morphological Tables Essential Parameters varies in nomenclature, format, and
minimally in content from the template.
At your earliest convenience, please provide a written response letter addressing the DMS comments
provided and a revised/updated electronic copy of the Draft Mitigation Plan. The comment response
letter should be included in the revised Draft Mitigation Plan after the report cover. If you have any
questions, please contact me at any time at [phone] or email me at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Matthew Reid
Project Manager —Western Region
NCDEQ— Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone] Mobile
Q
� North Carolina Department of Environmental QuaIity I Division of Mitigation Services
,--�eD E217 West Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
UeyronnN of Enuircnmenul Ouellry 919,707,8976

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEMORANDUM
TO: Matthew Reid, Project Manager
FROM: Eric Neuhaus, PE
DATE: July 12, 2022
RE: Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
Cleveland County, NC
Broad River Basin 03050105
Response to NCDMS DRAFT Mitigation Plan Review Comments
This memo documents NCDMS's review comments of the Draft Mitigation Plan for the Bridgefork Dairy
Mitigation Site (in italics) received from Matthew Reid on 5/2/2022, the project team's responses, and
any associated revisions required within the report.
General'
Recent IRT comments have requested providers ensure that when measuring the centerline of
the channel for crediting purposes that only one channel is measured at the confluence.
Currently the tributaries are calculated to the centerline of the receiving stream. Please revise
report, tables and plans as necessary.
o Tributary crediting was trimmed to the bankfull alignments of Bridgefork Creek or larger
drainage tributary at all confluences. Crediting was updated in Table 31 in the mitigation
plan and in the submitted digital files. End of crediting was added to the plan sheets at
confluences.
Many details are not included in the Draft Mitigation Plan. Ford detail, culvert detail, BMP
detail, wetland grading plans, etc. Please include these items in future draft mitigation plans
and definitely include in the revised Mitigation Plan for IRT review.
o These items have been added to the mitigation plan for IRT review.
There are several proposed culverted crossings. Based on recent material costs/availability, does
WEI anticipate the possibility of using bridges as alternatives? If so, please include a short
discussion and general detail in the Mitigation Plan.
o Wildlands does not intend on using bridge alternatives for any of the proposed
crossings.
Title and Second Page:
Please include the DWR project number: DWR# 2020-1841
o The DWR project number had been added to page 2.
Please also provide the date of issuance with the RFP#: RFP#: 16-20190301 (Issued: 1212012019)
o The issued RFP date was added to the title page.

3.1 Watershed Conditions
The last sentence in this section mentions timber practices between UT4 and UT4a. Recommend
adding further discussion that the timber practices were discussed at the Post Contract IRT Site
Visit and documented in point #4 of the meeting minutes.
o Text was added to Section 3.1 referencing the post contract meeting minutes and
timbering discussions.
3.5 Site Constraints to Functional Uolift
• Does WEI plan to remove pond sediments after dewatering and bringing in new material prior to
constructing the new channel? Please add further discussion in this section regarding the pond
removal and channel construction
o The following information was added to Section 3.5 of the mitigation plan: 'Removal and
replacement of pond sediments will be determined based on site conditions during
construction. If pond sediments are determined unsuitable for channel construction,
material will be supplemented with dirt from other portions of the project. The
alignment of UT1 was designed along the left edge of the existing pond bed in an
attempt to avoid the deepest pond sediments while allowing for adequate floodplain
width for the channel.'
4.3 401/404
Section indicates wetlands within the conservation easement or along travel routes will be
flagged and/or marked with safety fence to prevent unintended impacts. Draft plans do not
show these areas delineated with safety fence or other means. Please verify that revised plans
for IRT review will include this measure.
o The section indicates wetlands within the conservation easement but outside the limits
of disturbance will be fenced for protection from unintended impacts. Final limits of
disturbance (LOD) are determined during Erosion and Sediment control (ESC)
permitting. Once the LOD is finalized and shown within project plans, safety fence will
be added to any jurisdictional wetland areas which abut the limits of disturbance and
aren't permitted for impact.
6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
• Please revise the statement "A review of historic aerials from 1938 to 2016 showed that
watershed sizes and land uses have not changed considerably..." to exclude watershed sizes since
the watershed size are not usually subject to change.
o The referenced statement has been revised to exclude mention of watershed sizes.
Given the location of the project in the watershed and the similar land use history upstream of
the project, the contributing area above the project is a likely source of sediment. Please
describe how the restored streams will process the sand/gravel (bedload) and/or finer fraction of
sediment inputs from eroding banks upstream of the project. The statement 'After construction,
bedload supply will not be high enough to cause the project streams to be capacity limited' does
not acknowledge the upstream source.
o Text has been added and revised to describe how restored streams will process
sediment from eroding banks upstream of the project.
2

• Rather than 'the near future , please provide a more specific time frame for development (or
absence of development) in the watershed, e.g., 10yrs, 25yrs.
o The referenced statement has been revised to specify a time frame of 25 years.
6.6.2 Bridgefork Creek Reach 1b and 6.6.4 Bridgefork Creek Reach 3
Drain tiles within the conservation easement will be removed. If drain tiles extend beyond the
conservation easement, an ephemeral pool will be placed within the conservation easement. Can
WEI quantify the number of drain tiles and expected ephemeral pools that will be within the
conservation easement? Will these ephemeral pools require maintenance? One drain tile is
located on Figure 2, if others are known, please include on figure and plans.
o Drain tiles were only identified at the site in the one location shown on Figure 2 (right
floodplain of Bridgefork Creek Reach 1b, within Wetland Area 413). After further
evaluation of this area, it is not anticipated that drain tiles will be encountered outside
of the conservation easement. Language within the mitigation plan discussing the
ephemeral pool and drain tiles outside the conservation easement was removed from
Section 6.6.2.
6.6.3 Bridgefork Creek Reach 2
The text for Bridgefork Creek Reach 2 is somewhat unclear, the Simon evolutionary phase is
indicated as V, aggradation and widening and the BHR is 2.5 but the summary of work proposed
in section 6.6.3 indicates stable sinuosity and a bankfull bench forming at current bed elevation
and references overall channel stability. Please review and revise as necessary.
o Bridgefork Creek Reach 2 has isolated areas of instability but is generally stable and does
not warrant restoration. The text has been revised to include a Simon evolutionary
phase of VI, quasi equilibrium.
6.6.5 HT1
Section describes the pond removal on UT1 and indicates the dam may be left in place and the
pond dewatered; please verify that the approach of leaving the dam partially in place was
proposed at the post contract site visit and approved by DMS and IRT. Section 6.6.4 indicates the
pond will be removed but states the dame will only be breeched.
o The dam will be graded out as part of construction. Sheets 1.2.4 and 1.2.5 show the
removal/grading out of the dam. Language within Section 6.6.4 and 6.6.5 outline the
dewatering activities which will occur either prior to and/or during construction. These
efforts are intended to dewater the pond prior to removal of the dam to dry pond
sediments as much as possible prior to channel construction.
• Two "Proposed Shallow Vernal Pools" are shown on the plan (sheet 1.2.2 and 1.2.3) but not
discussed. Please include a short discussion of these features. What is the expected depth, will they
dry seasonally, maintenance, type of outlet: rip -rap, etc.
o Proposed shallow vernal pools are included to provide habitat diversity and to help
reduce the quantity of soil needed to be trucked throughout the project site. The
proposed shallow vernal pools range from 0 to 1.5 feet deep and are expected to dry
seasonally. They will have shallow outlet swales up to 0.5 feet deep that will be lined
with native stone. These features will not require maintenance.
3

Recommend referring the BMP in this discussion as BMP 3 as shown on sheet 1.2.5.
o Text has been revised to refer to the BMP in this discussion as BMP 3. BMP 3 has been
labeled in the figures.
• Does WEI plan to bring in new material to construct the channel through pond bottom? Please
add discussion.
o See response to comment above addressing Section 3.5 Site Constraints to Functional
Uplift discussing pond sediments.
6.6.7 UT3
• Recommend noting that the last 70' of UT3 will consist of restoration level work consisting of a
series of constructed riffles and boulder structures; however, the reach will receive a standard Ell
ratio.
o Language within Section 6.6.7 was revised to note the additional work proposed along
UT3.
6.6.8 UT4
Description indicates that Ell work will consist of invasive species management and debris
removal. Section 11.0 Determination of Credits states that the 2.5:1 Ell ratio will include cattle
exclusion and minor bank grading as well. Recommend revising section 6.6.8 and discuss bank
grading activities. Also, please add locations of bank grading and debris removal (if isolated
areas) to sheets 1.5.1 and 1.5.2.
o Language within Section 6.6.8 was updated to include minor bank grading as part of the
approach along UT4 Reach 1. Text within Section 11.0 was referring to general
enhancement II activities sitewide. Language was updated within Section 11.0 to clarify.
Approximate bank grading and debris removal locations will be included with the final
mitigation plan but will likely be field designed once intensive invasive removal is
completed along the reach and active instabilities are identified.
6.6.9 11T4a
Two vernal pools are shown on this reach (sheet 1.6.4 and 1.6.5). Some comment as above.
o See above response to comment regarding Section 6.6.5.
• Recommend referring to BMP as BMP 1 as shown on sheet 1.6.2.
o Text has been revised to refer to the BMP in this discussion as BMP 1. BMP 1 has been
labeled in the figures.
6.6.9 UT5
• There is an existing conditions discussion of UT5 in section 3.3 of the draft, but there is no
discussion of the work proposed for UT5 in section 6.6. Please add a section describing the work
for this reach. The IRT requested this reach be discussed in the Post Contract Meeting Minutes
item number 22.
o Section 6.6.10 outlining stream design implementation along UT5 Reaches 1 and 2 was
added to the mitigation plan.
• There are discrepancies in how UT5 is presented in the Mitigation Plan. It is not labeled on the
monitoring map although has a monitoring station and appears to be entirely preservation. The
Project Credit Table indicates it has two reaches, one being restoration and one being
4

preservation. Table 19 also does not indicate any restoration. The valley for project reach
appears to be unconfined based on topo lines but is described as confined/unconfined in the
Project Attribute Table. Please QA/QC Mitigation Plan to ensure maps, figures, tables and
discussions accurately depict existing and proposed work on UT5.
o UT5 Reaches 1 and 2 are now labeled in Figure 10 and included in Table 19. Valley
confinement was updated to Unconfined in Table 12 for UT5.
6.6.11 LJTGA
Recommend referring to BMP as BMP 2 as shown on sheet 1.9.1.
o Text has been revised to refer to the BMP in this discussion as BMP 2. BMP 2 has been
labeled in the figures.
6.8 Wetland Design
Section mentions wetland grading plan. However, no grading plan was included. Please update
section with additional information regarding depth of grading and material removed. Please
include grading plan with revised draft for IRT review.
o A wetland grading plan has been added to the draft plan set (Sheets 3.1.0 to 3.2.1).
Section 6.8.5 has been added to the report text outlining proposed wetland grading
approaches for wetland areas.
6.8.4 Existing Hydrology
Please identify the county's growing season. Gage data shows the growing season defined as
3/26 —11/6.
o The county's growing season was added to text within Section 6.8.4 and updated within
Gage Plots provided in Appendix 5.
Section indicates all gages failed to meet the wetland criteria of 25 days as defined by DMS. DMS
does not establish performance standards; it is assumed the 11% standard was approved by the
IRT based on the 2016 USACE guidance which lists acceptable standards for Chewacla soils
beginning at 10% and Wehadkee soils at 12%. Please revise or explain.
o Sections 6.8.4 was revised to remove language about performance standards. All
proposed performance standards text was moved to Section 7.0, including wetland
hydrologic performance standards.
6.10 Proiect Risk Management
• Please also describe the site specific conservation easement marking and type of fencing that will
be utilized to restrict livestock from encroachment.
o Text was added to Section 6.10 referencing adherence to DMS conservation easement
marking guidance.
o Specific fencing types are included in the fencing plan in Appendix 13 (Sheets 6.0.0 to
6.5.2); however, it should be noted that these are preliminary and dependent on
property owner needs.
Will the fords be subject to livestock use? Will there be end gates?
o Ford's will be fenced and gated where livestock are present. Table 16 indicates where
gated ford crossings are proposed at the site.
5

• Consider adding discussion regarding hydrologic trespass potential to any area outside of the
conservation easement. Specifically, where drain tiles are cut back to the conservation
easement.
o The area of drain tiles is isolated and anticipated to be within the conservation
easement. Areas adjacent to existing drain tiles to be removed increase in elevation
quickly and hydrologic trespass is not a concern. See Wildlands response to NCDMS
comment regarding Section 6.6.2 and 6.6.4 and drain tiles above.
7.0 Performance Standards
Please consider utilizing the most recent DMS templates, guidance and tools for the as -built
survey, record drawings, and MYO-MY7 reports. These are available on the DMS website.
o The most recent DMS templates, guidance, and tools will be used for the as -built survey,
record drawings, and MYO-MY7 reports.
Table 29 Monitoring Components:
Nine ground water gages were used for pre -construction wetland hydrology data, but only three
gages are being proposed for monitoring. DMS recommends adding ground water gages to
wetland 18 and 2A. Please consider well placement so pre -construction data can be compared
to current year wetland gage data.
o Number and location of proposed monitoring groundwater gages was revised. Table 28
and Figure 10 were revised accordingly.
Figure 2
• There are two GWG 8 shown and no GWG6.
o Figure 2 was revised to correct the error.
Figures 8,9, 10
• UT5 appears to be shown as preservation only on these figures. Restoration reach maybe too
short to display correctly. Please verify.
o Figures 8, 9, and 10 have been updated to show both reaches and approaches for UT5.
Figure 8 and 10 indicates a reach break on UT1; however, no break is indicated on the Project
Credit Table or elsewhere in the report. Please update as necessary.
o UT1 is broken into two reaches throughout the report and figures, including Table 31,
Figure 8, and Figure 10.
Figure 10
• Label UT5
o Figure 10 has been updated to include a UT5 label.
Fencing: Fencing plan appears to show fence offset from conservation easement. This is the preferred
method of installation offences. Please ensure all fencing is installed on the conservation easement line
or outside.
o Yes, typically fence is offset one foot from the conservation easement.
Fescue: The plan indicates fescue will be treated prior to or during construction. Thank you for including
this in the plan. Please consider ring spraying during monitoring if fescue persists to reduce planted tree
competition and ensure vegetative success.
o Wildlands will monitor bare roots and need for ring sprays in heavily grassed areas.
0

Digital Spatial Data Review Comments:
• The conservation easement submitted with Mitigation Plan digital files differs from CE boundary
submitted for Task 11 review and displayed in the report figures, specifically the easement
boundary along eridgefork Creek Reach 3 as well as internal crossings are missing from
mitigation plan submission.
o The conservation easement file was updated to the approved Task 2 boundary.
• The 68 ft. wide Duke Energy and 20 ft wide AT&T ROWs are shown as internal crossings. These
should be indicated as ROWS
o The Duke Energy and AT&T ROWs were updated to be shown as ROWS in the digital
files. They are also included in the internal crossing areas, as they were approved to be
within the internal crossing as part of State Property Office review.
• The 30 foot Duke ROW on upper UT 1 is missing from the digital drawings
o The Duke Energy ROW on UT1 Reach 1 was added to the digital drawings.
• Please ensure the most up to date and accurate easement is applied to the finalized Mitigation
Plan and design sheets.
o The state property office approved conservation easement has been used in the
finalized Mitigation Plan and design sheets.
• Please verify there is no need to separate Wetland 3A into separate polygons.
o Wetland 3A has been converted into a single polygon.
• Please note that UT 5 Reach 2 is designated in the Mitigation Plan as restoration but in the
digital data as preservation; this break will need to be included in a revised submission.
o The digital data has been updated to designate UT5 Reach 2 as restoration.
• Reach 1 and 2 designations will need to be added to UT 4 to separate reaches by including a
break due to Ell and R treatment.
o UT4 Reach 1 and Reach 2 designations, corresponding approaches, and a reach break
have been added.
Digital Data: Excel Templates
Please refer to template for Project Attribute Table and use current template. At a minimum, the
required information as specified in the template should be included in the table.
o The Project Attribute Table provided follows the template linked on the NCDEQ website
dated 10/1/2020. Pre -project lengths and areas are not provided as previously this has
caused confusion during data review.
The Morphological Tables Essential Parameters varies in nomenclature, format, and minimally in
content from the template.
o While the nomenclature and format vary, data provided is beyond the required data
within the NCDMS format.
7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
Introduction............................................................................................................................1
2.0
Basin Characterization and Site Selection.................................................................................1
3.0
Baseline and Existing Conditions..............................................................................................2
3.1 Watershed Conditions..................................................................................................................
2
3.2 Landscape Characteristics............................................................................................................
3
3.3 Project Resources.........................................................................................................................
5
3.3.1 Existing Streams........................................................................................................................5
3.3.2 Existing Wetlands....................................................................................................................16
3.4 Overall Functional Uplift Potential.............................................................................................18
3.5 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift...........................................................................................18
4.0
Regulatory Considerations.....................................................................................................20
4.1 Biological and Cultural Resources...............................................................................................
20
4.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass.............................................................
20
4.3 401/404......................................................................................................................................20
5.0
Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives......................................................................................21
6.0
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan...........................................................................22
6.1 Stream Design Approach Overview............................................................................................
22
6.2 Reference Streams......................................................................................................................
24
6.3 Design Discharge Analysis...........................................................................................................
25
6.4 Design Channel Morphological Parameters...............................................................................25
6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis......................................................................................................
29
6.6 Stream Design Implementation..................................................................................................30
6.6.1 Bridgefork Creek Reach 1a......................................................................................................
31
6.6.2 Bridgefork Creek Reach 1b......................................................................................................31
6.6.3 Bridgefork Creek Reach 2........................................................................................................
31
6.6.4 Bridgefork Creek Reach 3........................................................................................................
31
6.6.5 UT1..........................................................................................................................................
32
6.6.6 UT2..........................................................................................................................................
32
6.6.7 UT3..........................................................................................................................................
32
6.6.8 UT4..........................................................................................................................................
32
6.6.9 UT4A........................................................................................................................................33
6.6.10 UT6..........................................................................................................................................33
6.6.11 UT6A........................................................................................................................................33
6.7 Stormwater Best Management Practices(BMP)........................................................................
33
6.8 Wetland Design..........................................................................................................................
34
6.8.1 Wetland Re-establishment......................................................................................................34
6.8.2 Wetland Rehabilitation...........................................................................................................34
6.8.3 Hydric Soils Investigation........................................................................................................35
6.8.4 Existing Hydrology...................................................................................................................35
6.8.5 Reference Wetland..................................................................................................................36
6.9 Vegetation, Planting Plan, and Land Management....................................................................36
6.10 Project Risk and Uncertainties....................................................................................................
37
7.0
Performance Standards.........................................................................................................38
8.0
Monitoring Plan....................................................................................................................39
9.0
Long -Term Management Plan................................................................................................41
10.0 Adaptive Management Plan...................................................................................................41
11.0 Determination of Credits.......................................................................................................42
12.0 References............................................................................................................................44

Table 1: Project Attribute Table Part 1
Table 2: Project Attribute Table Part 2....................................................................................................
Table3: Project Soil Types.......................................................................................................................
Table 4: Bridgefork Creek Reach 1a and 1b Attribute Table....................................................................
Table 5: Bridgefork Creek Reach 2 Attribute Table.................................................................................
Table 6: Bridgefork Creek Reach 3 Attribute Table.................................................................................
Table7: UT1 Attribute Table....................................................................................................................
Table8: UT2 Attribute Table....................................................................................................................
Table9: UT3 Attribute Table....................................................................................................................
Table 10: UT4 Attribute Table..................................................................................................................
Table 11: UT4A Attribute Table...............................................................................................................
Table 12: UT5 Attribute Table..................................................................................................................
Table 13: UT6 Attribute Table..................................................................................................................
Table 14: UT6A Attribute Table...............................................................................................................
Table 15: Existing Jurisdictional Wetland Project Attribute Table...........................................................
Table 16: Proposed Easement Crossings.................................................................................................
Table 17: Regulatory Considerations Attribute Table..............................................................................
Table 18: Mitigation Goals and Objectives..............................................................................................
Table 19: Stream Stressors and Restoration Approach...........................................................................
Table 20: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters .....................................
Table 21: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis......................................................................
Table 22: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Bridgefork Creek (Reaches 1b, 2, and 3)...
Table 23: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT1 Reach 2, UT4, and UT6.......................
Table 24: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT1 Reach 1 and UT2................................
Table 25: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT3 and UT4A...........................................
Table 26: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT6A..........................................................
Table 27: Results of Competence Analysis..............................................................................................
Table 28: Summary of Performance Standards.......................................................................................
Table 29: Monitoring Components - Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site ....................................................
Table 30: Long-term Management Plan..................................................................................................
Table31: Project Asset Table...................................................................................................................
.1
.2
.4
,. 6
,. 7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
28
29
30
38
40
41
43

