USACE_20181011

Martin
Marietta
October 11, 2018
Ms. Rachel Capito
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Ave
Wilmington, NC 28403
Dear Ms. Capito:
Thomas Brown
Sr. Environmental Engineer
z(f) // - 0,3c) � V 1-/-
We previously submitted a draft response to your August 8, 2018 request for more information. This
response was submitted by email on August 30, 2018 with plans to meet and discuss the project. Please
accept this letter and attachment as our official response to your request. Per email discussions, no
changes have been made from the draft version.
Sincerely,
Thomas Brown, PWS
Sr. Environmental Engineer
Attachments:
Response to August 2, 2018 Request for Additional Information
CC:
Paul Wojoski, Division of Water Resources
Martin Marietta, NC East District
2700 Wycliff Rd, Suite 104, Raleigh, NC 27607
t. 919-783-4592 f. 919-787-9577 m. 919-268-5297 e. [e-mail]
www.martinmarietta.com

10/11 /2018
Response to August 2, 2018 Request for Additional Information
Please justify the amount of compensatory mitigation proposed far stream impacts. Based on the
map indicating the location of the two NCSAM assessments, it is unclear how the point where
compensatory mitigation is proposed to begin for impacts was selected. Please clarify how the
proposed location was chosen based on the quality of the stream to be impacted. Additional
NCSAMforms directly above and below the location of where mitigation is proposed to begin
will be required, as the length between the two previously completed NCSAMforms is
approximately 500 linear feet.
A majority of the tributary proposed for impact has been heavily modified for agriculture
drainage. The headwaters of this stream consist of agriculture fields and a ditch system. Martin
Marietta has proposed to begin mitigation at a 1.1 ratio at a point where there is less evidence of
previous channel excavation and modification, such as spoil piles. However, the stream is still
very straight and appears to have no access to its floodplain. The mitigation start point is located
at a small log jam/root mat with a slight head cut and is shown on the attached map titled
"NCSAM Mitigation Map." A North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM)
assessment was completed just downstream of this point and the stream scored "Medium" for
"USAGE/All Streams" and "High" for "NCDWR Intermittent." A majority of the vegetation in
this reach is immature and/or invasive (Ligustrum) with few mature trees. Downstream of this
straight run, the stream begins to pick up slightly more sinuosity. Downstream of the perennial
point there is evidence that the stream can reach the floodplain and the vegetation is dominated
by more mature hardwood species. An NCSAM Form was not completed downstream of the
perennial point because 2:1 mitigation was assumed. However, a quick aquatic life assessment
was performed and one Gilled Snail was found, supporting the perennial call. Just downstream
of our proposed impact, the stream becomes impounded and connects into a large beaver swamp
system. NCSAM Form l and Form 2 were completed with the assistance of NCDWR and
USACE.
Per request from USACE, another NCSAM assessment (Form 3 attached) was completed on an
approximately 100ft section of stream, directly upstream of the proposed point to begin
mitigation. This section of stream scored "Low" for "USACE/All Streams" and "Medium" for
"NCDWR Intermittent." A single pouch snail was found during the aquatic life assessment.
Because Pouch Snails are a lunged snail usually found in lower water quality (stagnant water), it
was not included on the NCSAM form.
2. Please provide a more detailed evaluation of the potential lateral secondary hydrologic effect of
the proposed mine pits on the remaining wetlands and streams adjacent to the pits. The
information previously provided is insufficient to complete an evaluation of the potential impacts
to the aquatic environment. Information should be provided regarding the normal pool elevation
of the water in the mine pits and the approximate elevation of the adjacent wetlands and the
bottom elevation of the adjacent onsite streams. In addition to the elevation differences, the

