20231605 Ver 1_Mitigation Bank Prospectus_20231116

Figure S. Concept Design Map
Underdog Mitigation Site
ftAkA W I L D L A N D S Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
ENGINEERING 0 250 500Feet
I i i i I Guilford County, NC

PROSPECTUS WILDLANDS CAPE FEAR 02 UMBRELLA
MITIGATION BANK
Draft Site Name: Underdog Mitigation Site
Guilford County, NC
Cape Fear River Basin
November 7, 2023 HUC 03030002
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2023-02156
DWR# (To Be Determined)

PREPARED BY:
DRAFT PROSPECTUS
Wildlands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Site Name: Underdog Mitigation Site
Guilford County, NC
Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03030002
USACE Action ID No. (To Be Determined)
DWR# (To Be Determined)
WIS
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
November 7, 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................................................1
1.0
Mitigation Bank Introduction and Objectives....................................................................1
1.1
Introduction...............................................................................................................................
1
1.2
Bank Location............................................................................................................................
1
1.3
Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................................
1
1.4
Qualifications of Bank Sponsor.................................................................................................
2
2.0
Establishment and Operation of Mitigation Bank..............................................................3
2.1
Ownership Agreements.............................................................................................................
3
2.2
Landowner Information............................................................................................................
3
2.3
Proposed Service Area...............................................................................................................
3
2.4
Need and Feasibility of Mitigation Bank...................................................................................
3
3.0
Ecological Suitability of Site..............................................................................................4
3.1
Bank Site Characterization........................................................................................................
4
3.2
Cultural Resources and Significant Natural Heritage Areas....................................................10
3.3
Threatened and Endangered Species......................................................................................
10
3.4
Floodplain Compliance............................................................................................................
10
3.5
Site Constraints and Access.....................................................................................................
11
4.0
Mitigation Work Plan.....................................................................................................11
4.1
Streams....................................................................................................................................11
4.2
Wetlands.................................................................................................................................13
4.3
Vegetation Plan.......................................................................................................................13
5.0
Determination of Mitigation Credits...............................................................................16
6.0
Credit Release Schedule.................................................................................................18
6.1
Initial Allocation of Released Credits.......................................................................................19
6.2
Subsequent Credit Releases....................................................................................................
20
7.0
Maintenance and Long -Term Sustainability....................................................................20
7.1
Maintenance...........................................................................................................................
20
7.2
Adaptive Management............................................................................................................
20
7.3
Long -Term Management Provisions.......................................................................................
21
8.0
References.....................................................................................................................22
TABLES
Table 1. Mitigation Goals and Objectives............................................................................................2
Table 2. Landowner Information........................................................................................................3
Table 3. Stream Existing Conditions....................................................................................................5
Table 4. Project Soil Types and Descriptions........................................................................................8
Table S. Federally Protected Species in Chatham County, NC.............................................................10
Table 6. Proposed Easement Crossings.............................................................................................11
Table 7. Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits....................................................................................17
Table 8. Proposed Wetland Mitigation Credits..................................................................................17
Table 9. Stream Credit Release Schedule..........................................................................................18
Table 10. Wetland Credit Release Schedule......................................................................................19
Table11. Maintenance Plan.............................................................................................................20
W Wild lands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site - Draft Prospectus Page i

FIGURES
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Service Area Map
Figure 3
NCDOT Draft STIP FY 2024-2033
Figure 4a
Britt Creek Watershed Map
Figure 4b
Tributary Watershed Map
Figure 5
Site Map
Figure 6
USGS Map
Figure 7
Soils Map
Figure 8
Concept Design Map
Figure 9
LiDAR Map
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Historic Aerial Photography
Appendix B
Site Photographs
Appendix C
Existing Conditions Data
Appendix D
Licensed Soil Scientist Report
Appendix E
Effective FEMA FIRM 3710872800L
k4d Wildlands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page ii