FIGURES
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Site Map
Figure 3
USGS Topographic Map
Figure 4
Watershed Map
Figure 5
Soils Map
Figure 6
Reference Reach Vicinity Map
Figure 7
Design Discharge Analysis
Figure 8
Concept Design Map —Topographic
Figure 9
Concept Design Map - LiDAR
Figure 10
Monitoring Components Map
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Historic Aerial Photos
Appendix 2
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
Appendix 3
DWR, NCSAM, and NCWAM Identification Forms
Appendix 4
Supplementary Design Information
Appendix 5
Wetland Design Documents and Data
Appendix 6
Categorical Exclusion Checklist and Summary
Appendix 7
NCIRT Communications
Appendix 8
Invasive Species Treatment Plan
Appendix 9
Site Protection Instrument
Appendix 10
Maintenance Plan
Appendix 11
Financial Assurance
Appendix 12
Credit Release Schedule
Appendix 13
Preliminary Plans

1.0 Introduction
The Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site (Site) is in Cleveland County approximately 2.5 miles northwest of
Kings Mountain and approximately 8.8 miles southeast of Shelby (Figure 1). The project is located within
the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050105100020 and is being submitted for credit in the Broad River
Basin Catalog Unit 03050105. The project proposes to restore, enhance, and preserve approximately
12,745 linear feet of streams. Wetland re-establishment and rehabilitation are proposed to restore a
riparian wetland corridor and best management practices (BMPs) are proposed at points of
concentrated agricultural runoff to reduce water quality stressors. Existing site conditions are shown in
Figure 2. The proposed work will provide 10,826.390 stream credits and 2.900 wetland credits. The Site
will be protected in perpetuity by an approximately 43-acre conservation easement.
Table 1: Project Attribute Table Part 1
Project Information
Project Name
Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
County
Cleveland
Project Area (acres)
42.9
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35°15'32.5"N, 81°23'24.2"W
Planted Acreage (acres of woody stems planted)
22.1
2.0 Basin Characterization and Site Selection
The Site is within the Division of Water Resources (DWR) subbasin 03-08-05 and within catchment
12034601, which is identified as a Target Resource Area (TRA) for hydrology, habitat, and water quality
by the NC Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services (NCDEQ DMS) as shown
in Figure 1. The Site drains to Pott Creek, which is listed as a Class C waters, ultimately draining to
Buffalo Creek.
The Broad River Basin is dominated by forested or shrubland (73%) and agricultural land (22%). Soils
within the Piedmont portion of the basin contain greater percentages of sand and clay, with channel
bedform dominated by sandy and silted runs and pools. As stated in the 2015 North Carolina Wildlife
Action Plan (NCWAP), sedimentation is the main water quality issue within the Piedmont portion of the
basin and the overall lack of riparian vegetation is noted as widespread throughout the basin. Poorly
managed pasture lands that contribute substantially to soil and streambank erosion, land clearing
activities, and runoff from unpaved rural roads and eroding road grades are the major causes of
sedimentation within the basin. The DWR developed the 2008 Broad River Basinwide Quality Plan which
notes common watershed stressors such as naturally erodible soils, erosion from construction/
agricultural/ land disturbing activities, fecal coliform bacteria, and low pH. The 2009 Broad River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP) also notes habitat degradation from excess sedimentation is a widespread
concern within the basin. Other stressors within the basin include large and small impoundments, point
source pollution, stormwater runoff, and agricultural pollutants. The RBRP presents broad river basin
water quality and restoration goals, including:
• implementing stream and wetland restoration projects that reduce sediment and nutrient
sources;
• restoring and protecting habitat for priority fish, mussel, snails, and crayfish species;
• protecting high quality habitats; and
• improving management of stormwater runoff volume and pollutants.
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 1 November 2022

The Site was selected due to its ability to support local watershed objectives and goals by excluding
livestock, creating stable stream banks, restoring a forest in agriculturally maintained buffer areas, and
implementing agricultural BMPs. These actions will reduce fecal, nutrient, and sediment inputs to
project streams, and ultimately to Potts Creek, Buffalo Creek, and the Broad River, and will reconnect
instream and terrestrial habitats on the Site. Restoration of the Site is directly in line with recommended
management strategies outlined in the RBRP.
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions
3.1 Watershed Conditions
The Site topography, as is indicated on the Waco, NC USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, shows a
moderately sloped and broad valley along Bridgefork Creek. Valleys for project tributaries are shown as
steeper and more confined, which is typical of smaller drainages and headwater tributaries for this
region (Figure 3).
Drainage areas for the project reaches were delineated using 2-foot contour internals derived from the
2016/2017 North Carolina Emergency Management Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data (Figure 4).
Land uses draining to the project reaches are a mix of forest and agricultural pasture/hay fields, with
development in the upper parts of the watersheds. The land use was calculated using the National Land
Cover Database (NLCD) for 2016. The watershed areas and current land uses are summarized in Table 2
below.
Current land use at the Site is a mix of agriculture including active cattle, active horse pasture, and hay
pasture. A portion of the project property was an active dairy farm prior to 1953 and historic
infrastructure can still be seen within existing pastures. Evidence of dairy farm operations, including a
sludge pond with apparently active drainage can be seen as far back as 1961 in historic aerial imagery.
Dairy farm operations appear to have ceased by 1976, per historic aerial imagery, which agrees with
timelines provided by the property owners. A review of historic aerials from 1938 to 2016 (Appendix 1)
shows the streams have existed in their approximate locations over the years. The farm pond along UT1
can be seen as far back as 1961. Most of the property has been in cattle or hay pasture since as far back
as 1938. The Site appears to have been contour plowed and terraced prior to 1938 and terracing is still
present at the Site. Historically terraced fields are still present directly upstream of Bridgefork Creek,
UT4, UT4A, UT6, and UT6A. On the Dellinger and Judd properties, Bridgefork Creek appears to have
been straightened sometime before 1938 and both floodplains of the stream were cleared with only
minor vegetation left along the stream. UT4 and UT4A appear to have also been cleared up to top of
bank prior to the 1938 aerial photograph. The left floodplain of Bridgefork Creek and UT4 revegetated
sometime between 1964 and 1976. Timbering practices between UT4 and UT4A can be observed in the
2016 aerial photograph. Timbering practices along UT4 and UT4A were discussed with the IRT at the
post contract site walk (Appendix 7, Item 4). It was noted that only the high terrace between the two
streams was timbered and that buffers were left intact. Additionally it was noted that there were no
future plans for timbering on the property.
Table 2: Project Attribute Table Part 2
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Southern Outer Piedmont
River Basin
Broad River
USGS HUC (8-digit, 14-digit)
03050105, 03050105100020
NCDWR Sub -basin
03-08-05
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 2 November 2022

Project Watershed Summary Information
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Stream Thermal Regime
Warm
Bridgefork Creek
UT1
UT2
UT3
UT4
Drainage Area (acres)
1,498
17
16
12
205
2011 NLCD Land Use Classification
Agricultural
44.5%
25.0%
66.7%
Developed
20.0%
56.7%
10.1%
Forest
32.8%
18.3%
23.2%
Grassland
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
Shrubland
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
Open Water
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
Impervious
3.9%
9.4%
2.2%
Project Watershed Summary Information
UT4A
UT5
UT6
UT6A
Drainage Area (acres)
95
14
316
16
2011 NLCD Land Use Classification
Agricultural
58.1%
0.0%
51.5%
71.9%
Developed
16.6%
42.5%
11.0%
0.0%
Forest
25.3%
57.5%
35.9%
28.1%
Grassland
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
Shrubland
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
Open Water
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Impervious
4.1%
2.1%
1.8%
0.0%
Notes: Land Use Source - National Land Cover Database 2011 (NLCD 2011) provided by USGS
3.2 Landscape Characteristics
The Site is located in the Cat Square terrane of the Piedmont physiographic province (NCGS, 2015). The
Piedmont is characterized by gently rolling, well-rounded hills with long low ridges, with elevations
ranging from 300 to 1500 feet above sea level. The Cat Square terrane is composed of metamorphic
rocks that have been intruded by younger granitic rocks. According to the Geologic Map of North
Carolina (NCGS, 1985), the underlying geology of the Site is mapped as Late Proterozoic -Cambrian (500
to 900 million years in age) mica schist (CZms) and Cherryville Granite (Mc). The Mc unit is massive to
weakly foliated, contains pegmatites, and is lithium -bearing on the east side. The CZms unit includes
garnet, staurolite, kyanite, or sillimanite locally with lenses and layers of quartz schist, micaceous
quartzite, calc-silicate rock, biotite gneiss, amphibolite, and phyllite. Shallow bedrock outcroppings were
observed and mapped in Site streams and floodplains (Figure 2). Reaches with exposed bedrock showed
limited stream downcutting and were vertically stable. These reaches were proposed for enhancement.
The Site is mapped by the Soil Survey of Cleveland County. The primary project area soils are described
below in Table 3. Figure 5 provides a soil map of the Site. While Wehadkee soils were not shown on the
Cleveland County survey, investigations by a Licensed Soils Scientist (LSS) identified Site floodplain soils
as most like Wehadkee; therefore, this soil type and description are included the Table 3. Upland soils
surrounding the Site are primarily sandy loams. The surrounding agricultural land contributes to erosion
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 3 November 2022

of the sandy upland and floodplain soils as described in Section 3.1. The upland erosion is consistent
with the high sand volumes Wildlands observed within the existing Site streams.
Table 3: Project Soil Types
Soil Name
Description
Chewacla loam is typically found on floodplains or at toe of slopes. Typical slopes
Chewacla loam
are between 0 and 2 percent. The soil unit is frequently flooded and is somewhat
poorly drained.
Grover gravelly sandy loam
Grover gravelly sandy loam is found on hillslopes and ridges with slopes between
15 and 30 percent. The soil unit is typically rocky and well drained.
Madison -Bethlehem
Madison -Bethlehem complex is found on hillslopes and ridges with slopes
complex
ranging from 8 to 15 percent. The soil unit is typically stony, moderately eroded,
and well drained.
Hulett gravelly sandy loam
Hulett gravelly sandy loam is found on interfluves with slopes between 2 and 8
percent. The soil unit is considered stony and well drained.
Wehadkee
Wehadkee soils are typically found on floodplains with slopes ranging from 0 to 2
percent. The soil unit is frequently flooded and is poorly or very poorly drained.
Source: Soil Survey of Cleveland County, North Carolina, USDA-NRCS,
https://websoiIsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoiISurvey.aspx
The wetlands on the Site occur within the riparian corridor of Bridgefork Creek and extend outward to
the toe of the hill slope. A LSS determined that the areas proposed for wetland crediting have existing
and/or relic hydric soil indicators (Appendix 5). Areas proposed for wetland re-establishment are not
currently jurisdictional due to a lack of wetland vegetation and hydrology. Wetland hydrology has been
disrupted by a combination of channel incision, ditching, and use of tile drains. Through Priority 1
stream restoration, plugging and filling ditches, creating surface roughness, and removing existing tile
drains, wetland hydrology can be re-established. These activities will work to improve hydrologic
functioning of proposed re-establishment areas. The rehabilitation areas generally have functioning
hydrology but are hydraulically disconnected from the streams. Restoring streams adjacent to the
rehabilitation areas will hydrologically reconnect all Site wetlands to the streams.
Bridgefork Creek's right floodplain is used as cattle or horse pasture and lacks adequate riparian buffer.
Unnamed tributaries UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4, UT4A, UTS, UT6, and UT6A have some established hardwood
forests in their floodplains. In the forested areas of the Site, the vegetation is dominated by species
indicative of prior agricultural disturbance such as tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and sweet gum (Liquidambarstyraciflua). Other
canopy species include a mix of American beech (Fagus grandifolia), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica),
white oak (Quercus alba), red oak (Quercus rubra), water oak (Quercus nigra), river birch (Betula nigra),
and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). The understory, scrub/shrub, and groundcover within forested
areas is typically dominated by invasive species such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), multiflora
rose (Rosa multiflora), periwinkle (Vinca minor), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), but also
includes American holly (Ilex opaca), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), wild ginger (Hexastylis shuttleworthii), and river cane (Arundinaria gigantea). Vegetation
in areas managed for livestock is dominated by common pasture grasses such as tall fescue (Festuca
arundinacea) with soft rushes (Juncus effuses) in wet, low-lying areas. The natural vegetation
community on the Site strongly indicates disturbance but shows indications as classifying as Piedmont
Alluvial Forest and Piedmont Basic Mesic Forest as described by Schafale (2012). Other natural
community types that surround the project area include the Basic Mesic Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory,
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DIMS ID No. 100171 Page 4 November 2022

and Dry Oak -Hickory Forest plant communities. The plant species selected for the Site target these
natural communities and are well suited for the restored ecosystem.
3.3 Project Resources
3.3.1 Existing Streams
Wildlands investigated onsite jurisdictional waters of the United States (US) within the proposed project
area. Bridgefork Creek, UT2, UT3, UT4, UT5 and UT6 were identified as perennial within the project
limits. Headwater tributaries UT4A and UT6A begin as ephemeral channels within the project limits,
score as an intermittent for a portion of project length, and eventually become perennial streams as
drainage area increases. UT1 upstream extents begins as an intermittent stream and becomes perennial
mid -reach. Jurisdictional stream features are shown on Figure 2 and supporting documentation,
including the approved jurisdictional determination, is provided in Appendices 2 and 3.
Geomorphic surveys were conducted on Site streams to characterize their existing condition. Existing
streams and cross section locations are illustrated in Figure 2. NCDWR stream assessment forms are in
Appendix 3 and reach specific cross sections and geomorphic summaries are provided in Appendix 4.
Bridgefork Creek Reach 1a and 1b
Bridgefork Creek Reach 1a flows onto the Site from a culvert under Patterson Road. The reach flows
through a moderately confined valley with some mature vegetation. This reach of Bridgefork Creek is
characterized by low banks, low sinuosity, and bedrock influence which has prevented downcutting. A
riffle cross section evaluated for the reach had a high width to depth ratio with stable bed and banks
Livestock access and invasive vegetation are the major stressors for this portion of the project. As the
stream flows under an overhead utility, the bedform deteriorates and signs of active erosion are
evident.
Bridgefork Creek Reach 1b begins at the overhead utility easement. The channel becomes incised as the
floodplain widens and the slope increases. The banks and floodplain lack native vegetation and signs of
mass wasting and active erosion are evident. Cattle impacts become more prevalent as cattle runs and
wallows appear throughout the reach. The pattern is characterized by tortuous meanders, which are
actively migrating downstream indicating lateral instability. Bedform along the reach is dominated by
long sandy runs, with little to no covered pool habitat. A trampled relic riparian wetland in the right
floodplain (Wetland C) exhibits historic ditching to drain toe of slope hydrology from upland pastures.
The left and right floodplain at the upstream extent is predominantly fescue grasses (festuca spp.). As
the stream flows southwest, it enters a section of mature hardwood species, many of which are falling
or are undermined due to active bank erosion. UT1, UT2, and UT3 enter from the left floodplain as the
valley narrows and the stream flows west. The stream is wide in areas that lack woody bank vegetation.
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 5 November 2022

An existing riffle cross section evaluated for the reach had a bank height ratio (BHR) of 3.3 and an
entrenchment ratio of 1.8, indicating the stream is incised and disconnected from its current floodplain.
Table 4: Bridgefork Creek Reach 1a and 1b Attribute Table
Reach Summary Information
Bridgefork
Bridgefork
Parameters
Creek Reach
Creek Reach
1a
1b
Length of Reach (linear
feet)
272
3,093
Valley confinement
(confined, moderately
Moderately
Unconfined
confined
confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (acres)
544
781
Perennial, Intermittent,
Ephemeral
perennial
Perennial
NCSAM Score/Stream
Medium
Low
Function
NCDWR Water Quality
Classification
C
C
Width to Depth Ratio
(ft/ft)
17.2
19.4
Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft)
2.4
3.3
Gradient (ft/ft)
0.0020
0.0060
Reachwide d50 (mm)
--
8.7
Stream Classification
B4/1c 4 B4c
134c 4 C4
(existing 4 proposed)
IV —
Evolutionary Trend
VI — Quasi
Degradation
equilibrium
and
widening
FEMA Zone
N/A
N/A
Classification
k Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 6 November 2022

Bridgefork Creek Reach 2
Bridgefork Creek Reach 2 begins approximately 400 feet downstream of the confluence of LIT3 and
continues past the confluence with LIT4 and LIT4A to an existing bedrock slide. The pattern and stream
dimensions are more stable along Bridgefork Reach 2 than along Reaches 1b and 3. Reach 2 is
characterized by smaller meander radii, bedrock influence, and lower bank heights than Reach 1b.
Historic impacts from cattle access, invasive vegetation, and narrow riparian buffers are major water
quality stressors identified along Bridgefork Creek Reach 2. Bedform is influenced by sand, but bedrock
slides, riffles, short sandy runs, step pools, and meander pool habitat are present in some locations.
Bankfull benches are beginning to form in isolated sections of riffle dimension. A section of this reach
runs through a managed overhead utility line.
Table 5: Bridgefork Creek Reach 2 Attribute Table
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Bridgefork Creek
Reach 2
Length of Reach (Linear Feet)
1,511
Valley confinement
(Confined, moderately
Unconfined
confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (acres)
1,037
Perennial, Intermittent,
Perennial
Ephemeral
NCSAM Score/Stream
High
Function
NCDWR Water Quality
C
Classification
Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft)
16.4
Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft)
2.5
Gradient (ft/ft)
0.0070
Reachwide d50 (mm)
--
Stream Classification
B4/1c -> C4
(existing -> proposed)
Evolutionary Trend
VI — Quasi
equilibrium
FEMA Zone Classification
N/A
k. Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 7 November 2022

Bridgefork Creek Reach 3
Downstream of an existing bedrock feature within Bridgefork Creek Reach 2, Bridgefork Creek Reach 3 is
characterized by tortuous meanders and lateral instability. Bedrock grade control is largely absent and,
as a result, the stream has downcut and has become disconnected from the adjacent floodplain (BHR
1.8). While there is a narrow wooded riparian corridor, the understory is dominated by invasive
vegetation and the overstory is at risk based on actively eroding banks and channel migration. The
bedform is heavily influenced by active bank erosion upstream with long sandy runs and pools filled with
fine sediment.
Table 6: Bridgefork Creek Reach 3 Attribute Table
Reach Summary Information
Bridgefork Creek
Parameters
Reach 3
Length of Reach (Linear Feet)
2,709
Valley confinement
(Confined, moderately
Unconfined
confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (acres)
1,498
Perennial, Intermittent,
Perennial
Ephemeral
NCSAM Score/Stream
Function
Low
NCDWR Water Quality
Classification
C
Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft)
14.0
Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft)
1.8
Gradient (ft/ft)
0.0060
Reachwide d50 (mm)
4.3
Stream Classification
Incised C4 -> C4
(existing -> proposed)
Evolutionary Trend
IV — Degradation
and widening
FEMA Zone Classification
N/A
k. Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 8 November 2022