distance from the pits to the adjacent wetlands/streams and the soil characteristics should also be
used to estimate the lateral distance ofpotential effects.
Martin Marietta indicated that water is discharged from the pits into the existing streams;
however more detailed information is required for the Corps to complete its evaluation. The
information should include the location/dimensions/invert elevations of the outfall/ water control
structures, and the approximate frequency and duration of outfall discharges into the
wetland/stream system.
Please be aware that the information you provide will be used to determine compensatory
mitigation requirements and permit special conditions. If wetlands or streams are drained as a
result ofregulated activities such that there is a loss ofjurisdictional waters, the applicant may
be required to provide additional compensatory mitigation to offset those impacts.
Monitoring Well Data
Martin Marietta has monitored the ground water at Onslow Quarry in accordance with our
Capacity Use permit and the data is publically available back to 1999. We have monitored 57
wells at 26 locations. This certified well data is public information and can be found on the NC
Division of Water Resources Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use website at the web address
below. The following data comes directly from this site.
https://www.iicwater.org/Permits and Registration/Capacity Use/Central Coastal Plain/ccpcua
detail.php?permit=CU3032
Of the 57 wells, MW-5S is the most relevant to the impact of mining at Onslow Quarry on
nearby surface waters. The MW-5 well cluster consists of a shallow groundwater well (MW-5S)
and a deep groundwater well (MW-5D). The cluster is located between two active pits adjacent
to the wetland and stream complex that flows north -south through the center of the site. These
locations are also shown on the attached map titled "Onslow Quarry Monitoring Well
Locations."
The referenced shallow wells are installed with screens above the limestone and measure the
water level within the overburden (soil). The deep wells were installed with a screen within the
limestone and therefore measure the water level within the limestone. The wells are constructed
to measure water level within the screening interval.
Martin Marietta believes this well data shows that we are NOT negatively affecting the near
surface water table within the nearby wetland system. As shown in Figure 1, the water level in
MW-5S has been very consistent, even showing droughts that can be confirmed on the NC
Drought Management website. Mining in the pit located east of this well began in late 2005.
Mining in the pit located west of this well and on the other side of the stream began in late 2013.
Through time and with the opening of these new pits, the shallow water table has stayed
relatively constant.

a
a
Ov9s 01100 01102 01104 D1106 01108 DVID D D1112 01114 01116 Dots 0100
Monttvrear
'913WvAs ---- bottom screen --- landsurface -
top screen -
Figure 1. Well MW-5S. Note that mining began adjacent to this well in 2005.
These Graphs were copied directly from the NC DWR Capacity Use website.
This shallow well data can be contrasted with the deep well data from well MW-5D shown in
Figure 3. As seen in this graph, mining has impacted the deeper ground water found within the
limestone, but not the water above the limestone.
40
2D
0
t
c
m '7e
W
-40
-b0
D1198 01100 011W D11O4 01106 01108 01110 OV12 01114 01116 01n8 0100
Mo nw Year
s131K wts Womureen landWriace
top screen
Figure 2. Well MW-5D

NPDES Discharge
Onslow Quarry is permitted to discharge mining dewatering wastewater, process wastewater,
and stormwater, by North Carolina Industrial General Permit No. NCG020000 (Certificate of
Coverage NCG020255), which is part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). Onslow Quarry legally withdraws groundwater by capacity use permit CU3032,
which allows it to mine in the dry. Our Capacity Use Permit requires us to keep the water level
in our southern pit above -IOft elevation by pumping from the northern pit. We discharge water
into both Stream B and a groundwater recharge trench that also overflows into Stream B. These
locations are shown on the attached map titled "Discharge Locations" The NPDES permit
requires the pH, turbidity, and total suspended solids (TSS) to be monitored semi-annually. An
average of approximately 2 million gallons per day (MGD) is discharged into the recharge trench
(with approximately 1.5 MGD overflowing into Stream B), and approximately 4.8 MGD is
discharged into Stream B north of Duffy Field Road. This water, along with the natural flow in
Stream A, flows into a standing water beaver swamp/marsh west of our proposed expansion area.
Two other tributaries also flow into this swamp system. Considering the amount of water
discharged into Stream A and that the northern wetland area is impounded by beaver dams, we
do not believe that expanding Onslow Quarry into the proposed area will have a negative effect
on this wetland system.
Additional Information
Normal Pool elevation in Mine Pits
The Southern pit is maintained above 1 Oft below sea level. The two active pits are currently
maintained at 45ft below sea level. Our Capacity Use permit allows us to lower the water to 55ft
below sea level.
Approximate elevation of Streams and adjacent wetlands
Using Lidar Data the approximate elevation of Stream B and its adjacent wetlands were
determined. Stream B is approximately 27.5ft above sea level north of Duffy Field Rd. Where
Stream B and Stream A converge, the elevation is approximately 20ft above sea level. Wetlands
adjacent to Stream B can be found approximately lft to 511 above the bottom of the channel.
Distance from pits to wetlands
Through mining regulations we are required keep a 50ft undisturbed buffer from all wetlands and
streams. Due to the shape of the wetland areas, this buffer actually averages between 75 and
l OOft wide with just a few places getting close to 50ft. A perimeter haul road and associated
safety berms located between the undisturbed buffer and the pit adds another 50ft. This adds up
to an average distance of approximately 125 to 15011 between the wetland boundary and the pit.
Soil Characteristics
Soil permeability and classification tests were performed by Soil and Materials Engineering, Inc.
(S&ME) on the areas of our current pits, prior to mining. Based on laboratory test results, soils
consist of clayey sands and sandy clays. Grain size analysis results indicated sand content
ranging from 27.9 to 79.5 percent, silt ranging from 8.5 to 51.3 percent, and clay content ranging