Executive Summary
Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC ("Sponsor") proposes to develop the Underdog Mitigation Site (Site) to add to
the Wildlands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank (Bank). Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC is wholly owned
by Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands). The purpose of the Bank is to provide stream and wetland
mitigation credits to compensate for impacts to Waters of the United States and/or State Waters within
the service area, 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03030002 (Cape Fear 02), as depicted in Figure 1. The
resulting conservation easement is estimated to be approximately 52 acres.
1.0 Mitigation Bank Introduction and Objectives
1.1 Introduction
The Underdog Mitigation Site is located in Guilford County, NC, approximately five miles north of
Liberty, NC (Figure 1). The project includes the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of streams
and the re-establishment, enhancement, and preservation of wetlands. The Site is located within the
Cape Fear River Basin 14-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002040080, is being submitted for
mitigation credit in the Cape Fear River Basin Catalog Unit 03030002 (Cape Fear 02). The Site will protect
up to 52 acres of aquatic resources and riparian area in a conservation easement. The Site is located
within the Division of Water Resources (DWR) Subbasin 03-06-03.
Within the project area, the streams are mostly eroded, alternatingly incised, and impacted by past land
use practices. Wetlands have been degraded due primarily to channel incision.
The Sponsor proposes to restore, enhance, and preserve 10,789 linear feet (LF) of the site streams and
re-establish, enhance, and preserve 27.406 acres of riparian wetlands.
1.2 Bank Location
The Site is located within the USGS 14-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002040080 and DWR
Subbasin 03-06-03 (35.553873° N, 79.34674' W). The Site is situated east of Humble Road and is
bisected Kimesville Road. The Site includes unnamed tributaries to South Prong Stinking Quarter Creek.
The south and north prongs combine to form Stinking Quarter Creek approximately six miles
downstream. Stinking Quarter Creek flows to Alamance Creek which flows into the Haw River
downstream of Swepsonville.
To get to the Site from Raleigh, NC take 1-64 West to US-421 North. Follow US-421 North to US-421
North in Sanford. Follow US-421 North for nine miles to Exit 180 (Old 421 Road) towards Liberty.
Continue on Old 421 Road to Kimesville Road. Continue on Kimesville Road for eight miles to the Site.
1.3 Goals and Objectives
The proposed Bank described above will provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear
River Basin. Project benefits include site specific improvements and watershed scale benefits.
The project goals and related objectives are described in Table 1. Project goals are desired project
outcomes and objectives are activities that will result in the accomplishment of goals. The project will be
monitored after construction to demonstrate success. A detailed monitoring program will be described
in the forthcoming mitigation plan.
�. Widllands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
W Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 1

Table 1. Mitigation Goals and Objectives
Goal
Objective
Expected Outcomes
Construct stream channels that will
Improve stream channel
maintain stable cross -sections,
Reduce shear stress on channel boundary.
stability.
patterns, and profiles overtime.
Reduce sediment inputs from bank
Repair eroding stream banks with
erosion.
bioengineering.
Install habitat features such as
Increase and diversify available habitats
constructed riffles, cover logs, and
for macroinvertebrates, fish, and
Improve instream habitat.
brush toes in restored/enhanced
amphibians, leading to colonization and
streams. Add woody materials to
an increase in biodiversity over time. Add
channel beds. Construct pools of
complexity including large woody debris
varying depth.
(LWD) to the streams.
Construct stream channels with
Increase floodplain activation frequency.
Reconnect channels with
appropriate bankfull dimensions
Support geomorphology and higher -level
floodplains.
and depth relative to the existing
functions. Improve riparian wetland
floodplain.
hydrology.
Restore riparian wetlands and
Restore wetland hydrology,
associated soil structure by raising
Raise local groundwater elevations.
soils, and plant communities.
stream beds, plugging existing
Periodically inundate floodplain wetlands
ditches, and planting native
and vernal pools via runoff storage.
wetland species.
Plant native canopy and understory
Reduce sediment inputs from bank
Restore and enhance native
species in riparian zone and plant
erosion and runoff. Increase nutrient
floodplain and streambank
native shrub and herbaceous
cycling and storage in floodplain. Provide
species on streambanks. Treat
riparian habitat. Add a source of LWD and
vegetation.
invasive species within the project
organic material to streams. Support all
area.
stream functions.
Permanently protect
Protect Site from encroachment on the
terrestrial and aquatic
Establish a conservation easement
riparian corridor and direct impact to
resources at the Site.
on the Site.
streams and wetlands. Support all stream
functions.
1.4 Qualifications of Bank Sponsor
Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC, the bank sponsor (Sponsor), is wholly owned by Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
(Wildlands). Wildlands is a multidisciplinary professional engineering firm that brings together the
expertise necessary to create outstanding ecological restoration projects in a timely and cost-effective
manner. To execute stream and wetland mitigation projects, Wildlands assembles a team of project
specific subcontractors to perform surveying, construction services, and planting. Each of these
subcontractors has substantial experience in stream, wetland, and buffer restoration in North Carolina
and a substantial full-time professional staff presence in North Carolina. For this project, Wildlands
Engineering will serve as the Authorized Agent.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, INC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attn: Shawn Wilkerson
Email: swiIkerson@wild landseng.com
�. Widllands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 2