UT1
UT1 originates from a low sloped wetland seep (Wetland A) and extends to its confluence with
Bridgefork Creek. Bank heights are low near the wetland and increase as the stream drops over a series
of headcuts. UT1 becomes progressively incised downstream and has been manipulated and impacted
by infrastructure and farming. The stream has been rerouted to parallel US-74 and the Kings Mountain
Water Easement. Two stormwater outlets discharge into UT1 just upstream of an online farm pond.
Based on aerial photography, a large gully formed in the left floodplain as a result of the stormwater
outfalls between 2015 and 2017. A portion of the stream flows through the farm pond and the gully has
cut around the pond and joins UT1 downstream of the dam. Downstream of the pond, UT1 is incised,
actively eroding, and disconnected from its current floodplain. A series of debris jams have caused the
stream to go subsurface along this section of the project reach. Bedform along UT1 is dominated by long
sandy runs and fine sediment deposits. Pools are present in areas where headcuts and debris jams cause
scour.
Table 7: UT1 Attribute Table
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
UT1
Length of Reach (Linear Feet)
1,331
Valley confinement
(Confined, moderately
confined, unconfined)
Confined
Drainage area (acres)
17
Perennial, Intermittent,
Ephemeral
Intermittent/
Perennial
NCSAM Score/Stream
Function
Low/Medium
NCDWR Water Quality
Classification
C
Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft)
3.7
Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft)
2.8
Gradient (ft/ft)
0.0380
Reachwide d50 (mm)
2.7
Stream Classification
(existing -> proposed)
G4 4 B4
Evolutionary Trend
III — Degradation
FEMA Zone Classification
N/A
k. Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 9 November 2022

UT2
UT2 enters the Site from a culvert under US-74 within Kings Mountain Water easement. Within 25-feet
of the culvert outlet, the stream drops over a headcut and becomes deeply incised and disconnected
from the adjacent floodplain with a BHR of 3.8. UT2 exhibits steep, eroded stream banks and is severely
channelized with an entrenchment ratio of 1.0. The stream winds through mature woody vegetation
and root mats are present throughout the channel. Large amounts of fine sediment have deposited in
the downstream portion of UT2, negatively impacting the existing bedform habitats.
Table 8: UT2 Attribute Table
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
UT2
Length of Reach (linear feet)
217
Valley confinement
(confined, moderately
Unconfined
confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (acres)
16
Perennial, Intermittent,
Perennial
Ephemeral
NCSAM Score/Stream
Low
Function
NCDWR Water Quality
C
Classification
Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft)
9.4
Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft)
3.8
Gradient (ft/ft)
0.0360
Reachwide d50 (mm)
--
Stream Classification
G4 -> B4
(existing � proposed)
Evolutionary Trend
III - Degradation
FEMA Zone Classification
N/A
k Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 10 November 2022

UT3
UT3 enters the Site from a culvert under US-74 within the Kings Mountain Water easement. UT3 flows
through a confined, wooded valley with a moderate slope. The reach is in moderate condition, with one
active headcut, low banks, moderate bedform, and some invasive understory vegetation within the
woods. As UT3 approaches Bridgefork Creek, fine sediments are aggrading the channel bed, resulting in
braiding and a loss of channel dimension.
Table 9: UT3 Attribute Table
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
UT3
Length of Reach (Linear Feet)
604
Valley confinement
Confined/
(Confined, moderately
Unconfined
confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (acres)
12
Perennial, Intermittent,
Perennial
Ephemeral
NCSAM Score/Stream
Function
Medium
NCDWR Water Quality
C
Classification
Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft)
3.5
Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft)
1.3
Gradient (ft/ft)
0.0320
Reachwide d50 (mm)
--
Stream Classification
E4b -> B4
(existing 4 proposed)
Evolutionary Trend
IV - Degradation
and widening
FEMA Zone Classification
N/A
k Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 11 November 2022

UT4
UT4 flows through a moderately confined, moderately sloped valley. At the upstream end, a series of
bedrock slides and step pools maintain grade control and provide excellent bedform and habitat. As the
stream flows southwest towards Bridgefork Creek, the sinuosity increases as the slope decreases. There
is minor bank erosion along the reach, but generally the banks are low and stable with habitat features
and bedform including step pools, pocket pools, undercut banks, leafy debris packs, short sandy runs,
and coarse riffles. The major stressor to this reach is an infestation of Chinese privet and Japanese
honeysuckle in the understory of the riparian corridor and debris that has been placed in the channel
and on the banks. Aggradation is smothering benthic flora and fauna and is causing the channel to
become overly wide.
Table 10: UT4 Attribute Table
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
UT4
Length of Reach (linear feet)
1,464
Valley confinement
Moderately
(confined, moderately
confined/
confined, unconfined)
Unconfined
Drainage area (acres)
205
Perennial, Intermittent,
Perennial
Ephemeral
NCSAM Score/Stream
High
Function
NCDWR Water Quality
C
Classification
Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft)
10.9 / 11.1
Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft)
3.9 / 2.2
Gradient (ft/ft)
0.0110
Reachwide d50 (mm)
3.5
Stream Classification
134c -> C4
(existing --> proposed)
Evolutionary Trend
V — Aggradation
and widening
FEMA Zone Classification
N/A
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 12 November 2022

UT4A
UT4A begins on Site as an ephemeral channel at a series of headcuts and transitions to intermittent and
then perennial prior to its confluence with UT4. At the upstream ephemeral extent, historic contour
plowing, and terracing has altered the natural drainage patterns and directs much of the drainage to
one location, resulting in headcuts and erosion as surface water drains to the gully -type valley. Over the
years, the property owners have tried to stabilize the headcuts with concrete rubble and debris. The
intermittent and perennial sections of stream flow over a series of smaller headcuts, and UT4A is incised
with actively eroding banks. The stream lacks floodplain connection and relic bankfull benches that have
formed over the years have been abandoned as the stream continues to incise. Bedform is embedded
with fines throughout most of the reach. An approximate 15-foot-wide buffer is fenced from livestock
along the left upper terrace. Mature woody vegetation is present along the right floodplain and aids in
stabilizing the existing valley wall; however, the understory is dominated by invasive species.
Table 11: UT4A Attribute Table
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
UT4A
Length of Reach (linear feet)
961
Valley confinement
(confined, moderately
Confined
confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (acres)
95
Perennial, Intermittent,
Intermittent/
Ephemeral
Perennial
NCSAM Score/Stream
Low/Low
Function
NCDWR Water Quality
C
Classification
Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft)
5.2
Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft)
3.9
Gradient (ft/ft)
0.0360
Reachwide d50 (mm)
2.9
Stream Classification
Incised E4b B4
(existing � proposed)
Evolutionary Trend
IV — Degradation
and widening
FEMA Zone Classification
N/A
k Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 13 November 2022

UT5
UT5 enters the Site from a small, confined valley before reaching the broad flat floodplain of Bridgefork
Creek. The short reach flows through an established hardwood forest, but the understory is dominated
by Chinese privet. Livestock do not have access to UT5. The stream has low banks and is stable and
functioning with a high NCSAM score.
Table 12: UT5 Attribute Table
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
UT5
Length of Reach (linear feet)
174
Valley confinement
(confined, moderately
Unconfined
confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (acres)
14
Perennial, Intermittent,
Perennial
Ephemeral
NCSAM Score/Stream
High
Function
NCDWR Water Quality
C
Classification
Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft)
N/A
Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft)
N/A
Gradient (ft/ft)
N/A
Reachwide d50 (mm)
N/A
Stream Classification
E4 4 E4
(existing --> proposed)
Evolutionary Trend
VI — Quasi
equilibrium
FEMA Zone Classification
N/A
k. Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 14 November 2022

UT6
UT6 enters the Site as a perennial channel from an adjacent property and flows through a low sloped,
unconfined, alluvial valley. The stream is incised and overly wide with eroding stream banks. Fine
sediments overwhelm the existing bedform, particularly downstream of the UT6 and UT6A confluence.
Channel incision is most pronounced upstream of the Dillon Road culvert crossing, with a BHR of 2.2.
The floodplain is vegetated with a mix of hardwood species and invasive understory. While livestock do
not currently have access to this stream, water quality and habitat stressors include sediment and lack
of bedform diversity.
Table 13: UT6 Attribute Table
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
UT6
Length of Reach (linear feet)
2,257
Valley confinement
(confined, moderately
Unconfined
confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (acres)
316
Perennial, Intermittent,
Perennial
Ephemeral
NCSAM Score/Stream
Low
Function
NCDWR Water Quality
Classification
C
Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft)
10.0
Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft)
2.2
Gradient (ft/ft)
0.0079
Reachwide d50 (mm)
38.9
Stream Classification
Moderately
(existing 4 proposed)
entrenched G4c
C4
Evolutionary Trend
V — Aggradation
and widening
FEMA Zone Classification
N/A
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 15 November 2022

UT6A
UT6A begins on Site as an ephemeral channel and transitions to intermittent and then perennial prior to
its confluence with UT6. UT6A flows through a moderately confined, gully -type valley that has been
filled with agricultural debris over the years, similar to UT4A. Based on topographic mapping and Site
observations, UT6A used to flow in a valley north of its current alignment, and at some point cut a new
valley south of its prior location and re-entered the relic valley approximately halfway down the reach.
UT6A has now completely abandoned the northern relic valley completely and is flowing in the new,
southern valley alignment. Floodplain vegetation includes a mix of hardwood species with an invasive
understory. UT6A has multiple headcuts and is actively eroding, incised, and littered with farm debris
and rubble. The valley and stream bank erosion are likely major sources of fine sediment for
downstream UT6.
Table 14: UT6A Attribute Table
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
UT6A
Length of Reach (linear feet)
416
Valley confinement
(confined, moderately
Confined
confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (acres)
16.0
Perennial, Intermittent,
Intermittent/
Ephemeral
Perennial
NCSAM Score/Stream
Low/Medium
Function
NCDWR Water Quality
Classification
C
Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft)
5.4
Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft)
5.3
Gradient (ft/ft)
0.0400
Reachwide d50 (mm)
--
Stream Classification
Moderately
(existing � proposed)
entrenched G4
B4 & 64c
Evolutionary Trend
III — Degradation
FEMA Zone Classification
N/A
3.3.2 Existing Wetlands
Wildlands delineated potential wetland and waters of the United States within and immediately
adjacent to the proposed project easement (assessment area) using the USACE Routine Onsite
Determination method presented in the 1987 Corps of Engineers delineation manual and the
subsequent Regional Supplement for the Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Region. The Preliminary
Jurisdictional Determination (pJD) package was submitted in September 2021 and approved in October
2021. The pJD package and approval, including the USACE Wetland Determination Data Sheets, is
included in Appendix 2. Existing wetland data is summarized in Table 15.
A total of 12 existing jurisdictional wetland features (Wetlands A-L) and one open water (Open Water)
were documented within the assessment area (Figure 2). Onsite wetland features exhibit indicators of
wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils. Indicators of wetland hydrology observed
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 16 November 2022

in existing wetlands include algal mats or crust, high water table, iron deposits, water -stained leaves,
saturation, and surface water; secondary indicators present included surface soil cracks, crayfish
burrows, geomorphic position, sparsely vegetated concave surface, and FAC-neutral test. Dominant
hydrophytic vegetation species within wetlands include dotted smartweed (Persicaria punctata), fall
sneezeweed (Helenium autumnale), Gray's sedge (Carex grayi), jointed rush (Juncus articulatus), red
maple (Acer rubrum), shallow sedge (Carex lurida), and soft rush (Juncus effuses). Soils within onsite
wetlands exhibit one of the following hydric soil indicators: depleted matrix, stratified layers, or
depleted below dark surface.
Existing wetlands were evaluated using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM). The
rapid assessment method evaluates field conditions relative to reference condition to generate function
ratings for specific wetland types. Using the NCWAM dichotomous key and best professional judgement,
existing wetlands were classified based on the reference wetland type if the area was not disturbed.
Onsite wetlands were all classified as headwater forest and seep wetlands. Overall NCWAM ratings
range from low to high. Most onsite wetlands scored as low functioning systems when compared to
reference conditions based on impairments to two of the three primary functions (hydrology, water
quality, and habitat). Water quality and habitat functions generally received low scores due to cattle
grazing, lack of native vegetative communities, and poor connectivity to other natural areas. NCWAM
field assessment forms and the rating calculator outputs are included in Appendix 3.
Table 15: Existing Jurisdictional Wetland Project Attribute Table
Size of
Soil
Method:
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland Type
Mapped Soil
Drainage
HydSource
of
NCWAM
Restoration or
(acres)
Series
Class
Status
Status
Hydrology
Score
Enhancement
Method
Hulett gravelly
sandy loam,
A
0.052
Headwater
stony (HtQ
Well drained
No
Groundwater
Low
--
Forest
Grover gravelly
sandy loam,
rocky (GrD)
Headwater
Chewacla loam
Poorly
Overbank/
B
0.005
Forest
(ChA)
drained
No
Groundwater
Low
--
Madison -
Bethlehem
complex, very
Well drained;
Overbank/
Hydrologic,
C
0.197
Seep
stony (McC2);
poorly
No
Groundwater
Low
Vegetation
drained
Chewacla loam
(ChA)
Chewacla loam
(ChA);
Poorly
Overbank/
Hydrologic,
D
0.239
Seep
Grover gravelly
drained; Well
No
Medium
sandy loam,
drained
Groundwater
Vegetation
rocky (GrD)
Headwater
Chewacla loam
Poorly
Overbank/
Hydrologic,
E
0.030
Forest
(ChA)
drained
NO
Groundwater
LOW
Vegetation
Chewacla loam
Poorly
Overbank/
F
0.108
Seep
(ChA)
drained
No
Groundwater
Low
--
k. Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 17 November 2022

Size of
Soil
Method:
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland Type
Mapped Soil
Drainage
HydSource
of
NCWAM
Restoration or
(acres)
Series
Class
Status
Status
Hydrology
Score
Enhancement
Method
Chewacla loam
Poorly
Overbank/
G
0.153
Seep
(ChA)
drained
No
Groundwater
Medium
--
Chewacla loam
(ChA);
Poorly
Overbank/
H
0.112
Seep
Grover gravelly
drained; Well
No
Low
--
Groundwater
sandy loam,
drained
rocky (GrD)
Chewacla loam
Poorly
Overbank/
1
0.006
Seep
(ChA)
drained
No
Groundwater
Chewacla loam
Poorly
Overbank/
J
0.005
Seep
(ChA)
drained
No
Groundwater
High
--
Grover gravelly
K
0.107
Headwater
sandy loam,
Well drained
No
Groundwater
High
Hydrologic
Forest
rocky (GrD)
Chewacla loam
Poorly
Overbank/
L
0.006
Seep
(ChA)
drained
No
Groundwater
Low
--
Open
Pond/
Grover gravelly
Groundwater/
Hydrologic,
Water
0.543
Impoundment
sandy loam,
Well drained
No
Surface water
Vegetation
rocky (GrD)
3.4 Overall Functional Uplift Potential
The primary stressors on site are incision, active stream erosion, maintenance and drainage of wetland
areas, livestock access, lack of buffers, areas of low bedform diversity, and active degradation of
headwater stream systems. These stressors led to low to medium NCSAM scores for most project
stream reaches. Without intervention, Bridgefork Creek and its tributaries will continue to widen and
degrade, which will further diminish riparian wetland hydrology. Functional uplift for the site will be
achieved through the following:
• Restoring degraded stream channels to reduce erosion and hydrologically connect streams and
wetlands;
• Eliminating bank erosion and associated pollutants;
• Planting riparian buffers to shade streams; stabilize stream banks, floodplains, and valley walls;
and promote woody debris in the system;
• Exclude livestock;
• Establishing BMPs to provide additional treatment of upland runoff; and
• Protecting the site with a conservation easement.
These project components are described in Section 5 in terms of goals, objectives, and outcomes for the
project and in greater detail in Section 6 as the project site mitigation plan.
3.5 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift
The following potential Site constraints have been identified and will be addressed as part of this
project.
Due to the degree of incision onsite, some Priority 2 and Priority 1.5 restoration will be necessary.
Establishing vegetation on Priority Level 2 stream restoration can be a challenge. Wildlands has
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 18 November 2022

prepared a Vegetation and Planting Plan (Section 6.9) to address this potential constraint. Priority Level
1.5 restoration may have a limited floodplain on some reaches. As described in Section 6.6 Stream
Design Implementation, Wildlands will construct floodplains that are at least the minimum floodplain
width for their respected stream type entrenchment ratio.
Construction of restored streams through dewatered pond beds can pose constraints to stream design
and construction. A pond breach overview (Sheet 6.8, Appendix 13) was developed for the proposed
pond removal along UT1. Currently, it is anticipated that the existing pond will be drained down using an
existing pipe outlet, and then siphoned down to the lowest possible water level several months prior to
construction. Once dewatered, organic bed material in the pond will be allowed to dry out for several
months to facilitate construction of the newly proposed channel. If it is determined that the existing
pond dam must be breached to lower water levels within the existing pond, erosion and sediment
control methods will be implemented to prevent excessive pond sediments from traveling downstream.
Removal and replacement of pond sediments will be determined based on site conditions during
construction. If pond sediments are determined unsuitable for channel construction, material will be
supplemented with dirt from other portions of the project. The ultimate use or treatment of the pond
sediment will be discussed in the MYO report. The alignment of UT1 was designed along the left edge of
the existing pond bed in an attempt to avoid the deepest pond sediments while allowing for adequate
floodplain width for the channel.
One external easement break and seven internal easement breaks are proposed at the Site to maintain
landowner access and allow for overhead and underground utility crossings, maintain use of adjoining
tracts, and maintain existing public transportation right-of-way. Ford and culvert crossings are proposed
to be fenced and gated for livestock exclusion. Livestock will only be permitted within the internal ford
crossing breaks during supervised pasture rotation events. Culverts will be designed with the restored
stream bed profile to permit aquatic organism passage. Vegetative maintenance along the overhead
utility breaks may cause some fragmentation, but maintenance is expected to be infrequent. Where
possible, overhead utility crossings and proposed ford/culvert crossings were combined to limit the
number of riparian corridor breaks and reduce the overall amount of habitat fragmentation. The
crossings are summarized and numbered below in Table 16 and depicted on Figure 8.
Table 16: Proposed Easement Crossings
No.
Width (ft)
Location
Internal or External
Crossing Type
1
30
Bridgefork Creek Reach 1a
Internal
Overhead Utility
2
88
Bridgefork Creek Reach 1b
Internal
Overhead Utility
Gated Ford Crossing
3
50
Bridgefork Creek Reach 1b
Internal
Proposed Culvert Crossing
4
88
Bridgefork Creek Reach 2
Internal
Overhead Utility
Gated Ford Crossing
5
50
Bridgefork Creek Reach 3
Internal
Gated Ford Crossing
6
30
UT1
Internal
Overhead Utility
7
40
UT4
Internal
Proposed Culvert Crossing
8
60
UT6
External
Existing Dillion Road Culvert
Crossing
k Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 19 November 2022