from 6.0 to 42.5 percent. Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (k values) were found ranging from
6.52 x 10 -5 to 2.96 x 10 'g cm/sec.
3. Please respond to the comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission about
the potential to impact adjacent wetlands and water bodies near the Rock House Cave Significant
Habitat area. What measures are proposed to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to this
area?
Martin Marietta has no evidence that the Onslow Quarry has any impact on the Rock House
Cave Natural Area, which is shown on the attached screenshot of NC Natural Heritage Program
website. The Natural Area is approximately '/4 mile from the Quarry and as shown on the
attached scanned map named "Estimated Area Where Sinkholes May Develop" dated April
2005, it is well outside of this boundary. This map was created by Skelly and Loy, LLP within a
Hydrogeologic Survey in preparation for our expansion onto the property where our current pits
are located. This study was also referenced as correct in a Summary of Hydrogeologic
Conditons by Groundwater Management Associates, Inc. completed in June 2009.
Furthermore, Onslow Quarry is located downstream of the stream that flows through the Rock
House Cave Natural Area and mining at the quarry could not have an effect on the flow of the
stream at the Natural Area's location.

N
500 250 0 500 1,000
Feet W
s

500 250 0 500 1,000
Feet �� ■

v
1,300 650 0 1,300 2,600 w E
Feet
s

N
500 250 0 500 1,000
Feet W
s

INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT I SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Onslow Quarry 2. Date of evaluation. 811012018
3. Applicantlowner name: Martin Marietta 4. Assessor name/organization: Thomas Brown
5. County: drislow 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: White Oak on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Form 3 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12, Channel width at top of bank (feet): 6 13, Is assessment reach a swamp stream? [ .Yes [:�Na
14. Feature type: [.,Perennial flow .� Intermittent flow .Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: rMountains (M) [ ".Piedmont (P) [. Inner Coastal Plain (1) [;Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic L /
valley shape (skip for [ ;a L+�— [ �b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip [ . Size 1 (< 0.1 mi`) [.;Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi`) ., Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi`) .,'Size 4 (Z 5 mi`)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes rjNo If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( r',I I jll [ jlll [ jlV r,V)
r Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensttive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List r CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ..Yes No
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
.,A Water throughout assessment reach.
r'B No flow, water in pools only.
�C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
[ jA At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not
3. Feature Pattern —assessment react., metric
[+,'A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
[;B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially ahered stream profile (examples- channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances),
r,B Not
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
r—, C > 25 % of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction — stearmside area metric
Considerfor the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
I-, [ -.A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
[-;B [' jB 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 dilchingj)
C [:;C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplainAntertidal 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 floodplainfintertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplainfintertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reachlintertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
r A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
r B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)

r C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water qualdy problem
f D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors(
F- E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F- F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
r- G Excessive algae in stream or inlertidal zone
F_ H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
r I Other (explain in "Note slSketch" section)
r1 J Little to no slressors
Recent Weather -watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams. D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
r-. A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
rB Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
i ;C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream -assessment reach metric
rYes r. No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? It 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 slressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
I A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses f N r- E 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include live worts, lichens, and algal mats) ram-- m r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
rw B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o r r H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation L o FI Sand bottom
F- C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) t r J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
(- D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots v ! K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
7 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. t ",Yes r-7,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)
11c. In raffles 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) _ > 10-401/, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%. Predominant (P) _ > 70 % . Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrocklsaprolhe
i
Boulder (256 - 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
Silvclay(<0.062mm)
Detritus
[•, [" ; r' C: Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d, rjYes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. r., Yes "No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. r,No Water r.�'Other
12b. rYes [:a 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.
F_ r Adult frogs
r r Aquatic reptiles
F_ r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include livenv its, lichens, and alga[ mats)
r r Beetles (including water pennies)
r r Ceddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
F r Asian clam (Corbicula )
r r Crustacean (isopodlamphipod/crayfishtshdrnp)
r r DamseHly and dragonfly larvae
F r Dipterans (true flies)
r r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera (E])
F r Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
F r Midge slmosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusea) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r r MusselslClams (not Corbicula )
r r Other fish
r r Sala manderslladpoles
r r Snails
r r Stonefty larvae (Plecoptera [P])
r r Tipulid larvae