4.0 Regulatory Considerations
Table 17, below, is a summary of regulatory considerations for the Site. These considerations are
expanded upon in Sections 4.1-4.3.
Table 17: Regulatory Considerations Attribute Table
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
No
PCN1
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
No
PCN1
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix 6
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix 6
Coastal Zone Management Act
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
1- P1D approved by USACE on 10/14/2021. PCN to be provided to IRT with Final Mitigation Plan.
4.1 Biological and Cultural Resources
A Categorical Exclusion for the Site was approved on April 23, 2021 (Appendix 6). The document
included investigation into the presence of threatened and endangered species on Site protected under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as well as any historical resources protected under the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for
Planning and Consultation database (IPaC) list of endangered species for the Site includes the northern
long-eared bad (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis) and the dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora).
The biological conclusion for the Site, per the Categorical Exclusion research and response by USFWS is
that "any incidental take that may result from associated activities [from the project] is exempt under
the 4(d) rule. The USFWS also requested a survey for dwarf -flowered heartleaf in areas with proposed
impacts. Wildlands conducted a pedestrian survey on March 9, 2020 and identified suitable habitat
within the project area; however, no populations resembling the species were found. The conclusion for
cultural resources per the Categorical Exclusion research and response by the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) is that there are no historic resources that would be affected by this project.
4.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
The Site is represented on the City of Kings Mountain Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 2585 and 2586,
with a revised date of February 20, 2008. The entire Site is outside of a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
regulatory floodplain. Cleveland County does not require a floodplain development permit for projects
outside of the SFHA.
The proposed Site design has limited or no risk of potential hydrologic trespass since the project
encompasses steep headwater streams. The Bridgefork Creek restoration design begins several hundred
feet downstream of the Patterson Road culvert, so no upstream trespass will occur as a result of stream
construction.
4.3 401/404
Wetlands within the floodplain and adjacent to the existing streams will be partially impacted during
realignment of the stream channel. Removal of an impoundment and stream and valley restoration of
UT1 will permanently impact the existing pond. Wetlands on the Site that are within the conservation
easement or long travel routes and outside of the limits of disturbance will be flagged and/or marked
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 20 November 2022

with safety fence during construction to prevent unintended impacts. The Pre -Construction Notification
including this data, will be submitted to the NCIRT with the Final Mitigation Plan. Wildlands will reverify
the extent of jurisdiction in Monitoring Year 7 (MY7) for the purpose of confirming no net loss of
wetlands as a result of ecological restoration.
5.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives
The project will improve stream functions through stream restoration, the removal of an impoundment,
conversion of maintain agricultural fields into riparian buffer, and through developing wetlands within
the floodplain of Bridgefork Creek and UT1. Project goals are desired project outcomes and are
verifiable through measurement and/or visual assessment. Objectives are activities that will result in the
accomplishment of goals, and expected outcomes are the implied results of completing objectives and
are not directly monitored. The project will be monitored after construction to evaluate performance as
described in Section 8 of this report. The project goals and related objectives are described in Table 18.
Table 18: Mitigation Goals and Objectives
Goal
Objective
Expected Outcomes
FunctionsSupported
Reduce agricultural inputs to
project. Reduce ongoing
compaction of floodplain soils
Install livestock fencing as needed to
from livestock access. Reduce
Exclude livestock
exclude livestock from stream
sediment inputs from bank
Geomorphology,
from stream
channels, wetlands, and riparian
erosion and degradation,
Physicochemical,
channels.
areas, or remove livestock from
reducing accumulated fines in
Biology
adjacent fields.
the stream bed and excessive
algal blooms from nutrients.
Provide riparian and wetland
habitat.
Reduce sediment inputs from
bank erosion and pasture
Plant active pasture with native
runoff. Reduce floodplain
riparian species along all Site
velocities and increase retention
Hydrology
Restore and
streams, which will slow and treat
of flood flows on the floodplain.Increase
(local),
enhance native
sediment laden runoff from adjacent
nutrient cycling and
Hydraulic,
floodplain
pastures fields before entering
storage in floodplain. Provide
Geomorphology,
vegetation.
streams. Protect and enhance
riparian and wetland habitat.
Physicochemical,
existing forested riparian buffers.
Increase shading of stream
Biology
Treat invasive species.
channels, increasing dissolved
oxygen concentrations. Provide
a source of LWD and organic
material to stream.
Reconstruct stream channels slated
for restoration with stable
dimensions and appropriate depth
Improve the
relative to the existing floodplain
Reduce sediment inputs from
Hydraulic,
stability of stream
and wetland re-establishment areas.
bank erosion. Reduce shear
Geomorphology,
channels.
provide floodplain relief for severely
stress on channel boundary.
physicochemical,
incised channels. Add bank
Biology
revetments and instream structures
to protect restored/ enhanced
streams.
k Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 21 November 2022

Goal
Objective
Expected Outcomes
Functions
Supported
Install stormwater BMPs in areas of
Reduce agricultural and
Hydrology,
Treat concentrated
concentrated agricultural runoff to
sediment inputs to the project,
Hydraulic,
agricultural runoff.
treat runoff before it enters the
which will reduce likelihood of
Geomorphology,
stream channel.
accumulated fines and excessive
Physicochemical,
algal blooms from nutrients.
Biology
Increase and diversify available
habitats for macroinvertebrates,
Install habitat features such as
fish, and amphibians. Promote
Improve instream
constructed steps, cover logs, and
aquatic species migration and
Geomorphology,
habitat.
brush toes on restored reaches. Add
recolonization from refugia,
Physicochemical
woody materials to channel beds.
leading to colonization and
Biology
Construct pools of varying depth.
increase in biodiversity over
time. Add complexity including
LWD to the streams.
Establish a conservation easement
Protect Site from encroachment
Hydrology,
Permanently
on the Site. Exclude livestock from
on the riparian corridor and
Hydraulic,
protect the Site
Site streams and remove pasture
direct impact to streams and
Geomorphic,
from harmful uses.
fields from the riparian buffer.
wetlands. Support all stream
Physicochemical,
Remove impoundments.
functions.
Biology
6.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan
6.1 Stream Design Approach Overview
The stream design approach for this Site was developed to meet the goals and objectives described in
Section 5 which were formulated based on the potential for uplift described in Section 3.4. The design is
also intended to provide the expected outcomes in Section 5, though these are not tied to performance
criteria.
The project streams planned for restoration will be reconnected with an active floodplain and the
channels will be reconstructed with stable dimension, pattern, and profile that will transport the water
and sediment delivered to the system. Where buffer restoration or enhancement is needed, the
adjacent floodplains and riparian wetlands will be planted with native tree species. Instream structures
will be built in the channels to help maintain stable channel morphology and improve aquatic habitat.
The entire project area will be protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement.
The design approach for this Site utilizes a combination of analog and analytical approaches for stream
and wetland restoration and relies on empirical data and prior experiences and observations. Reference
reaches were identified to serve as an acceptable range for design parameters. Channels were sized
based on design discharge hydrologic analysis which uses a combination of empirical and analytical data
as described within this report. These design approaches have been used on many successful Mountain
and Piedmont restoration projects and are appropriate for the goals and objectives for this Site. Table
19 summaries the primary stressors, restoration approach and mitigation activities for the project
reaches.
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 22 November 2022

Table 19: Stream Stressors and Restoration Approach
Project Reach
Primary
Stressors/Impairments
Approach
Mitigation Activities
Bridgefork Creek
Livestock access, lack of
Planting buffers, treating invasive vegetation,
Reach 1a
buffer, invasive vegetation
Ell
excluding cattle, protecting with conservation
easement
Livestock access, lack of or
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile,
Bridgefork Creek
sparse buffers, bank erosion,
R
replanting buffers, excluding cattle, protecting
Reach 1b
debris jams, low bedform
with conservation easement
diversity
Restoring dimension, pattern and profile under
Bridgefork Creek
Livestock access, narrow
utility easement, replanting buffers/supplemental
Reach 2
buffers
Ell
planting, excluding cattle, and protecting with
conservation easement
Livestock access, lack of or
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile,
Bridgefork Creek
sparse buffers, bank erosion,
R
replanting buffers, excluding cattle, protecting
Reach 3
debris jams, low bedform
with conservation easement
diversity
Severe erosion and incision,
Removing impoundment, restoring dimension,
UT1 Reaches 1
channelization, active
R
pattern, and profile in historic valley, planting
and 2
headcuts, low bedform
buffers, BMP installation, protecting with
diversity, impoundment
conservation easement
Severe erosion and incision,
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile, planting
UT2
active headcuts, low
R
buffers, protecting with conservation easement
bedform diversity
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile of the
Active headcut, excessive
downstream extent, supplemental planting,
UT3
sediment and loss of
P (no
protecting with conservation easement.
dimension on the
credit), Ell
Conservation easement will only be placed on
downstream extent
right riparian buffer along the no credit
preservation section.
Invasive vegetation,
Supplemental planting, treating invasive
UT4 Reach 1
localized areas of bank
Ell
vegetation, isolated bank grading, debris removal,
erosion, farm debris in
protecting with conservation easement.
adjacent floodplain
Invasive vegetation,
Supplemental planting, treating invasive
UT4 Reach 2
livestock access, active
R
vegetation, restoring dimension, pattern, and
headcuts and bank erosion
profile, excluding cattle, protecting with
conservation easement
Severe erosion and incision,
channelization, active
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile, planting
headcuts, low bedform
buffers, treating invasive vegetation, BMP
UT4A
diversity, debris/trash,
R
installation, protecting with conservation
concentrated runoff,
easement
invasive vegetation
UT5 Reach 1
Invasive vegetation
P
Treating invasive vegetation, protecting with
conservation easement
UT5 Reach 2
Active headcut, invasive
R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile, planting
vegetation
buffers, protecting with conservation easement
Severe erosion and incision,
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile, planting
UT6
active headcuts, low
R
buffers, protecting with conservation easement
bedform diversity
k Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 23 November 2022

Project Reach
Primary
Stressors/Impairments
Approach
Mitigation Activities
Severe stream and valley
erosion, incision,
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile, planting
channelization, active
buffers, treating invasive vegetation, BMP
UT6A
headcuts, low bedform
R
installation, protecting with conservation
diversity, debris/trash,
concentrated runoff,
easement
invasive vegetation
6.2 Reference Streams
Reference streams provide geomorphic parameters of a stable system, which can be used to inform
design of stable channels of similar stream types in similar landscapes and watersheds. Seven reference
reaches were identified for this Site (Figure 6) and used to support the design of Bridgefork Creek and its
tributaries. These reference reaches were chosen because of their similarities to the Site streams
including drainage area, valley slope, morphology, and bed material. All reference reaches are located
within the piedmont physiographic province. Geomorphic parameters for these reference reaches are
summarized in Appendix 4. The references to be used for the specific streams are shown in Table 20
along with a description of each reference reach.
Table 20: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters
Reference
Stream
Landscape Position
Chosen For
Used For
Used on
Reach
Type
streams
Connects adjacent
Q'
Bridgefork
UT to Sandy
E4
steep wooded
Landscape position, habitat
Dimension,
reek,
Run
valley to flat Broad
structures, pattern
Pattern,
Reach UT4
River floodplain.
Profile
Channel dimensions,
Q'
Box Creek
C4
Broad, alluvial
landscape position, habitat
Dimension,
Bridgefork
Mainstem
valley, low slope
structures, pattern, slope
pattern,
Creek
Profile
Landscape position,
Q'
Bridgefork
Deep Creek
C5
Low slope through
dimensions, pattern, slope,
Dimension,
Creek, UT1
Mitigation Site
wetland complex
previous mitigation site
Pattern,
Reach 2, UT4
Profile
Foust
C4
Low slope through
Bedform diversity and bank
Q,
Bridgefork
Upstream
a mature forest
stability
Dimension
Creek
UT to Catawba
Connects
Bedform diversity, well
Q,
Bridgefork
E3b/C3b
floodplain to invert
developed pools and riffles,
Creek, UT3,
River Reach 2
of Catawba River
habitat diversity
Dimension
UT4, UT4A
Timber
Confined valley and
Moderate slope in a confined
Q,
UT1 Reach 1,
Tributary
B4
alluvial confluence
valley with sinuosity and
Dimension,
UT2, UT3,
with larger stream
varied habitat
Profile
UT4A
Pilot Mountain
High slope
Bedform diversity, steep
Q,
UT1 Reach 1,
Tributary
B4
headwater
riffles, in -line pools, boulder
Dimension,
UT2, UT3,
tributary
steps, slope
Profile
UT4A
k Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 24 November 2022

6.3 Design Discharge Analysis
Multiple methods were used to estimate bankfull discharges for restoration reaches including regional
curve data (Harman et al. 2000 and Walker, unpublished), a regional flood frequency analysis using U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) gage sties, and reference reach data. The methods were compared, and a
design discharge was selected based on the results of the different methods. For this analysis, emphasis
was placed on the results from the regional flood frequency (1.2-year event) and the piedmont regional
curve in selecting a design discharge. Results of each method and the final design discharges are shown
in Table 21 and illustrated in Figure 7.
Table 21: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis
Stream
Bridgefork
Bridgefork
:Discharg:e:
Creek R1b/2
Creek R3
R1 &
UT2
UT3
UT4
UT4A
UT6
UT6A
timateMethod
R2
Alan Walker Curve (cfs)
66
85
3
3
2
23
12
32
3
NRCS Piedmont/Mountain
Regional Curve (cfs)
103
132
6
6
5
39
22
54
6
Regional Flood
1.2- year event
91
116
5
5
4
34
19
46
5
Frequency
Analysis (cfs)
1.5-year event
128
163
8
8
6
48
28
66
8
Reference Reach Regional Curve (cfs)
86
83
11
11
9
37
30
45
11
Final Design Q (cfs)
90
115-145
6
6
6
35
20
4
6
6.4 Design Channel Morphological Parameters
Reference reach data and designer experience were used to develop design morphologic parameters for
each of the restoration reaches, and portions of enhancement II sections. Key morphological parameters
are summarized in Tables 22-26. Complete design morphological parameters are included in Appendix 4.
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 25 November 2022

Table 22: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Bridgefork Creek (Reaches 1b, 2, and 3)
Existing Parameters
Reference Parameters
Proposed Parameters
Bridgefork Creek
Deep
UT to
Bridgefork Creek
Parameter
UT To
Box
Creek
Foust
Catawba
Sandy
Reach 1b
Reach 2
Reach 3
Run
Creek
Mitigation
Upstream
River
Reach 1b
Reach 2
Reach 3
Site
Reach 2
Contributing Drainage Area
1,101-
787
1,037
1,498
96
1,363
422
896
1,024
787
1,037
(acres)
1,498
Channel/Reach
Incised
64c
134/1c
E4
C4
C5
C4
E3b/C3b
C4
C4
C4
Classification
C4
Design Discharge Width (ft)
17.7
25.7
22.7
7.3-7.8
7.9
12.9
18.5-19.4
12.3
21.0
21.0
25.0
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
0.9
1.6
1.6
1.1-1.4
1.2
2.3
1.2-1.3
1.1
1.8
1.8
1.5
Design Discharge Area (ft')
16.2
40.4
1 36.9
5.7-6.2
28.9
17.1
23.9-24.1
13.2
25.2
25.2
36.8
Design Discharge Velocity
(ft/s)
2.5
--
3.7
3.4
3.0
2.4
4.0
6.1
3.5
--
3.2-3.9
115.0-
Design Discharge (cfs)
90.0
--
145.0
20.0
95.0
41.0
95.0
80.0
90.0
_
145.0
Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0059
0.0070
0.0057
0.0150
0.0084
0.0028
0.0090
0.0270
0.0073
--
0.0027-
0.0096
Sinuosity
1.3
--
1.2
1.6
1.3
1.6
-
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.3
Width/Depth Ratio
19.4
16.4
14.0
6.6-9.8
19.1
9.6
14.3-15.7
11.5
17.5
17.5
17.0
Bank Height Ratio
3.3
2.5
1.8
1.7-2.6
1.5
0.9-1.1
1.0
1.0-1.3
1.0-1.1
1.0-1.1
1.0-1.1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.8
1.4
2.8
1.6-2.1
3.3
10.5
2.9-5.3
4.3
3.1+
3.1+
4.0+
d50 (mm) reachwide
8.7
--
4.3
19.0
-
0.2
61.0
75.9
-
--
--
Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 26 November 2022

Table 23: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT1 Reach 2, UT4, and UT6
Existing Parameters
Reference Parameters
Proposed Parameters
Parameter
UT To
Deep
UT to
UT1
Box
Creek
Foust
Catawba
UT1
UT4
UT6
Sandy
UT4
UT6
Reach 2
Creek
Mitigation
Upstream
River
Reach 2
Run
Site
Reach 2
Contributing Drainage Area
19
205
316
96
1,363
422
896
1,024
19
205
267-316
(acres)
Channel/Reach Classification
G4
134c
G4c
E4
C4
C5
C4
E3b/C3b
C4
C4
C4
Design Discharge Width (ft)
5.8
10.2
14.3
7.3-7.8
7.9
12.9
18.5-19.4
12.3
5.5
12.5
15.0-17.0
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
1.6
0.9
1.4
1.1-1.4
1.2
2.3
1.2-1.3
1.1
0.4
0.7
0.9-1.1
Design Discharge Area (ft')
9.2
9.3
20.6
5.7-6.2
28.9
17.1
23.9-24.1
13.2
2.1
8.9
12.7-18.6
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
--
--
4.0
3.4
3.0
2.4
4.0
6.1
2.7
3.8
2.1-3.6
Design Discharge (cfs)
6.0
35.0
41.0
20.0
95.0
41.0
95.0
80.0
6.0
35.0
35.0-41.0
Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0380
0.0130
0.0079
0.0150
0.0084
0.0028
0.0090
0.0270
0.0020
0.0160
0.0030-
0.0150
Sinuosity
--
--
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.6
--
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
3.7
11.1
10.0
6.6-9.8
19.1
9.6
14.3-15.7
11.5
14.0
17.7
13.5-17.7
Bank Height Ratio
2.8
2.2
2.2
1.7-2.6
1.5
0.9-1.1
1.0
1-1.26
1.0-1.1
1.0-1.1
1.0-1.1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.7
1.3
1.8
1.6-2.1
3.3
10.5
2.9-5.3
4.3
5.0+
3.5+
2.2+
dS0 (mm) reachwide
2.7
3.5
38.9
19.0
--
0.2
61.0
75.9
--
--
--
WBridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 27 November 2022

Table 24: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT1 Reach 1 and UT2
Parameter
Existing Parameters
Reference Parameters
Proposed Parameters
UT1
Reach 1
UT2
Timber
Tributary
Pilot
Mountain
Tributary
UT1
Reach 1
UT2
Contributing Drainage Area (acres)
17
16
26
173
17
16
Channel/Reach Classification
G4
G4
134
64
64
134a
Design Discharge Width (ft)
5.8
6.2
8.9
8.6
5.5
5.5
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
1.6
0.9
0.7
1.0
0.4
0.4
Design Discharge Area (ft2)
9.2
4.1
4.6
6.0
2.1
2.1
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
--
--
3.7
5.3
4.0
3.8
Design Discharge (cfs)
6.0
6.0
17.0
32.0
6.0
6.0
Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0320
0.0580
0.0330
0.0378
0.0390
0.0520
Sinuosity
--
--
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Width/Depth Ratio
3.7
9.4
17.0
12.5
14.2
14.2
Bank Height Ratio
2.8
3.8
1.0
1.0
1.0-1.1
1.0-1.1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.7
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.2+
5.4+
d50 (mm)
2.7
--
6.5
20.1
--
--
Table 25: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT3 and UT4A
Parameter
Existing
Parameters
Reference Parameters
Proposed Parameters
UT3
UT4A
Timber
Tributary
Pilot Mountain
Tributary
UT3*
UT4A
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres)
12
95
26
173
12
95
Channel/Reach Classification
E4b
Incised
B4
B4
B4
B4
Design Discharge Width (ft)
3.3
8.2
8.9
8.6
5.5
9.0
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
0.9
2.6
0.7
1.0
0.4
0.6
Design Discharge Area (ft2)
3.1
12.9
4.6
6.0
2.1
5.5
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
--
8.3
3.7
5.3
3.4
3.5
Design Discharge (cfs)
6.0
20.0
17.0
32.0
6.0
20.0
Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0639
0.0360
0.0330
0.0378
0.0270
0.0260
Sinuosity
--
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
Width/Depth Ratio
3.5
5.2
17.0
12.5
14.2
15.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.3
3.9
1.0
1.0
1.0-1.1
1.0-1.1
Entrenchment Ratio
2.9
2.3
1.5
1.5
5.0+
1.4+
d50 (mm)
--
2.9
6.5
20.1
--
--
*Applies to restored section only
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 28 November 2022

Table 26: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for LIT6A
Parameter
Existing
Parameters
Reference Parameters
Proposed
Parameters
Timber
Tributary
Pilot
Mountain
Tributary
Contributing Drainage Area (acres)
16
26
173
16
Channel/Reach Classification
Moderately
entrenched
G4
134
B4
134
Design Discharge Width (ft)
7.4
8.9
8.6
6.0
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
1.4
0.7
1.0
0.4
Design Discharge Area (ft2)
10.3
4.6
6.0
2.0
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
--
3.7
5.3
3.0
Design Discharge (cfs)
6.0
17.0
32.0
6.0
Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0280
0.0330
0.0380
0.0210-0.0760
Sinuosity
--
1.1
1.1
1.0
Width/Depth Ratio
5.4
17.0
12.5
15.1
Bank Height Ratio
5.3
1.0
1.0
1.0-1.1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.4+
d50 (mm)
--
6.5
20.1
--
6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
To gain an understanding of the quantity of sediment supplied to the design reaches, Wildlands
performed a qualitative assessment of the historic, current, and potential future conditions of the
watershed through aerial photography and field reconnaissance. Current land use at the Site is mostly
active cattle pasture, active horse pasture, and hay fields. Project watershed land uses are a mix of
forest, agricultural pasture/hay fields, and development. A review of historic aerials from 1938 to 2016
showed that watershed sizes and land uses have not changed considerably in recent decades except for
the construction of US-74 and Kings Mountain Water Easement, with UT1, UT2, and UT3 being directly
affected. UT1 was realigned to parallel US-74 and, over time, formed a gully that contributes fine
sediment to system. Based on the 2021 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Cleveland County, growth is
expected to occur primarily on the western edge of the City of Kings Mountain. Land use within the
watershed and Site is not expected to change in the near future.
One of the goals of the assessment was to identify sources of fine-grained sediment delivered to project
reaches to determine if capacity was an important consideration in channel design or if the proposed
channels would likely be supply -limited. The main sources of sediment were identified as existing bank
erosion and runoff from adjacent agricultural fields.
Proposed vegetated buffers and stormwater BMPs designed to intercept concentrated flow paths will
filter most fine sediment from their contributing watersheds. Onsite sediment delivery through bank
erosion and runoff will be addressed through stabilization of stream banks and planting of riparian
buffers. After construction, bedload supply will not be high enough to cause the project streams to be
capacity limited. Therefore, the focus of the sediment transport analysis for this design was to verify
that the designed channels will be stable over time and that they can pass the sizes of sediment supplied
from the watersheds.
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 29 November 2022

Competence analyses were performed iteratively during design for representative restoration reaches
by comparing shear stress associated with the design bankfull discharges, proposed channel dimensions,
and proposed channel slopes with the size distribution of the existing bed load. The analysis used
standard equations based on a methodology using the Shields (1936) curve and Andrews (1984)
equation described by Rosgen (2001) to determine movable particle sizes for given shear stresses.
Proposed stream design conditions were evaluated to determine the largest movable particle sizes for
the design shear stresses and compare them to the existing channel material. The goal was to have the
D50 size design material be mobile while the Dmax size design material remains stable. This approach
will provide grade control while allowing for continued sediment transport processes. Competence
analyses results are shown in Table 27, below.
In situ material will be supplemented with harvested material from existing channels, with appropriately
sized material from onsite rock deposits, and with supplemental imported quarry stone, as necessary.
The final plans and specifications will specify that both the sizes and mixtures of materials must be
conducive to the formation of stable and diverse bedforms. Restored streambanks will be gently sloped
at 3:1 to 3.5:1 to allow for adjustment of channel sediment transport efficiency to the incoming flows
and sediment loads.
Table 27: Results of Competence Analysis
Bridgefork
Creek Reach 1b
Bridgefork
Creek Reach 3
UT4
UT6
Dbkf (ft)
1.2
1.5
0.71
0.85
Energy Grade line Slope (ft/ft)
0.0090
0.0045
0.017
0.015
Bankfull Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft)
0.66
0.41
0.74
0.78
Largest movable particle size (mm)
110
78
130
180
Existing D50
8.0
16
22
21
Existing Dmax Bar/Subpavement (mm)
51
76
76
76
Proposed D50
1 19
32
21
36
Proposed Dmax
110
110
130
180
6.6 Stream Design Implementation
The proposed Site includes a combination of stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation as well
as wetland rehabilitation and re-establishment. Project stream reaches proposed for restoration and
enhancement are currently impacted by riparian management, past and/or present livestock access,
bank erosion and/or incision. Stream and wetland activities have been selected to provide the highest
degree of ecological uplift to the system. Figure 8 and Figure 9 provide an overview of the proposed
mitigation activities on the Site.
Restoration reaches will be restored using a Priority 1 and/or a Priority 2 approach. Priority 2 sections of
channel will be constructed in areas with high incision and/or in transition zones. Restoration reaches
have been designed to create stable, functional stream channels based on reference reach parameters
and design discharge analysis. Dimension, pattern, and profile have been designed for all restoration
reaches to provide a cross -sectional area sized for frequent overbank flows, a stable bed with variable
bedforms, and well -vegetated bank slopes. Improved vertical and lateral stability will reduce stream
channel erosion. Diverse bedforms will be established using in -stream structures appropriate for the
geomorphic settings. These structures will provide grade control to prevent incision and serve as habitat
features. Pools will have varied depths to increase habitat diversity and mimic natural streams.
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 30 November 2022

In -stream structures for all reaches will include constructed rock and log riffles, rock and log sills, rock
and log J-hooks, log vanes, brush toe, geolifts, and cover logs. Constructed riffles will be built from rock
excavated onsite when possible. Quarry stone may be used if an onsite source cannot be found.
Constructed riffles will incorporate woody material and logs, which will provide varied pore spaces
within the riffles and benefit hyporheic exchange processes and habitat formation. The diverse range of
constructed riffle types will provide grade control, habitat diversity, and will create varied flow vectors.
Log and rock j-hooks will deflect flow vectors away from banks while increasing habitat diversity. Log
and rock sills will be used to allow for grade drops across pools. At select outer meander bends, the
channel banks will be constructed with brush toe revetments to reduce erosion potential, encourage
pool maintenance, and provide varied pool habitat. Cover logs will also be used in some meander bends
to provide pool habitat variability and stream bank protection. Sod harvested onsite and/or coir fiber
matting will be used to provide bank protection.
Detailed discussed for each restoration and enhancement II design reach is provided below.
Enhancement II reaches will generally include livestock exclusion, bank repairs where necessary,
invasive species treatment, planting with native tree species, and permanent protection in a
conservation easement.
6.6.1 Bridgefork Creek Reach 1a
Bridgefork Creek Reach 1a is a stable stream with low banks and extensive bedrock influence grade
control. This reach is proposed for enhancement II. Cattle will be excluded and the reach will be treated
for invasive vegetation, specifically along the left floodplain. The right buffer will be planted with
riparian species and the left buffer will be supplemented with native plantings.
6.6.2 Bridgefork Creek Reach 1b
Bridgefork Creek Reach 1b will be restored to a Rosgen C-type stream. Due to the existing incision, the
project reach will be restored using a combination of Priority 1 and Priority 2 restoration. The existing
channel grade will be raised through most of the reach for a Priority 1 approach and will transition to a
Priority 2-like approach for the transition to Reach 2. The channel will be slightly raised, and a floodplain
bench will be excavated. Cut was minimized in areas with existing and/or proposed wetlands. Raising
the channel will support proposed wetland approaches. Banks will be designed with 3.5:1 side slopes.
Drain tiles entering Bridgefork Creek Reach 1b and draining proposed Wetland Area 4B will be removed
within the conservation easement. It is not anticipated that drain tiles extend past the conservation
easement based on site topography and property owner discussions. One permanent culvert crossing is
proposed on this reach, just downstream of the confluence with UT1.
6.6.3 Bridgefork Creek Reach 2
Bridgefork Creek Reach 2 is proposed for enhancement II. The reach exhibits stable sinuosity for most of
its length; a bankfull bench is forming in an area with that has a stable bed but an increased bank height
ratio. The reach will be restored under the overhead utility easement and a permanent ford crossing will
be installed within that easement. Because of the overall channel stability and good bedform, proposed
work on this reach consists of planting and treatment of invasive vegetation. Supplemental plantings
along Bridgefork Creek Reach 2 will occur according to the included planting plan. Riparian species will
be planted in open areas of little to no buffer, particularly along the right floodplain.
6.6.4 Bridgefork Creek Reach 3
Bridgefork Creek Reach 3 will be restored to a Rosgen C-type stream using Priority 1 restoration, with a
short length of Priority 2 restoration beginning at the UT6 confluence to step the stream down to the
existing stream elevation at the end of the project. Riffles are designed with 3.5:1 side slopes to allow
for gentle flow transitions between channel and floodplain. As with Reach 1b, any drain tiles
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 31 November 2022

encountered during construction will be removed within the conservation easement. If the drain tiles
extend beyond the conservation easement, an ephemeral pool will be placed at the outlet of the drain
tiles within the easement to capture and still the flow. One permanent culvert crossing is proposed near
the start of Reach 3.
6.6.5 UT1
UT1's valley has been extensively manipulated and valley restoration guided the stream design. The
existing pond will be removed and the valley will be restored through the old pond bottom. Beginning at
the stream's jurisdictional origin, UT1 will be realigned through the new valley using Priority 1
restoration. UT1 Reach 1 is designed as a B-type stream due to the slope of the valley through the pond.
The reach exhibits sections of step -pools and steep cascading riffles. UT1 Reach 2 begins just
downstream of the existing pond and is designed as a C-type stream. Cut has been minimized in areas of
existing and proposed wetlands. A riparian buffer will be established along the project reach.
The abandoned UT1 gully will become a BMP for the existing storm drainage culverts along the Kings
Mountain Water Easement. The existing storm drainage culverts will be raised and reset to the
maximum extent possible, allowing for the old channel to be partially filled. Downstream of the culverts
the left bank will be graded out for a smooth transition into the existing floodplain and a series of check
dams will be installed. The right bank will remain untouched where possible to help preserve the
existing woody vegetation. A series of rock cascades will transition from the check dams, into a sediment
basin that will ultimately drain into UT1.
Removal of the pond will involve dewatering either through pumping, dam notching, or a combination
thereof. Unconsolidated sediments in the dewatered pond bottom deemed unsuitable for construction
will be excavated.. Stream construction will begin after the pond is fully dewatered and the
embankment notched to prevent ponding.
6.6.6 UT2
UT2 originates from an existing storm drainage culvert from the Kings Mountain Water Easement. The
channel is designed as a Ba-type channel with gentle pattern. A Priority 1 restoration approach is used
from the culvert to about mid -channel, where it transitions to a Priority 2 to tie to Bridgefork Creek. The
design incorporates rock and log steps, steep riffles, and rock cascades to stabilize the system while
providing habitat. A riparian buffer will be established along the project reach.
6.6.7 UT3
UT3 originates from an existing storm drainage culvert and is a stable channel that flows through a
confined, wooded valley. The right buffer for this section of reach will be incorporated into the
conservation easement and will be preserved for no credit. The valley flattens and widens as both banks
of the stream enter the project property and approach Bridgefork Creek. The reach is proposed for
enhancement II approach and crediting. At the confluence with Bridgefork Creek, the downstream most
70 linear feet of UT3 will receive restoration level work including realignment to tie the tributary to the
newly restored channel. In stream structures will be installed to addressing the existing headcut. This
reach will be treated for invasive vegetation and livestock will be excluded. Supplemental planting will
occur within the conservation easement along the enhancement II portion of the stream.
6.6.8 UT4
UT4 Reach 1 is proposed for an enhancement II approach. UT4 begins off -site and flows through a
stable, moderately confined valley, through a series of bedrock slides and step pools. Along this section
of reach, work will include invasive species management, debris removal, and minor bank grading. Once
the reach approaches the UT4A confluence, UT4 Reach 2 will transition to a Priority 2 restoration
approach. A permanent culvert crossing will be installed just downstream of the UT4A confluence. UT4
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 32 November 2022

Reach 2 will be built as a C-type channel and will be meandered with an appropriate pattern, dimension,
and profile to the confluence with Bridgefork Creek. The channel grade will be raised subtly and a
floodplain bench will be excavated. Supplamental plantings will/not occur in UT4 Reach 1. [Eric, will
these areas be supplementally planted? It is not indicated on the plan sheets.]. In Reach 2, supplemental
planting will occur upstream of the crossing in areas to establish a full 50-foot buffer. Riparian species
will be planted downstream of the crossing to establish a native buffer.
6.6.9 UT4A
UT4A's flows through a deep, actively eroding gully. The stream will be restored to a B-type channel
with a narrow but natural meander. UT4A's bed will be raised, and a floodplain bench will be established
within the eroded gully. Floodplain pools will be constructed in areas where the valley has widened. A
step pool stormwater conveyance BMP and a series of check dams will be constructed upstream of the
jurisdictional start of UT4A to address the eroded, ephemeral swale and to capture and treat runoff and
flow from the adjacent pasture and terraces. Invasive species will be treated along the reach. Riparian
species will be planted to establish a buffer and supplemental planting will occur in areas with existing
woody vegetation.
6.6.10 UT5
UT5 flows from a small, confined valley before reaching the broad flat floodplain of Bridgefork Creek. An
existing headcut has formed as the channel approaches the mainstem. Upstream of the existing headcut
(UT5 Reach 1) the channel is proposed for invasive treatment and stream preservation. Downstream of
the existing headcut (UT5 Reach 2), the stream will be restored with a new dimension, profile, and
alignment to tie the channel to the new alignment of Bridgefork Creek. An instream structure (riffle) will
be used to stabilize the headcut while increasing in stream habitat
6.6.11 UT6
UT6 will be restored as a Rosgen C4-type stream with slopes ranging from the from 0.3% to 1.8%.
Multiple riffle and pool typical cross sections have been designed within this project reach to suit the
range of channel slopes. A Priority 1 approach will be used for the majority of UT6 with a Priority 1.5
approach implemented at the start of the reach and immediately upstream and downstream of the
Dillon Road culvert to smoothly transition to and from existing elevations. Invasive plant species will be
treated within the easement and supplemental planting will occur throughout.
6.6.12 UT6A
UT6A carries runoff from row crop agricultural fields and as such is expected to receive sediment and
nutrient loads. To address these stream stressors, a step -pool type stormwater BMP will be constructed
immediately above the ephemeral -to -intermittent transition point. Beginning at the outlet of the BMP,
UT6A will be restored as a B4 stream with boulder step -pools to drop grade through the valley and
dissipate energy. Riffle -pool sequences will be constructed in the areas with lower channel slope, mostly
midway down the project reach.
6.7 Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP)
Three stormwater BMPs are proposed for the Site, as depicted in Figure 8 and Figure 9. Runoff from
historically altered terraces and contour plowed drainages have caused severe headcutting and erosion
as surface water drains to the upstream extents of UT4A and UT6A. BMPs 1 and 2, respectively, will be
established within the conservation easement in the existing gullies to capture and treat the drainage
from this area. Step pool stormwater conveyances (SPSCs) will be constructed to stabilize the eroded,
ephemeral channels and to transition from upland areas down to the valley bottoms. BMPs 1 and 2 will
both provide initial volume storage and energy dissipation. BMP 1 will also have a series of check dams
constructed within the valley bottom to help establish a linear wetland complex to aid in runoff
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 33 November 2022

treatment. These series of check dams are expected to slowly accumulate with sediment and
vegetation, transitioning to a vegetated swale over time with no long-term maintenance after
stabilization.
The abandoned UT1 gully will be converted into BMP 3. The existing storm drainage culverts will be
raised and reset to the maximum extent possible, allowing for the gully to be partially filled.
Downstream of the culverts, the left banks will be graded out for a smooth transition into the existing
floodplain and a series of check dams will be installed. The right banks will remain untouched to help
preserve the existing woody vegetation. A series of rock cascades will transition from the check dam into
a retention pond, which will then ultimately drain into UT1. Like BMP 1, the series of check dams is
expected to slowly accumulate with vegetation and sediment transitioning into a vegetated swale over
time. It is also expected that the retention pond will accumulate sediment and vegetation overtime,
creating a vegetative buffer. No long-term maintenance is proposed after stabilization. The majority of
BMP 3 will be located outside of the conservation easement, with only the rock cascade and retention
pond located within the easement.
6.8 Wetland Design
The proposed design includes the re-establishment
of 2.65-acres and the rehabilitation of 0.48-acres of
historically altered wetlands through the
bottomland floodplain of Bridgefork Creek Reach
1b and UT1. Wildlands performed a multilevel
analysis of the proposed wetland area to
holistically understand the ditching, farming, and
anthropogenic effects, current and proposed
hydrologic conditions, and current and potential
hydric soil development in the proposed wetland
areas. Hydric soil investigations, along with site
observations and existing groundwater gauge data,
were used to guide proposed wetland grading and
design.
Area Proposed for Wetland Rehabilitation
6.8.1 Wetland Re-establishment
Relic wetland areas will be re-established on the Site through hydrologic uplift, establishment of
forested wetland plant communities, cattle exclusion, and roughening to promote increased retention
times. Hydrology within proposed wetland re-establishment areas has been altered through agricultural
ditching and increased drainage effects of incised channels at the downstream extent. The existing pond
adjacent to UT1 will be converted to wetlands. Restoration of the adjacent stream channels will
promote increased hydrology and overbank events. Vegetation within wetland re-establishment areas
has been maintained as pasture and grazed by cattle. Increased roughness from vegetation will reduce
surface drainage effects within the wetland and allow for development of facultative herbaceous and
woody species.
6.8.2 Wetland Rehabilitation
Jurisdictionally delineated areas including wetlands C, D, E and K are slated for rehabilitation. Existing
hydrology within these areas will be improved by filling the existing network of drainage ditches and
roughening the surface of these aeras to promote increased retention times. The restoration of existing
incised streams will raise overall water table elevations within the existing wetland areas which will also
improve hydrologic function. Rehabilitation areas which are dominated by herbaceous vegetation and
grasses will be planted with appropriate woody species to establish a forested wetland system. Invasives
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 34 November 2022

will be treated if present. Cattle will also be excluded from all existing wetland areas, eliminating wallow
areas which are currently acting as nutrient and sediment sources for the project receiving waters.
6.8.3 Hydric Soils Investigation
To ensure adequate potential for the development of hydric soils within the proposed wetland
restoration areas, an initial evaluation of Site soils was performed using Natural Resources and
Conservation Services (NRCS) web soil survey online. Soils within the proposed wetland areas are
mapped as Chewacla loam, Grover gravelly sandy loam, and Madison -Bethlehem Complex. Chewacla
loam is typically found on floodplains or at toe of slopes. Typical slopes are between 0 and 2 percent and
the soil unit is frequently flooded and are somewhat poorly drained. Grover gravelly sandy loam is
typically found on hillslopes and ridges with slopes between 15 and 30 percent. The soil unit is typically
rocky and well drained. Madison -Bethlehem Complex is typically found on shoulders and backslopes of
hills with slopes from 8 to 15 percent. The soil complex is very rocky and well drained.
A detailed hydric soils investigation was conducted in March
of 2020 by a licensed soil scientist (LSS) to determine the
extent and depth of hydric soil indicators on site. The results
of the investigations were used to indicate wetland re-
establishment potential and depth of potential overburden
material from the manipulation of site soils for agricultural
purposes. Areas containing hydric soils but lacking a wetland
hydrologic regime were likely functional wetlands prior to
agricultural ditching to alter hydrology. Approximately 41 soil
borings were performed within the study area as part of the
hydric soil investigations. Soils borings were classified as non-
hydric or hydric soils. Areas considered hydric soils contained
hydric soil indicator F3 within the 10" of the current land
surface. Based on the LSS results it was suggested that all
hydric soils observed onsite were likely Wehadkee soil series.
The preliminary hydric soils investigation can be found in
Appendix 5.
6.8.4 Existing Hydrology
Nine groundwater gages were installed throughout the proposed wetland restoration areas to monitor
the existing hydrology of each location (Figure 2). Data was collected from March 20th to September 9tn
2021. Per the Gaston County WETS Table (data from 1970 to 2000) the growing season for a 50%
probability that soil temperature will be above 28° F is defined as March 29th to November 2"d. Based on
Wildlands recent experience monitoring soil temperature at nearby locations, soil temperatures are
greater than 28' F as early or earlier than March 1 and as late or later than November 301h in Cleveland
County. To evaluate the existing gage data preconstruction, the growing season within the included
Gage Plots, is defined as 3/29 to 11/2. Gages 8 and 9 were not considered suitable for uplift and were
removed from the wetland crediting areas. Gages 1 through 7 are in areas of proposed wetland re-
establishment. Only wells 2 and 5 had the groundwater within the top 12 inches for at least a day; gage
2 had shallow groundwater for three days, and gage 5 for 18 days. Generally, the existing gage data
shows hydrology within wetland re-establishment areas lacks adequate inundation to provide wetland
conditions and that proposed wetland areas have seen major drainage effects from adjacent incised
channels. Hydrographs and a wetland performance summary table are presented in Appendix 5.
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 35 November 2022