r Worms/leeches
13. Streams Ids Area Ground Surface Condition -streams ide area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
ConsWer for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Sank (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 stream side area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage -streams ide 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 r,A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water a 6 inches deep
r,B r, B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
ro",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
[ fY r-, Y Are wetlands present in the streamside areal
N r.—, 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 MpA draining to the assessment reach.
r A Streams andror springs (jurisdictional discharges)
r B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
r C Obstruction that passes some flow during low flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
r D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment it present)
13 F None of the above
17. Baseflow, Debractom - asiviiiiissmont area meltric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
r A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
F B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C Urban stream (z 24% impervious surface for watershed)
r D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
r E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
1`7 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
F�A
rs�,A
Cr�A
�A
t 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
rl.B
r,B
rB
[,B
From 50 to < 100-feet wide
�C
r,C
r.0
[,C
From 30 to < 50-feet wide
r�jD
r,D
[,D
,D
From 10 to < 30-feet wide
[,E
r' E
[".E
[;E
< 10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left
bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB
RB
r,A
[;A
Mature forest
Er,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
[jD
Maintained shrubs
r,E
[,E
Little or no vegetation
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 stressore occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: P
,i us . 6tc1 30-50 feet
1_8 RB LB RB LB RB
r,A r,A [_A r_A [_A r_A }tow crops
B r",B r.8 [',B [",B r"jB Maintained turf
]C C C C C [,C Pasture (no liveslock)Icommercial horticulture
�^D t,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 [•aA 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
(.rA A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
[�B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
[ rC [ ;C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
r'A [-.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 Gear -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 [.a No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. [ ;No Water rOther:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
[.A <46 B 46 to < 67 f:C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 [;E 230
Notes/Sketch:

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Onslow
Stream Category lag
Nates of Field Assessment Form (YIN)
Presence of regulatory considerations (YIN)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (YIN)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation
Assessor Name/Organization
8I1012018
Thomas Brown
NO
NO
YES
Intermittent
USACEI NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
f 1) Hydrology
(2) Baseflow
(2) Flood Flow
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Basefbw
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
LOW
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NO
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NO
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
(2) In -stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In -stream Habitat
(2) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
MEDIUM

�
}
j
2
ym**mm $ m*.
�k$}11 Li & --lk} Ll /!3
( ~tt E �g
) °
*reef &
mm &
w
£
&
|�\/OE( ]
<E !
,
\f�7�! !
■| (
7
! S
'
�
2
� �(\\}
} �/
Ef
■E !

f�
L
O
rr
z
a
4YV�
V 17
j
� C
w O'
Zm
U1 Er c <
m a
J 7
a
f
a
F
m
r
m
m
m
2
I I
i
I
r
7
ZONE B
s ops s
'.l 3 o
It I C E n�
r
A o g o
m
zrr
N9
o
$,
O
3 o
.f2.
z .
a !ln117 rr 4i 4 m +
r ZONE B
r
m
1
CO
X
CO)m
m
r
o
...
a
G
3
0
O O m �37VY
,oa a
;�
tD
CD
o o 000
o�� m m v r
l D D wn to
-n
CD
c
^�
aR�Oso
CD
S
c2
D
aai
rr

/ylr" . � �K,�� • � � � - '� •I(�Ix: r } F� :a.. 4 t, tit+ �� ' ' y .
' �`�-:it{'YtK. •_'. S ` ��• rlild' , Y r- �• -
tr r � Y `•fit �y,'� �A�Jf• •� �N
5'
yy � �•� 'y�1 M / � � r.�v 5 5r y4� [lam °S ���'�{,
' � >k �.. .��' ' .k _��, w y`r *f a� �,; �`iYl�� i ,�t{,. .�: . f a..�'� ',�0."�dJ •�.i ��kr e:�`.4Y. ^r�, 1. ""
F
tit
Z+•vt�• 1.'.,. '"`.k n y 5. r ' .7 { k �. ,w,a.Y p�
OO � M~ � •� -}S �' ¢•"yeti
T
Tw
i . 4! � �•�,J `��`A i , �� a:� � � � #, .r shy �'E r. _
�"J�.. •rYTI>,� 1 � 1 'rf i �1 i� � �_ � `l„ 'M �i �:« .l^ Y M'r
it i `. rin• 3'i17U.Ti
q'
• � jk . M ,,ri t � L ° 1 ' • n d;i ��� � � � ✓ `" \ � ra r + ., � f r -4 a+��
• ly; v h u3,�,i .IM .9fY � hl- L� .A � i �.' � l� i, f t
two iY.{•a ` ih.� *.} }`�19a[aY°°' `4 1.

Al
Jew