6.8.5 Wetland Grading
Grading within proposed wetland restoration areas is focused on restoring stream and floodplain
connectivity and restoring a natural flooding regime. Detailed wetland grading plans are included in
Section 3.0 of the provided plans in Appendix 13.
Wetland Area 1(areas A, B, and C) has very minimal grading, most of which is related to stream
restoration along Bridgefork Creek Reach 1. Two existing agricultural ditches which currently drain
Wetland Area 1C, will be filled as part of the grading, material to fill these ditches will be generated from
stream restoration grading along Bridgefork Creek. Like Wetland Area 1, Wetland Area 3(A and B) have
very minor grading, specifically related to the stream restoration. As show in the plan and profile design
included within the plans, Bridgefork Creek Reach 1's bed elevation is increasing approximately 2 or
more feet throughout the profile. Grading within these adjacent floodplain wetlands is intended to
accommodate the increased channel elevation while reconnecting the stream and floodplains.
Grading within Wetland Area 2(A and B) is necessary to remove the existing pond. Majority of Wetland
Area 2 is being filled to decommission the existing farm pond and return the valley landscape to a
natural shape. Fill material within the old pond will be capped with potentially or active hydric soils if
available from on -site grading. Wetland Area 4(A and B) will receive the most grading. At this location,
Bridgefork Creek Reach 1 ties down to Bridgefork Creek Reach 2 with a priority 2 transition zone which
requires cutting a floodplain bench. Soils within Wetland Area 4 were found to be hydric at or near the
surface, and grading proposed within the wetland is not related to overburden removal. The bench was
maximized laterally to include the wetland area because it is the best solution when considering both
stream access to the floodplain, current and future hydrologic conditions, and overall project function.
6.8.6 Reference Wetland
Wildlands' current Owl's Den Mitigation Site project is located approximately 17 aerial miles from the
proposed Site. There is currently an onsite reference wetland within a forested area upstream of the
project tributaries. The area is a mature Piedmont Bottomland Forest that is located within the
floodplain of a small tributary and within the larger floodplain of Howard's Creek. The hydrology of this
system is intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded. The reference area has not been disturbed
by clearing or ditching and was not altered during the mitigation work. Mature vegetation including
woody species exist within the reference wetland. The soils within the Owl's Den reference are mapped
as Chewacla. The vegetation at the reference site was used as a basis to develop the planting plan for
the wetland restoration on the Site. A groundwater monitoring gauge was also installed on the
reference site to document the reference wetland hydrology. Reference gauge data is included in
Appendix 5. In the future, this information will be used to provide a comparison for the re-established
and rehabilitated wetland hydrology throughout the monitoring period.
6.9 Vegetation, Planting Plan, and Land Management
Non -forested areas within the conservation easement will be planted, including additional buffer areas
beyond the minimum requirement of 50 feet from top of bank. Riparian buffers will be planted with
native vegetation chosen to develop a forested riparian zone. The specific species composition was
selected based on the community type, observation of occurrence of species in riparian buffers adjacent
to the Site, and best professional judgement on species establishment and anticipated Site conditions in
the early years following project implementation. The current natural community types that exist on site
include Piedmont Alluvial Forest and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest communities, identified by
Wildlands Engineering staff using the Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth
Approximation (Schafale, 2012). These community types were used as models in species selections for
the planting plan, and species chosen are listed on Table 28 below and on Sheet 3.0.0 of the Preliminary
Plans located in Appendix 13.
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 36 November 2022

The riparian buffers will be planted with bare root seedlings. Streambanks will be planted with live
stakes, and the channel toe will be planted with multiple herbaceous species. Permanent herbaceous
seed will be spread on streambanks, floodplain areas, and wetlands including all disturbed areas within
the project easement.
Upon grading completion, the project floodplains will be prepared for seeding and planting by applying
stockpiled topsoil between bankfull elevations of the streams and the grading limits. To help ensure tree
growth and survival, soil tests will be performed in areas of cut and in the area of the existing pond
bottom on UT1. Fertilizer and lime will be applied based on the results. All haul roads and other areas of
compacted soil within the easement boundary will be ripped prior to planting.
Invasive species within the conservation easement will be treated using a combination of techniques.
Existing invasive plant populations on the site include Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle, English ivy
(Hedera helix), kudzu (Pueraria montana), marsh dewflower (Murdannia keisak), multiflora rose, tree of
heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Bradford pear (Pyrus calleryana), autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellate),
periwinkle (Vinca sp.), and fescue. Some invasive species along restoration and enhancement reaches
will be treated pre -construction, while others will be treated by mechanical removal during
construction. Murdannia cannot be treated in dormant season but will primarily be treated in -stream
and where it is threatening woody vegetation. During construction treatment will include privet and
invasive vines, both mechanical removal and cut stump by contractors. A discussion of invasive
treatments which occurred during construction will be included in the MYO Report.
The extent of invasive species coverage will be monitored, mapped, and controlled as necessary
throughout the required monitoring period. Please refer to Appendix 8 for the post -construction
invasive species plan. Additional monitoring and maintenance issues regarding vegetation are in
Sections 8 and 9 and Appendix 10.
6.10 Project Risk and Uncertainties
In general, this project is low risk. The land surrounding the project is currently being utilized as an
active cattle farm and horse pasture. Following construction, livestock will be precluded from accessing
the conservation easement. There are seven internal breaks in the easement designated for agricultural
crossings and/or utility easements. Within the seven internal crossings, there will be a total of three
fords and two culverts. Details of these ford and culvert crossings is included within the design plans
provided in Appendix 13. There will be an external crossing where UT6 passes through an existing
culvert under Dillon Road.
There is low risk of hydraulic trespass from the project due to the current and designed slopes of the
project channels. This project has a high risk of sedimentation due to the sandy floodplain soils and off -
site sediment sources. Sediment transport has been analyzed and streams are expected to be
competent to move the existing bedload over time. Valley slope transitions can naturally function as
aggradational areas. Existing fine sediment sources, including stream bank erosion and farm runoff, will
be reduced through stream bank repair and BMP installation, reducing the risk of aggradation in these
valley transitions. There is a slight risk residential development could occur within the project
watershed, altering the hydrology. If development does occur, more frequent bankfull and out -of -bank
events may occur as a result. The risks associated with increased flood frequencies will be mitigated by
the reconnected project floodplains. Reconnected floodplains will limit the about of potential shear
stress on project streams by reducing channel flood stages, relative to existing conditions.
There is potential for utility line maintenance where the lines cross the easement on Bridgefork Creek
and UT1. No poles are located within the conservation easement, so anticipated impacts are limited to
vegetation maintenance, and these areas were excluded from mitigation crediting. Should
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 37 November 2022

utility/roadway maintenance work occur in the future and encroach within the conservation easement,
Wildlands will follow the Maintenance Plan to repair disturbed signage or damaged stream areas.
To help prevent potential encroachment the conservation easement will be marked according to the
Boundary Marking Requirements outlined in the DMS Protection Mechanism Guidance and Deliverables
dated April 5, 2022. Fence posts will be used as witness posts for conservation easement signage where
possible.
There is potential pine and/or sweet gum colonization due to previously timbered adjacent areas. This is
low risk and should colonization begin to occur, Wildlands will follow the Maintenance Plan (Appendix
10) to address the issue.
All stream and wetland projects have some risk for beaver colonization. There is evidence of current or
past beaver activity on the downstream extent of Bridgefork Creek within the project limits. If beaver
move into the project areas, Wildlands will follow the Maintenance Plan (Appendix 10) to address the
issue.
7.0 Performance Standards
The stream and wetland performance standards for the project will follow approved performance
standards presented in the DMS Mitigation Plan Template (Version 2.3, June 2017), the Annual
Monitoring Template (June 2017), and the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update issued October 2016 by the USACE and NCIRT. Annual monitoring and routine site
visits will be conducted by a qualified scientist to assess the condition of the finished project. Specific
performance standards that apply to this project are those described in the 2016 Compensatory
Mitigation Update including Vegetation (Section V, B, Items 1 through 3), Stream Channel Stability and
Stream Hydrology Performance Standards (Section VI, B, Items 1 through 7), and Wetland Performance
Standards (Section IX, A through C, and Q. Performance standards are summaries in Table 28.
Table 28: Summary of Performance Standards
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Performance Standard
STREAM SPECIFIC PERFOMANCE STANDARDS1,z
BHR <1.2 for all channel types; ER >2.2 for C channels and ER>1.4
Dimension
Cross Section Survey
- - -
for B channels.
Substrate, Pattern
Visual Assessment
Should indicate stream stability; coarser material in riffles; finer
and Profile
particles in pools
Hydrology
Pressure Transducer
Four bankfull events during the 7-year period, in separate years;
30 days of consecutive flow on restored intermittent streams.
WETLAND SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground surface
for a minimum of 11% (29 consecutive days) of the growing
season under normal precipitation conditions. In accordance
with the Wilmington 2016 Guidance, soil probe temperature
data and documentation of new vegetative growth and
Hydrology
Pressure Transducer
flowering was used to determine an appropriate growing
season. Based on the documentation provided within Appendix
4, the growing season for the site is proposed as 3/1 to 11/20
(264 days).
k Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 38 November 2022

Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Performance Standard
SITE PERFOMANCE STANDARDS
MY3 success criteria: 320 planted stems per acre,
MY5 success criteria: 260 planted stems per acre, average of 7
feet in height in each plot within Riparian Planting Zones and
Partially Vegetated Planting Zones or 4 feet in height in Wetland
Vegetation
Vegetation Plots
Planting Zones as identified in Figure 10.
MY7 success criteria: 210 planted stems per acre, average of 10
feet in height in each plot within Riparian Planting Zones, Partially
Vegetated Planting Zones, or Wetland
Planting Zones as identified in Figure 10.
Cross section Photos
Should illustrate vegetative and morphological stability. Grade
Photo
Photo Points
control structures and banks should be stable; persistent mid -
Documentation
Wetland Gage Photos
channel bars with vertical or channel incision should be absent.
Visual Assessment
CCPV
Signs of encroachment, instability, invasive species
BHR = bank height ratio, ER = entrenchment ratio
2: The tributaries are designed to incise as they approach the main streams, so this would not be considered a
trend towards instability. Riffles may fine over the course of monitoring due to contributing watershed sediment
sources.
3: Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
4: Vegetation performance will be evaluated in the open planting areas.
8.0 Monitoring Plan
Project monitoring components are listed in Table 29. Approximate locations of the proposed vegetation
plots and cross section locations are illustrated in Figure 10.
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 39 November 2022

Table 29: Monitoring Components - Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
Quantity/Length by Reach
Monitoring
BFC
BFC
BFC
BFC
UT1
UT1
UT2
UT3
UT4
UT4
UT4A
UTS
UT6
UT6A
Frequency
Notes
Parameter
Feature
R1a
R1b
R2
R3
R1
R2
R1
R2
Riffle Cross-
N/A
3
N/A
3
1
1
1
N/A
1
1
1
N/A
2
1
sections
Year 1, 2, 3,
Dimension
Pool Cross-
N/A
2
N/A
2
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
N/A
2
N/A
5, and 7
1
sections
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Profile
Longitudinal
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
profile
Crest Gage
Stream Hydrology
(CG) and/or
N/A
1
N/A
1
1 SG
1 CG
N/A
1 SG
N/A
N/A
1 SG
1 SG
1 CG
1 SG
Semi -Annual
3
Transducer
CG
CG
1 CG
(SG)
Wetland Hydrology
Groundwater
9 GWG
Semi -Annual
-
Gage (GWG)
Shiny
Vegetation
App/Mobile
22 Total (12 Permanent, 10 Mobile)
Year 1, 2, 3,
4
5, and 7
Plots
Visual Assessment
Y
Semi -Annual
-
Exotic and nuisance
Semi -Annual
5
vegetation
Project Boundary
Semi -Annual
6
Ref Photos
Photographs
39
Annual
-
1. Cross -sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and
thalweg.
2. Substrate, pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile will be collected during as -built baseline monitoring survey only, unless observations
indicate widespread lack of vertical stability (greater than 10% of reach is affected) and profile survey is warranted in additional years to monitor adjustments or survey repair work.
3. Pressure transducers will be used to measure bankfull events and stream flow. Crest gages (CG) refer to bankfull events, stream gages (SG) refer to stream flow documentation. Transducers
will be inspected quarterly or semi-annually, evidence of bankfull events will be documented with a photo when possible. Transducers will be set to record stage once every 2 to 4 hours based
on the reported data. The transducer will be inspected and downloaded semi-annually.
4. Both mobile and permanent vegetation plots will be utilized to evaluate the vegetation performance for the open areas planted. 2% of the open planted acreage will be monitored with
permanent plots and mobile plots. Permanent vegetation and mobile vegetation monitoring plot assessments will follow the 2016 NC IRT Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation update to document number of planted stems and species using a circular or 100 m2 square/rectangular plot. Planted shaded areas will be visually assessed. Number
indicates total number of plots for the entire site.
5. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped
6. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 40 November 2022

9.0 Long -Term Management Plan
The Site will be transferred to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for
the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation easement are upheld. Funding will be supplied by the responsible party on a yearly basis
until such time an endowment is established. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program is developing an
endowment system within the non -reverting, interest -bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Fund
Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account will be governed by North Carolina General
Statue GS 113A-232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used for the purpose of
stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable.
The Stewardship Program will periodically install signage as needed to identify boundary markings. Any
livestock or associated fencing or permanent crossings will be the responsibility of the owner of the
underlying fee to maintain.
The Site Protection Instrument can be found in Appendix 9.
Table 30: Long-term Management Plan
Long -Term Management Activity
Long -Term Manager Responsibility
Landowner Responsibility
The landowner shall report
damaged or missing signs to the
The long-term steward will be
long-term manager, as well as
n will installed and
responsible for inspecting the Site
contact the long-term manager if
m ainttaiai ned all ong the Site
m
boundary during periodic inspections
a boundary needs to be marked,
boundary to denote the area
(every one to three years) and for
or clarification is needed
protected by the recorded
maintaining or replacing signage to
regarding a boundary location. If
ensure that the conservation
land use changes in future and
conservation easement.
easement area is clearly marked.
fencing is required to protect the
easement, the landowner is
responsible for installing
appropriate approved fencing.
The long-term manager will be
responsible for conducting periodic
inspections (every one to three years)
and for undertaking actions that are
The landowner shall contact the
The Site will be protected in its
reasonably calculated to swiftly
long-term manager if clarification
entirety and managed under the
correct the conditions constituting a
is needed regarding the
terms outlined in the recorded
breach. The USACE, and their
restrictions associated with the
conservation easement.
authorized agents, shall have the right
recorded conservation easement.
to enter and inspect the Site and to
take actions necessary to verify
compliance with the conservation
easement.
10.0 Adaptive Management Plan
Upon completion of Site construction, Wildlands will implement the post -construction monitoring
defined in Sections 8 and 9. Project maintenance will be performed during the monitoring years to
address minor issues as necessary (Appendix 10). If during annual monitoring it is determined the Site's
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 41 November 2022

ability to achieve Site performance standards are jeopardized in any other way, Wildlands and DMS will
notify the members of the IRT and work with the IRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.
11.0 Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 31 are projections based upon the proposed design.
The credit ratios proposed for the Site have been developed in consultation with the Interagency Review
Team (IRT) as summarized in the IRT contracting meeting minutes approved February 6, 2021. This
correspondence is included in Appendix 7.
1. The requested stream restoration credit ratio is 1:1 for mitigation activities that include
reconstruction of the channels to a stable form and connection of the channels to the adjacent
floodplain.
2. The entire restored length of UT1 (Reach 1 and Reach 2) is proposed for restoration at a 1:1
ratio. No credit is sought for BMP3, but extensive work will be done to the altered drainage to
promote stability and stop active erosion. Based on landowner discussions, livestock will be
excluded from the BMP.
3. The requested enhancement II credit ratio is 2.5:1 for mitigation activities that include cattle
exclusion (Bridgefork Creek Reach 1a, UT3), invasive species treatment (all enhancement II
reaches, debris removal (UT4 Reach 1) and minor bank grading (UT4 Reach 1, Bridgefork Creek
Reach 2).
4. The requested wetland re-establishment credit ratio is 1:1 for areas that are currently not
jurisdictional wetland but will be restored to functioning riparian wetland systems. This includes
Wetland 2A which is currently an open water pond which will be restored to riparian wetland.
5. Stream preservation is proposed at 10:1 credit ratio for UT5 Reach 1. UT5 Reach 2 is proposed
for restoration at a 1:1 ratio based on IRT discussions outlined in the meeting minutes approved
February 6, 2021.
6. No credit is sought for the upstream extent of UT3 where no buffer is available along the left
bank.
7. No direct credit is sought for the BMPs, but BMP installation was considered when setting the
mitigation ratios.
Buffers proposed throughout the Site meet the minimum required 50-foot standard width for piedmont
streams.
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 42 November 2022

Table 31: Project Asset Table
Project Segment
Mitigation
Plan (Ft/Ac)
Mitigation
Category
Restoration
Level
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
Credits
Stream
Bridgefork Creek Reach 1A
239.460
Warm
Ell
2.500
95.784
Bridgefork Creek Reach 1B
2252.600
Warm
R
1.000
2,252.600
Bridgefork Creek Reach 2
1441.290
Warm
Ell
2.500
576.516
Bridgefork Creek Reach 3
2499.000
Warm
R
1.000
21499.000
UT1 Reach 1
749.180
Warm
R
1.000
749.180
UT1 Reach 2
329.600
Warm
R
1.000
329.600
UT2
198.380
Warm
R
1.000
198.380
UT3
191.430
Warm
Ell
2.500
76.572
UT4 Reach 1
1148.300
Warm
Ell
2.500
459.320
UT4 Reach 2
279.360
Warm
R
1.000
279.360
UT4A
844.010
Warm
R
1.000
844.010
UT5 Reach 1
117.580
Warm
P
10.000
11.758
UT5 Reach 2
31.160
Warm
R
1.000
31.160
UT6
2100.750
Warm
R
1.000
2,100.750
UT6A
322.400
Warm
R
1.000
322.400
10,826.390
Wetland
Wetland 1A
0.834
R
REE
1.00000
0.834
Wetland 1B
0.393
R
REE
1.00000
0.393
Wetland 1C
0.175
R
RH
1.50000
0.117
Wetland 2A
0.309
R
REE
1.00000
0.309
Wetland 2B
0.045
E
E
2.50000
0.018
Wetland 3A
0.408
R
REE
1.00000
0.408
Wetland 3B
0.239
R
RH
1.50000
0.159
Wetland 4A
0.645
R
REE
1.00000
0.645
Wetland 4B
0.025
R
RH
1.50000
0.017
Total:
2.900
Project Credits
Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian
Non -Rip
Coastal
Warm
Cool
Cold
Wetland
Wetland
Marsh
Restoration
9,606.440
Re -Establishment
2.589
Rehabilitation
0.293
Enhancement
0.018
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
1,208.192
Creation
Preservation
11.758
Totals 10,826.390 2.900
Total Stream Credit 10,826.390
Total Wetland Credit 2.900
Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 43 November 2022

12.0 References
Andrews, E.D. 1980. Bed -material entrainment and hydraulic geometry of gravel -bed rivers in Colorado.
Geological Society of America Bulletin 95: 371-378.
Cleveland County, North Carolina. 2021. Draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Harman, W.H. et. al. 2000. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams. NC Mountain
Curve. Proc. AWRA Conf. Water Resources in Extreme Environments, Anchorage, AK. Pp. 185-190.
Hosking, J.R.M., and J.R. Wallis. 1993. Some Statistics Useful in Regional Frequency Analysis. Water
Resources Research, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp 271-281.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2011. Web Soil Survey.
http://websoiIsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2009. Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities
(RBRP), accessed at: https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-
planning/watershed-planning-documents/broad-river-basin-documents
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) 2008 Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
(RBWQP), accessed at: https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-planning/basin-
planning/river-basin-plans/broad-river-basin#broad-river-cycle-3---iuly-2008
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina 1:500,000 scale.
Compiled by Philip M. Brown at el. Raleigh, INC, NCGS.
https.11ncdenr. maps. arcpis. com/appsIMapSeries/index. htm/?appid=a8281 cbd24b84239b29cd2ca79
8d4a10
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 2015. The Terranes and Major Geologic Elements of North
Carolina.
https.11ncdenr. maps. arcpis. com/appsIMapSeries/index. htm/?appid=Oa7ccd9394734ff6aa2434d252
8dd 12
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2009. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database,
Gates County, NC.
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC), 2015. North Carolina Wildlife Actin Plan.
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal
Interagency Sediment Conference, Reno, NV, March 2001.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Fourth Approximation. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11-26.
Shields, A. 1936. Application of similarity principles and turbulence research to bedload movement. Mit.
Preuss. Verchsanst., Berlin. Wasserbau Schiffbau. In W.P Ott and J.C. Uchelen (translators),
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. Report No. 167: 43 pp.
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 44 November 2022

Sweet, W.V. and Geratz, J.W. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Recurrence Intervals
for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 39(4):861-
871.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Regulatory Division and North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2005. Information
Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2020. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal
Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Gates County, NC.
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/Gates.html
Weaver, J.C., Feaster, T.D., and Gotvald, A.J., 2009, Magnitude and frequency of rural floods in the
Southeastern United States, through 2006—Volume 2, North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5158, 111 p.
W Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site FINAL Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100171 Page 45 November 2022

FIGURES

• ,� -� Buffalo�Creek
(Kings Mountain `iZe' eNoir)
1:......1 .....
... .........
:::#0-
Bas
• 03050105
Bro.
. '_ Riv
' City of Kings Mc
Kings Mount
' RReeservoh
Shelby Ii Project Locatioi
yFork . (Catchment ID 1203d
G
Cleveland County Al
Open Space
03050105100030 a Cleveland County
Gt Open Space
IV
� a
03050102050020 -
�� - Ca•awba
/ •........
• :City of Bessemer -City • :::::: �¢,�'
:' : ' .Open Space.. '�' • ...... V
. . . . . . . . . .v��
03050102070020
Ormand Furnace (Washington'Furna(10)
(Sloan's Furnace) - -
:Westknd. •Be�jfterCity
03050105100/020 , Historic'Di"strict' ` ` • ` • • ' ' _�
f central School !�� ,.. .
/ Davidson Elementary •\Historic•District• t
City of King
School `•� Mountain
Open Space
f/f i OS •,� CityAof Kings
J ; Mountain
�i + Open Space
City of Kings j��C ; US
-
Mountain /Et
Open Space ek
US-74 B _ _ US-74 BUKings Mountain Gastonia
!City of Kings
�. Mountain
City of Kings united states Glee Open Space
Mountain Post Office J iGJ
Open Space d6 ,
OS1 030501011800i�
co
Jacob S. Mauney o
Vlill Village ,
District City of Kings Memorial Library
Mountain and Teacher's
Space
Open S Home
P P Crowders Mountain
State Park
O O Gastonia
0
w�clo
-....�� oranch` F .tia I Ir
0 Project Location Water Quality TRA NC Natural Heritage Program Managed Areas
L j Five Mile Radius Habitat TRA Local Watershed Plan
County Line Hydrology TRA 303d Listed Streams
Municipalities 0 Water Supply Watershed
River Basin 0 NC Historic Preservation Areas
L,_,; Hydrologic Unit Code (14-Digit) Significant Natural Heritage Areas
WILDLANDS 0 0.75 1.5Miles
ktww ENGINEERING I I I I I
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
Broad River Basin 03050105
Cleveland County, NC

Figure 2 Site Map
W I L D L A N D S Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
ktrw ENGINEERING 0 400 800 Feet
Broad River Basin 03050105
1 1 1 1 1 t Cleveland County, NC

Project Parcels i
Proposed Conservation Easement i
i
f
i
/ •
` W
J ■
� r
■� t
i •
;
ram` z �`- � ■ � � • •
f'
. • • R
i
cop
Waco, NC USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle
►' WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 400 800 Feet
I I I I I
Figure 3 USGS Topographic Map
Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
Broad River Basin 03050105
Cleveland County, NC

4 Acres
"i"
771
Of
Watershed
LL Subwatersheds
"' •# �� .,� - .• � y • r '" .- Project Streams
��..-+�� i %:.- ''ems• ' �• !'? � -
" Non -Project Stream
Topographic Contours (4')
UT6 ,
316 Acres
205 Acres UT4Ap,
95 Acres
UT6A 4 ^.
16 Acres "
i �f1Bridgefbmpr
` ''�` ■
Bridgefork Creek
UT 1
17 Acres
�.
UT3a 16 Acres
r.' i'lf •� �• r
2 cresAil
7`
1"001.6yal 11.4M
`r' �y • � 1 '�,y'r J
Figure 4 Watershed Map
W I L D L A N D S Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
ktww E N G I N E E R I N G 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Broad River Basin 03050105
1 1 1 1 1 t Cleveland County, NC

A*
y 1�
HtC
O I
HtC
rD
GrD
lie
WILDLANDS
ftAj
ENGINEERING
Project Parcels
�- - Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Pond
Project Streams
HtC Non -Project Streams
Soils
ChA - Chewacla Loam, 0-2% Slopes, Frequently Flooded
GrD - Grover Gravelly Sandy Loam, 15-30 % Slopes, Rocky
HtC - Hulett Gravelly Sandy Loam, 8-15% Slopes, Stony
McC2 - Madison -Bethlehem Complex, 8-15% Slopes, Very Stony, Moderately Eroded
HtC
HtC
HtC
y �
" .0 :_'
HtV.
•�+� '� � � _ A ,� : .�� :#'Grp,
McC2 ' .f
GrD
;, ■ eR ► GrD HtC
E
GrD
-'� �. -. w , • �' -'Gr
's�
P-
HtC
y E=<4GrD
t
HtC 5
Figure 5 Soils Map
0 400 800 Feet Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
����� Broad River Basin 03050105
Cleveland County, NC

•3370N laasPZ I'•ItAir:
$ �'f:.t" �p rrch.,+r 91 ve.
Piolt Mountain
_ stone
Tributary _78h Pa+,P,cv. May"7".. Y.trtceyville
Slate Park _ t�.'
on
Thurmond �c
9 1111
.� f eid• +ille
1078 31t
52
Timber - `-
Tributary
yi{I SurrY _ Stokes
Boone Lid 11ttl1 -ri. - Yadkin F rs th Ftockrnghan!
_. "-- Ir❑ Y kesd o y09N
Jon vile ural Hall
F " •- �. crack Deep Creek n Sum ina ield 0
pry [;!� Cricket win�ceo Mitigation Site OakRld a Cake °c"1°°`hr
- RKkr . `P a21- 9 Townsend 2°•; Sapont Sdisa
tee' ❑,, Ain aY Wilkes b or -
• � 'r 5:a�.lf i.r.i6ni.rll•'
rho C. St
4r Lewisville ale
a. „5 !wlington h'lebane
8 R U 5 Fr Y Id D V H 7 Af 14 $ .;gam '• Lam' - v =_
I._ ensboro
- E
. CI om
rr Oak
_ '50 ft No1ro�r
• �s:BS 7r .,r ��'C'.e Foust
Upstream
n uilforq
r I o" tio,rsr mow. r — Ile
Jr L .So asviile 0'
i21 berry
UT to Catawba
L on
River Reach 2
fir°/, 37tt
Lake fvlo union
James
on
�k,,,rr{�`A are•„
d119r1
�aa
Box Creek,,,r
Mainstem
Maiden 1
y call 6 L e Nomar}
1`J 3f
1. me n
�p c
c
'3 'C
m
Ron �•
Spi .-
sl City
UT to Sandy Run
v
Lp
a� tfi
`rn
-
C!,,,y;iilla c�
5t Slx ley
Bridgefork Dairy
Mitigation Site
B1
Holly
S1 IbS'W.
la �i' n .ii Lute
�a 1092 h
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Ville
7h,r7 r=ru�a ?U7 e! t03 = � � 154ft Y Gy n R+rn.
0 Asheb o
1176 2
l�tooresvile ��`y t
f/ a C+r9Ye O7
2
d + 5
rung
896 ft Kann olis52 c cabafr`
us 9s6f C
rnelius q yayR
R
G ;7
urdersville Concord_
Q � �
ja lrbriow '
Nburilaln Uwharris
bemarle StalaPork FNaUmal FOY cot
Lacii z+ 2
.harlotte
i
City
Project Location
I
Reference Sites
Figure 6 Reference Reach Map
Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
0 10 20 Miles Broad River Basin 03050105
I I I i I
Cleveland County, NC

Alan Walker NC Rural Mountain & Piedmont Curve: Bankfull Discharge
10000
1000
JP
100
c�
U
o
'
y = 55.699xo.7855
10
RI = 0.9733
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Drainage Area (square miles)
♦ Rural Piedmont Data — — — Rural Upper 95% Limit
— — — Rural Lower 95% Limit • Alan Walker Mountain & Piedmont Curve
• Qmax - Existing Site Streams ■ Surveyed Gage Sites
♦ Wildlands Regional Flood Frequency 1.2-yr Predictions ■ Wildlands Regional Flood Frequency 1.5-yr Predictions
♦ Possible Reference Reaches x Select Reference Reaches for Curve
+ Weighted Design Discharges ♦ Final Design Discharges
■ Surveyed Project Reaches (Manning's Eqn.) Power (Rural Piedmont Data)
Power (Alan Walker Mountain & Piedmont Curve) Power (Select Reference Reaches for Curve)

s :^ tic - tti- +.'i,
i
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
i► mA-2ff
Project Parcels Proposed Stream Restoration
Proposed Conservation Easement Proposed Stream Enhancement II
® Proposed Wetland Re -Establishment Proposed Stream Preservation
Proposed Wetland Rehabiliation Proposed Stream Preservation - No Credit
-r Proposed Wetland Enhancement Proposed Stormwater BMP
Existing Wetlands - No Credit No Credit
Internal Crossings Non -Project Streams
Kings Mountain Water Easement Topographic Contours (4')
] Existing Overhead Utility Easement OO Reach Breaks
.• "ram ,. � p rti..
op 1#0
r-
is •� �.. ... �
7
1
Wetland Area Wetland Area /
as �A
� Wetland Area �
00
Reach 1 b
A` G�7
Figure 8 Concept Design Map
Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
0 400 800 Feet Broad River Basin 03050105
1 1 1 1 1 t Cleveland County, NC

'a, 44W
_ Project Parcels Proposed Stream Restoration ,
-_-� Proposed Conservation Easement Proposed Stream Enhancement II
% ® Proposed Wetland Re-establishment Proposed Stream Preservation
Proposed Wetland Rehabilitation Proposed Stream Preservation - No Credit
Proposed Wetland Enhancement Proposed Stormwater BMP
Existing Wetlands - No Credit No Credit
;f /• 0 Internal Crossings Non -Project Streams
t
`►� • r+• � / Kings Mountain Water Easement Reach Breaks
Existing Overhead Utility Easement Elevation (feet)
High : 900
- Low: 775 -ter -
■
► i -
' `
► G2rAa
1 1 /
■ !�.•� 5 t� GAB • ; �' Wetland
7 � � i
' ����.■� �\ + ti Wetland Area
1B 41r
� ► • Wetland Area
` \ , Wetland Area Wetland Area r : GAB Wetland Area G9
4B 1A
Wetland Area -
`,` ` , _�,■ as 3 •Y ��, • - - ��'` �� �_,_�` .�
�` ti Gtm Wetland Area
3A
1 Wetland Area \
`.. - r 3B
1b
ktWILDLANDS
wv ENGINEERING
Figure 9 Concept Design Map with LiDAR
Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
0 400 800 Feet Broad River Basin 03050105
1 1 1 1 1 t Cleveland County, NC

0
49
IV 4#41
lie
•e
it
*VWILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Project Parcels
jProposed Conservation Easement
® Proposed Wetland Re -Establishment
Proposed Wetland Rehabiliation
Proposed Wetland Enhancement
J Existing Wetlands - No Credit
OInternal Crossings
L J Kings Mountain Water Easement
Existing Overhead Utility Easement
\ Open Planting Zone
la1 C.►3L� O
0 `
El
c — 1
� Wetland Are
0 4B
Wet.
Q�1
Wetland Area
_ 3B
= Wetland Planting Zone
rr Supplimental Planting Zone
Proposed Stream Restoration
Proposed Stream Enhancement II
Proposed Stream Preservation
Proposed Stream Preservation - No Credit
Proposed Stormwater BMP
No Credit
Non -Project Streams
Q Reach Breaks
Monitoring Components
Permanent Vegetation Plot
OMobile Vegetation Plots
Cross -Section
Barotroll
Ground Water Gage
Crest Gage
Stream Gage
Photo Point
I r W..� • L � S
.� O-f
r
T �.
oloo
/ 0
%74
Figure 10 Monitoring Components Map
Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
0 400 800 Feet Broad River Basin 03050105
1 1 1 1 1 t Cleveland County, NC

APPENDIX 1— Historic Aerial Photos

p
e "
y
. NN
1 � •r
16x f- It
7 p r. .
•
m
INOUIRY #: 5986708.5 /�
YEAR: 2016 1 00
= 500' EDR

.
- T-A US
I
•\: � } / -\ 2� �
i

r
4si-
. a
1 1 •� 4 ti

i
INQU4RY #: 5986708.5 /�
�j Jr ,
YEAR: 1983 -
= 500' EDR
i

-
�^'-' .5+ ,..fig` �. . �' •'
-- `.. �.... .: ate'.. •: -..�._._.. _
;.: t 4'
:. .
:u T-
•W
v
#NQUIRY k 5986708.5
YEAR• � � y`��'A �'` .` _ �o
1964
= 500' FOR

4

INQU4RY #: 5986708.5 N
YEAR: 1950
= 500' CEDR
Mak

APPENDIX 2 — Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2020-01962 County: Cleveland U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -Waco
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Requestor: NC DEO Division of Mitigation Services
Matthew Reid
Address: 5 RavencroftDr. Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone Number: [phone]
E-mail: Matthew.reidnncdenr.gov
Size (acres) 80 Nearest Town Kings Mountain
Nearest Waterway Potts Creek RiverBasin Santee
USGS HUC 03050105 Coordinates Latitude:35.259583
Longitude:-81.390695
Location description: Property is located at 125 Dillion Road, Kings Mountain, Cleveland County, North Carolina. PINW:
2585885323,2585595279,2585495005,2585675964,2585878557,2586812597,2585584130,2585487530,2585670580,
2585777748
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
® There appearto be waters onthe above described project area/property, that maybe subjectto Section 404 ofthe Clean Water
Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 ofthe Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (3 3 USC § 403). The waters have been
delineated, and the delineation has been verifiedby theCorps to be sufficiently accurate andreliable. The approximate boundaries
of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated 10/14/2021. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction
determination maybe usedin the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory mitigation. Forpurposes of
computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made
on the basis of apreliminary JDwill treat allwaters andwetlands that would be affectedin anywayby thepermitted activity on
the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not anappealable actionunderthe
Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, youmay request anapproved JD,
which is an appealable action, by contactingthe Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appearto be waters onthe above described project area/property, that maybe subjectto Section 404 ofthe Clean Water
Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 ofthe Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (3 3 USC § 403). However, since the waters
have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be used in the permit evaluation process.
Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determinationis merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA
jurisdiction over allof the waters at the project area, which is not sufficiently accurate andreliable to support an enforceable
permit decision. We recommendthat you have the waters on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able
to accomplish thiswetland delineationin a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultantto conduct a delineation that can
be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters ofthe United States within the above describedproject area/property subjectto the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers andHarbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 ofthe Clean WaterAct
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination maybe relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are waterson the above describedproject area/property subjectto thepermit requirements of Section 404 ofthe Clean
Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination maybe
relied upon for a periodnotto exceedfiveyears fromthe date ofthis notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps maynotbe able to accomplish
this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by
the Corps.
❑ The waters on yourproject area/property have been delineated and the delineation has beenverifiedby theCorps. The
approximate boundaries of these waters are shown onthe enclosed delineationmap datedDATE. We strongly suggest youhave

SAW-2020-01962
this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey
will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWAjurisdiction on yourproperty which, provided there is no change in
the law or our published regulations, maybe relied upon fora period not to exceed five years.
❑ The waters have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on theplat signed by the Corps Regulatory Official
identified below onDATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our pub fished regulations, this determination maybe relied
upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above describedproject area/property which are subjectto the
permit requirements of Section404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination maybe relied upon fora period not to exceed five years from the date ofthis notification.
❑ The property is located in one ofthe 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA).
You should contactthe Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department ofthe Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 3 01 of the CleanWaterAct (3 3 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placementof structures, or work within navigable waters ofthe United States without a Department of the Armypermit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers andHarbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Kr s1ynkaBStygarat252-545-0507or
kr�stynka.b.stygarkmsace.a rmy.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Based on information submitted by the applicant and available to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the project area exhibits criteria for waters of the U.S. as defined in 33
CFR 328, Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-05, and the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual, and/or
Regional supplement to the 1987 Manual: Eastern Piedmont and Mountains v2.0 See the preliminary
.jurisdictional determination form dated 10/14/2021.
D. Remarks: See attached Delineation Map entitled, "BridgeforkDairyMitigation Site" 10/1412021
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determinationhas been conductedto identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may notbe valid for the wetland conservationprovisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate p articipation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, priorto starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 3 3 CFR Part 3 3 1. Enclosed
you will find a Notification o fAppeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form. Ifyou request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Mr. Philip A. Shannin
Administrative Appeal Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, FloorM9
Atlanta, Georgia 3 0303 -8803
AND
PHILI P.A. SHANNIN&USACE.ARMY.MIL,
In order for an RFA to be accepted bythe Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, andthat it has been receivedby the Division Office within 60 days ofthe date ofthe NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address byNot applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit anR ce if youdo notobject to the determination in this correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official: _
i
Date of JD:10/14/2021 Expirati a e 7 1 e

SAW-2020-01962
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/Vp=136:4:0
Copy Furnished
Property Owners:
Barbara Blanton Dellinger
130 Dillon Road
Kings Mountain, NC 28086
Bryan Keith Dellinger
125 Dillon Road
Kings Mountain, NC 28086
Hayward andNancy Patterson
347 Patterson Road
Kings Mountain, NC 28086
William Lawrence Hamrick
240 Parkview Drive
Cartersville, GA 30120
[phone]
Luke Edward Judd
175 Dillon Road
Kings Mountain, NC 28086
[phone]
Dennis and Susan Patterson
Patterson Road
Kings Mountain, NC 28086
[phone]
Agent: Wildlands Engineering
Win Tam
Address: 497 Bramsom Court, Suite 104
Mt. Pleasant SC 29464
Telephone Number: 843-277-6221
E-mail: wta} lorkwildlandseng.com

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services,
File Number: SAW-2020-01962
Date: 10/14/2021
Matthew Reid
Attached is:
See Section below
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
❑
PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARYJURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
TION I - The following identifies yourrights and options regarding an administrative appealof the above decision.
f
itionalinformation may be found at orhttl2://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoiyProgramandPennits.aspx
e Co s regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and yourwork is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appealthe permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictionaIdeterminations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard orLOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit yourright to appealthe permit in the future. Upon receipt of yourletter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address allof yourconcerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and yourwork is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appealthe permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictionaldeterminations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sendingthe form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may acceptor appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appealthe approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative AppealProcess by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe yourreasons forappealing the decision or yourobjections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appealis limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum forthe
record of the appeal conference ormeeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant northe Corps may add new information oranalyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regardingthis decision and/orthe
If you only have questions regardingthe appealprocess you may
appealprocess you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
MR. PHILIP A. SHANNIN
Attn: Krystynka B Stygar
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REVIEW OFFICER
Charlotte Regulatory Office
CESAD-PDS-O
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
60 FORSYTH STREET SOUTHWEST, FLOOR M9
8430 University Executive ParkDrive, Suite 615
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303 03-8803
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
PHONE: [phone]; FAX [phone]
EMAIL: PHILIP.A.SHANNIN(a,USACE.ARMY.MIL
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appealprocess. You will be provided a 15-day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investi rations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Krystynka B Stygar, 8430 University Executive parkDrive, Suite
615, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28262
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Philip Shannin, Administrative
Appeal Officer, CE SAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1 OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 3 0303 -8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 09/16/2021
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services,
Matthew Reid, 5 Ravencroft Dr. Suite 102, Asheville, NC 28801
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation
Site, SAW-2020-01962
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Property is located at 125 Dillion
Road, Kings Mountain, Cleveland County, North Carolina. PIN(s): 2585885323, 2585595279, 2585495005,
2585675964, 2585878557, 2586812597,2585584130, 2585487530, 2585670580, 2585777748
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES
AND/OR AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Cleveland City: Kings Mountain
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimalformat): Latitude: 35.259583 Longitude:-81.390695
Universal Transverse Mercator:
UTM 17
Name of nearestwaterbody: Potts Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑X Field Determination. Date(s): October 14, 2021
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO
REGULATORY JURISDICTION
Site Number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated
amountof
aquatic
resources in
review area
(acreage and
linear feet, if
applicable
Type of aquatic
resources (i.e.,
wetland vs. non-
wetland waters)
Geographic
authority to which
the aquatic
resource "may be"
subject (i.e.,
Section 404 or
Section 10/404)
Bridgefork Creek
35.260218
-81.383580
7585 LF
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
UT 1
35.258288
-81.381434
1331 LF
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
UT 2
35.257299
-81.385103
217 LF
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
UT 3
35.256370
-81.388691
604 LF
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
UT 4
35.261719
-81.388767
1464 LF
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
UT 4 a
35.260266
-81.387805
961 LF
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
UT 5
35.259793
-81.395030
174 LF
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
UT 6
35.265471
-81.392898
2257 LF
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
UT 6a
35.264154
-81.392703
416 LF
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
UT 7
35.258926
-81.390273
219 LF
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Wetland A
35.258256
-81.381466
0.052 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland B
35.259512
-81.383891
0.005 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland C
35.259595
-81.384577
0.197 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland D
35.257481
-81.386582
0.239 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland E
35.257885
-81.388199
0.030 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland F
35.258819
-81.389744
0.108 acres
Wetland
Section 404

Wetland G
35.258453
-81.389947
0.153 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland H
35.259776
-81.393884
0.112 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland 1
35.261196
-81.389064
0.006 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland J
35.259787
-81.389254
0.005 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland K
35.258167
-81.383049
0.107 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland L
35.258813
-81.384682
0.006 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Open Water
35.258308
-81.383449
0.436 acres
Non -wetland Waters
Section 404
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the
review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request
and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after
having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when
they may be appropriate.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide
General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction
notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or other general
permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit
applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit
authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD before
accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit
authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being
required or different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an
individual permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other
general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can accept a permit authorization and
thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including
whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5)
undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subjectpermit authorization without
requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6)
accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking
any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a PJD
constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by
that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction
in any administrative orjudicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative
appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or
a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit
denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an
administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether
geographic jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an
official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds that
there "may be"waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be"navigable waters of the U.S.
on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review area that could
be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply) Checked items are included in the administrative
record and are appropriately cited:

© Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: Wildlands for NCDMS
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor. Datasheets:
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concurwith data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data:
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps:
© U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24,000k Waco Quadrangle
® Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Websoilsurvey Figure 4
❑ Nationa I wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-yearFloodplain Elevation is:
© Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
or ® Other (Name & Date): Site Photographs Taken 10/14/2021
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
©Other information (please specify): NCDWO Stream ID Forms, Delineation Map (Figure 3) 10/14/2021
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps
and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations.
Si ry
staff member completing PJD
10/14/2021
Signature and date of person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtainingthe signature is
impracticable)'
' Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respondwithin the established
time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action.

` + _ Assessment Area
- Potential Wetland Waters of the US
,'� } ,�'• • C Open Water
Potential Non -Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial)
Potential Non -Wetland Waters of the US Intermittent
10
Non -Project Streams
Data Point (DP#)
Pond Discharge Pipe
i i r
1
ina4011
y Q
,Y
1 I l l
r s
1 —
,1 - - - •. - J ��.
Yt
•r
F�. J 7
� r
�,► '�
Wetland L
(0.006
WILDLANDS 0
ENGINEERING L
Figure 3a Delineation Map
500 Feet Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
Broad River Basin (03050105)
Cleveland County, NC
10/14/2021

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 3b Delineation Map
500 Feet Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
Broad River Basin (03050105)
Cleveland County, NC
10/14/2021

Figure 3c Delineation Map
Aft WILD LANDS 0 500 Feet Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I Broad River Basin (03050105)
Cleveland County, NC
10/14/2021

- Assessment Area
Potential Wetland Waters of the US
Open Water
Potential Non -Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial)
Potential Non -Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent)
Non -Project Streams
r.�
et
;w
* •'' ,r .
# r
ti''�Y � ,,�, •f I .• I 11 �r
s
WAS
OWL
. 9W1 Photograph
Figure 3 Delineation Map (Overview)
WILD LANDS 0 1,000 Feet Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I
Broad River Basin (03050105)
Cleveland County, NC
10/14/2021

APPENDIX 3 — DWR, NCSAM, and NCWAM Identification Forms

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ' 2 2.
Project/Site: L{a "
Latitude: 5 -1�ot t
Evaluator: l
County: Cve v e l�-, t
Longitude:.. l �,0 ��p
Total Points:
Stream Determination (cir a
Other Chi l��
if19 is at least ennialif2r 3 t'
rf ? 19 orperennial if ? 3t7'
Ephemeral Intermitte Perennia
e-g. Quad Name:
r
rwo
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
I" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
CLZO
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3 ]
5. Active/relict floodplain
❑
1
2
__3�
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
8. Headcuts
4 _
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No = ❑
e-s = 3
ar Ln IClal U!M ley are nUr raLeCT see OISCUSSI UnS In rilan Ual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = i ] 3 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
3
14. Leaf litter
1-5]
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
'_1:5]
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
'Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = I• L ]
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
C2-
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
Q
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.51
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24- Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
:_1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1. Other =
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: C . r t.• '
1 r�r]
( `
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: l o
Project/Site:
Latitude: YS. 2-$
Evaluator:
County: ��
Longitude:-
Total Points: ff
Stream is at leastl et
Stream Determination circle one)
Ephemeral ermitten Perennial
OtherU7/ Ge-
e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 orperennial ifrf ? 30'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
13• Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
,
(�
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
o =
Yes = 3
`artificial ditches are not rated; see discussians in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 5.45 )
12, Presence of Baseflow
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = /� ]
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.6
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
i
0.5
1
1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Date: C�
Project/Site: �A i
Latitude:
Evaluator: �' l
`
County: C JQ Vetay ;d
Longitude: ��� ��104L�'�j��
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent � �
Stream Determination (circle
Ephemeral Intermittent erenn a
Other
e.g. Quad Name 1
if ? 19 orperennial if;! 30'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = L )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
r 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex- riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
CD
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1^7
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
artmcial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology {Subtotal = I *
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
r 3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0-5
1.s
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes --a-•�
C. Biology {Subtotal = 1 ❑ }
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
_ 3 _
2
1
0
19- Rooted upland plants in streambed
3' '
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
` 0
0-5
1
1.5
24- Amphibians
o
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0-5
1 Z.
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other - 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:-�`F'�4i�,�
S 1 G t c��
�T I
10(

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: d 20,-
Project/Site: �
r_
Latitude:35.25 '72-
Evaluator: 7
a
County
Longitude:, 16
Total points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral lntermitte erennia
Other ��
e.g. Quad Name:
if>_ 19 or erennial if? 30. .
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1"Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
M
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
CD
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
9. Grade control
0
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal=��,}
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
3
14. Leaf litter
Cp1�
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es
3
C. Biologv (Subtotal = A )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

0,
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date I �' �� .0
ProjectlSite:
;'� ,I t
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County: C L eve i(Y l
Longitude: --ID I ,2��j 01
Total Points:
Stream is at feast intermittent r�
Stream Determination (circl
Other [[ �
if? 19 or perennial if? 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent erenTo
e.g. Quad Name: V�7'�
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = Uy, I'�
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
19Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
Cl�
3
5. Activefrelict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2)
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
D
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
ct>
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
fro = 0
Yes M 3
dI III Ha d1 UKU Wbi dlU flVl IdIUU, See UlbfoUbb1 OF Rn 111 1Fldn Ud1
B. Hvdrolociv (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
^3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
J
3
14. Leaf litter
1-5
C
0-5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
C.AS
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
1 Q
1 0.5
1 .._' `
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
I No = 0
Yes = 3
C. BiolQgv (Subtotal = q }
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3'
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20- Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0 3
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
6,
1
2
3
22- Fish
0)
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
6.5
1
1__5
24. Amphibians
0
D.5
1
1.5,)
25. Algae
0
0.5
Q
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 er = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: r r fN x , •
, 7 o ,- r ., r1
Sketch: s /)- I

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project/Site' ,
Latitude:
r-,
Evaluator: _ ._ . v-� .
County: I
Longitude: - cc
Total Points: _J S7
Stream is at least intermittent �
Stream Determination (circle
Ephemeral Intermittent
Other [�
`
if z 19 orperennial it;, 30'
erenni _
e.g. quad Name: i
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
j
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
2
3
5. Depositional bars or benches
0
!
2
cr)
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
_
11. Second or greater order channel
a =
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discus ions in manual
B. Hydrology {Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
Yes = 3
C. Biology {Subtotal = ]
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
�T>
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
C
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
�
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0,
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
>0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other .AiD
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

11 I
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: c
Projectisite:
Latitude: 9 5 L (d
Evaluator: j -' _ .
County: V
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream pet tc�rcEe one)
Ephemera ntermitten Perennial
ether II 1'
Quad Name; s� � Ol
if z 9S or perennial if z 30'
e.g.
A. Geomor hold {Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18- Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
�J
T5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
(]
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
�0�
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
s
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
: "Z
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
❑
0,5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
artifiaal ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology {Subtotal = G
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
` ?
3
13, iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1'
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
_1'
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
LNo .
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = _
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1'y
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
102
0
20. Macrabenthos (note diversity and abundance)
!
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
t37
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
[�
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; ❑BL = 1.5 Gtf w = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
N otes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: _ ''
ProjectlSite:"
Latitude: �, Z G 02
Evaluator: , .
4
County:
Longitude: - �U ii
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circleen❑ e
Other U -T y C1
Stream is at Least intermittent
if a 19 orperennial if z 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent ern `
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = /_ )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel iced and bank
0
1
2
C5
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2�
L�
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2�
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
B. Headcuts
0
1
2
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1-.5-
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
o = 0 ..
Yes = 3
artif�c{al ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = r .' )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1j
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
r"
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
t' 0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
(�
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0.
Yes 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = }
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
_
0
19. Rooted upland plants in strearbed
3
r 2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
r0
1
2
3
22. Fish
D .
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
01
0.5
1
1,5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
,1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other= 0�
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: .- C\
124)
ProjectfSite: -) [ ! t L,
Latitude:
Evaluator: +l
County: { t �.d,
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at feast intermittent
Stream Determination (circle e
Ephemeral lntermitten erennia
Other
e.g. Quad Name: �'���
if? 19 or perennial if? 30`
A. Geomorphology [Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
=
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
❑
1 _?
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
❑
2
3
6- Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0-5
C:jf
1.5 71
11. Second or greater order channel
=
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrologv {Subtotal = (I , 5 ]
12- Presence of Baseflow
0
1
CD
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
C
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
177
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
CU�
1
1-5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
b.5
1.5
17- Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
(Ye-s =`I--)
C. Bioloav !Subtotal = 1cj +I.-) ]
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 '
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
Cr
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22- Fish
0
&5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.,5 ,
1
1.5
26_ Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBI = 1.5-, Other = 6')
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. see p. 35 of manual.
Notes: L-!
V
Sketch: 11N l cvy ` i >�� G ' Y
-� Ijr, le-1
Out
s e�rtaL� r�
J'

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: J (]i ��-��
`�
Project/Site.' t j �
Latitude:
Evaluator: f A rn
County: e V-e C�_
Longitude: _0
Total Points:
Stream Is at leas[ intermittent l ��
e)
Stream Determination {cre'rennJ�a
Ephemeral Intermittente.g.
Other
Quad Name:ifa
f9 or erennial if z 30*
n r
A. Geomor halo Subtotal = }
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
13,Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
❑
1
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
n le- ool sequence
2
3
4. Panicle size of stream substrate
0
1
2 -)
3
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
`2j
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0- A`
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
-0.5' "
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
_1)
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = ❑
es = 3
pf ti l lf461 GI tu!ICJ d P V FI Vl IdIC[F, SCC [A 6UUSS IVf Iu In 1f1al I U dP
B. Hvdrolflpv [Subtotal = 10 , �) 1
12, Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
❑
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5-"-
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0,5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
'-
1.5
tR17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3 ,
C. Biology {Subtotal = L U ]
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21, Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
_ J)
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
; 03
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5]
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
.5.:
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
her =
'perennial streams may also be identifed using Other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
7-3

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: £ IC# 10'1
1 L�
ProjectfSite:(tdj (dV cit
Latitude:
F,raluator.
county: � Y ' t��
Longitude: -
Total Points:
m is at least intermittent
�
Stream Determination circle one)
Ephemeral IntermittentPerennial
Other - r .
e.g. Quad Name: r
�[
'�-
if2-1
rf _ 19 yr erennial rf � 3a"
A. Geomorphology {Subtotal = ti, I }
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a- Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
C:m�
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
-1 `7
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
8- Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control]
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1-5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
PI II I Mal UI WI 1= a1C IRJI ICLUU, bUU Ulb�UbblUI lb If+++lid +l udi
B. Hydrology {Subtotal = `' ]
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
ID
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
�0,5
1
1-5
17- Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
' Yes
C. Biolocly (Subtotal = [-r ]
18- Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
(3?
2
1
Q
20- Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22- Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0-�
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
M'
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1 '
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: r r r.' ).t
Sketch:
1 ('
[-Mr 5fc'm1 V
�CitOr + C� V• Y7
l,�A J
r f` I.t

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 7. QI I �-�
Project/Site: & '�
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County: e. a-'%-\0rr
Longitude., Yj i'2
Total Paints:
Stream Determination (circle a
Qther J
Stream is at least intermittent
if =_ 19 or ererrrrialit2� 30"
Ephemeral Intermittent erennial
e.g- Quad Name:
A. Geornor holy (Subtotal = 1 -" }
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
la. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3. in -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
O le ool sequence
0
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
C2
3
5. Activelrelict floodplain
Co
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2._
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
cD
0.5
^'I
i 1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
r %
1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
e--o = 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrolociv (Subtotal = i 0 ]
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
'� 3"1
13. Iron oxidizing bacterla
0
__ i]
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
❑
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17• Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
_ e3]
C. Biolow (Subtotal = ]
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
-.2-
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
❑
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.'
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
7
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 ather =
"perennial streams may also be identified using
ather methods. See p. 35 of manual -
Notes: !'.. 0- { '2
t r''' r y : �. i
b' �� y't .:�1ni.J 6
Sketch:
9
�_k_C,

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
roes user rvianuai version z.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Site 2
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4
5. County: Cleveland E
7. River basin: Broad
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
Date of evaluation: 12/02/2021
Assessor name/organization: Wildlands E
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Potts Creek
35.260074,-81.383861
Bridgefork Creek
9. Site number (show on attached map): R1a 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 282
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1.5 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 17 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑ Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ®Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
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 El Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect El Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
El Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Date of Assessment 12/02/2021
Site
Stream Category Pb3
Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(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
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
roes user rvianuai version z.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Site 2
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4
5. County: Cleveland E
7. River basin: Broad
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
Date of evaluation: 12/02/2021
Assessor name/organization: Wildlands E
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Potts Creek
35.257909,-81.388653
Bridgefork Creek
9. Site number (show on attached map): R1 b 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 3,114
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 6 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 35 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑ Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A El
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ®Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
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 El Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect El Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
El Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
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
El 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Date of Assessment 12/02/2021
Site
Stream Category Pa3
Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
roes user rvianuai version z.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Site 2
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4
5. County: Cleveland E
7. River basin: Broad
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
Date of evaluation: 12/02/2021
Assessor name/organization: Wildlands E
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Potts Creek
35.260359,-81.391859
Bridgefork Creek
9. Site number (show on attached map): R2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 1,562
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 15-20 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑ Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A El
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ®Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
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 El Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect El Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
El Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Date of Assessment 12/02/2021
Site
Stream Category Pa3
Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(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
roes user rvianuai version z.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Site 2
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4
5. County: Cleveland E
7. River basin: Broad
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
Date of evaluation: 12/02/2021
Assessor name/organization: Wildlands E
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Potts Creek
35.261484,-81.397896
Bridgefork Creek
9. Site number (show on attached map): R3 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 2,416
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 30 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑ Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A El
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ®Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
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 El Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect El Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
El Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
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
El 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Date of Assessment 12/02/2021
Site
Stream Category Pa3
Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
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
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(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
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
roes user rvianuai version z.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 12/02/2021
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4. Assessor name/organization: Wildlands Engineering
5. County: Cleveland 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Broad on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Potts Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.257853,-81.383350
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT1 - Intermittent 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 737
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 7 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 10-15 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑B
A ���
valley shape (skip for ®
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) El Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑11 ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat El Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect El Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
El Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Date of Assessment 12/02/2021
Site
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
OMITTED
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
roes user rvianuai version z.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 12/02/2021
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4. Assessor name/organization: Wildlands Engineering
5. County: Cleveland 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Broad on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Potts Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.258542,-81.384662
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT1 - Perennial 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 597
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 7 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 17 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑B
A ���
valley shape (skip for ®
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) El Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑11 ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat El Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect El Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
El Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Date of Assessment 12/02/2021
Site
Stream Category Pb1
Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
OMITTED
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(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
MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
roes user rvianuai version z.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 12/02/2021
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4. Assessor name/organization: Wildlands Engineering
5. County: Cleveland 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Broad on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Potts Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.257731,-81.385335
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 273
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 10 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑B
A ���
valley shape (skip for ®
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) El Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑11 ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat El Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect El Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
El Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Date of Assessment 12/02/2021
Site
Stream Category Pb1
Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
OMITTED
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(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
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
roes user rvianuai version z.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Site 2
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4
5. County: Cleveland E
7. River basin: Broad
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
Date of evaluation: 12/02/2021
Assessor name/organization: Wildlands E
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Potts Creek
35.257646,-81.388476
UT3-Enhancment
9. Site number (show on attached map): 1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 614
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 6 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) El Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
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 El Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect El Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
El Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Date of Assessment 12/02/2021
Site
Stream Category Pb1
Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(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
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(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
MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
roes user rvianuai version z.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 12/02/2021
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4. Assessor name/organization: Wildlands Engineering
5. County: Cleveland 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Broad on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Potts Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.259635,-81.390737
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT4 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 614
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1-3 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 13 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑B
A ���
valley shape (skip for ®
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) El Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑11 ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat El Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect El Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
El Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Date of Assessment 12/02/2021
Site
Stream Category Pb2
Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(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
roes user rvianuai version z.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 12/02/2021
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4. Assessor name/organization: Wildlands Engineering
5. County: Cleveland 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Broad on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Potts Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.259935,-81.387761
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT4a Intermittent 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 113
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 12 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑B
A ���
valley shape (skip for ®
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) El Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑11 ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat El Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect El Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
El Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Date of Assessment 12/02/2021
Site
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
OMITTED
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(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
LOW
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
roes user rvianuai version z.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 12/02/2021
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4. Assessor name/organization: Wildlands Engineering
5. County: Cleveland 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Broad on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Potts Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.259950,-81.389743
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT4a Perennial 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 1004
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 5 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 10 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑B
A ���
valley shape (skip for ®
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) El Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑11 ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat El Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect El Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
El Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
®B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Date of Assessment 12/02/2021
Site
Stream Category Pb2
Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
OMITTED
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(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
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
roes user rvianuai version z.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 12/02/2021
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4. Assessor name/organization: Wildlands Engineering
5. County: Cleveland 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Broad on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Potts Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.260160,-81.395000
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT5 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 142
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 8 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A �v�
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 mil) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) El Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miZ) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑11 ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat El Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect El Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
El Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Date of Assessment 12/02/2021
Site
Stream Category Pal
Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
OMITTED
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(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
roes user rvianuai version z.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 12/02/2021
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4. Assessor name/organization: Wildlands Engineering
5. County: Cleveland 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Broad on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Potts Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.261885,-81.396711
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT6 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 2,184
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 15 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑B
A ���
valley shape (skip for ®
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) El Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑11 ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat El Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect El Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
El Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Date of Assessment 12/02/2021
Site
Stream Category Pb2
Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(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
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
roes user rvianuai version z.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 12/02/2021
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4. Assessor name/organization: Wildlands Engineering
5. County: Cleveland 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Broad on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Potts Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.264275,-81.393421
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT6a Intermittent 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 300
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 7 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑B
A ���
valley shape (skip for ®
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) El Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑11 ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat El Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect El Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
El Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Date of Assessment 12/02/2021
Site
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(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
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
OMITTED
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(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
LOW
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
roes user rvianuai version z.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 12/02/2021
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4. Assessor name/organization: Wildlands Engineering
5. County: Cleveland 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Broad on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Potts Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.264300,-81.393770
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT6a Perennial 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 102
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 10 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑B
A ���
valley shape (skip for ®
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) El Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑11 ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat El Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect El Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
El Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Date of Assessment 12/02/2021
Site
Stream Category Pb1
Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
OMITTED
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(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
MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
roes user rvianuai version z.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Bridgefork Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 12/02/2021
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4. Assessor name/organization: Wildlands Engineering
5. County: Cleveland 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Broad on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Potts Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.259146,-81.390266
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT7 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 215
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 5 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A �v�
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 mil) El Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑11 ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat El Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect El Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
El Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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