2.0 Establishment and Operation of Mitigation Bank
2.1 Ownership Agreements
The Site is located on five parcels owned by five different entities, and option agreements to record a
conservation easement for the Site have been signed by all landowners. Upon completion of the review
process for the bank prospectus, the Sponsor will submit a detailed mitigation plan and an umbrella
mitigation banking instrument (UMBI) for the site. The UMBI will provide detailed information regarding
bank operation and the long-term management of the Bank. Once the final mitigation plan is approved
and the accompanying instrument executed by members of the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the
Sponsor will record a conservation easement on the Bank.
2.2 Landowner Information
Table 2 lists the landowner names, parcel identification number(s), deed book numbers, page numbers,
and address associated with each parcel on the site.
Table 2. Landowner Information
Landowner
Parcel ID Number
Deed Book and Page Number
Address
Charles Howard Isley
and spouse, Linda
8739-11-8579
DB: 8707, PG: 978-981
6694 Kimesville Road
Liberty NC 27298
Shoffner Isley
Alfred Nicholas
Purrington and wife,
8739-14- 9412
DB: 8707, PG: 655-659
6650 Kimesville Road
Liberty NC 27298
Jacinda I. Purrington
James Donald Smith and
5654 Foster Store Road
spouse, Brandi Smith
8739-10-0173
DB: 8707, PG: 944-948
Liberty NC 27298
Billy Spoon and Peggy
6690 Kimesville Road
Eller
8739-32-1822
DB: 8707, PG: 953-957
Liberty NC 27298
Deborah E. Meridith
8739-44-1097
DB: 6250, PG: 2911-2913
6657 Kimesville Road
Liberty NC 27298
2.3 Proposed Service Area
The Site will provide compensatory mitigation credits to be used to offset impacts to Waters of the
United States and/or State Waters within the Cape Fear 02 (Hydrologic Unit 03030002) as defined and
specified in the UMBI which governs operation of the Bank. The proposed service area is shown in
Figure 2. The service area includes the cities of Greensboro, Burlington, and Chapel Hill and portions of
Durham, Morrisville, Cary, Apex, and Pittsboro.
2.4 Need and Feasibility of Mitigation Bank
2.4.1 Need
Basinwide
The Cape Fear 02 basin, as described in the DWR 2005 Cape Fear River Basin Water Quality Plan (WQP),
contains significant development in and around the municipalities mentioned above and also has several
large, registered agricultural operations. Several federal and state highways run through the basin
including 1-40/85, US-29, US-70, US-220, US-421, NC-49, NC-54, NC-61, NC-62, and NC-87. Developing a
mitigation bank will allow unavoidable impacts to Waters of the United States within the service area to
be mitigated appropriately and provide a means for the economic growth of this region to continue
while ensuring aquatic resources and water quality are maintained. This includes the potential widening
for the roads within the watershed.
�. Widllands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 3

The Sponsor expects Bank customers to include private enterprises and public entities with North
Carolina Division of Transportation (NCDOT) as the primary client. Several mega sites including the
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite in nearby Liberty and the Chatham-Siler City Megasite in Siler City will
bring jobs and people to the area. Infrastructure and housing will likely be required to support these
enterprises. Mitigation demand in this basin has been historically strong and is expected to continue,
justifying establishment of additional mitigation sites and banks within the service area.
Figure 3 depicts the potential projects set forth by NCDOT for fiscal years 2024-2033 within the Cape
Fear 02 watershed. This includes transportation projects along several state, regional, and transition
highways.
If the DWR 2022 Cape Fear River Basin WQP is released before the mitigation plan submittal, Wildlands
will update the basinwide need of a mitigation bank, accordingly.
Loral Suhhasin
The proposed Bank is located in DWR subbasin 03-06-03 and 14-digit HUC 03030002040080. The Site
includes an unnamed tributary to South Prong Stinking Quarter Creek (referred to in this proposal as
Britt Creek) and seven tributaries to Britt Creek.
Land use within project stream watersheds is a mix of forested and agricultural land with some low -
density residential development. The land use was calculated using the National Land Cover Database
(NLCD) for 2011 available through StreamStats Version 4. The watershed areas and current land uses are
shown on Figure 4a and 4b.
2.4.2 Feasibility
Based on the preliminary existing conditions assessments performed at the Bank in early 2023,
Wildlands is confident that the site has substantial potential for the development of a viable mitigation
bank. The project will provide substantial uplift to South Prong of Stinking Quarter Creek and its
receiving waters within the Cape Fear River Basin.
3.0 Ecological Suitability of Site
3.1 Bank Site Characterization
The Site is located on five parcels owned by five landowners and surrounded by agricultural and forest
land. Most of the Site is forest land characterized by mid to late successional forest canopy. The land
around Britt Creek Reach 6 and Eric Branch is former cattle pasture that is currently used for hay
production (Figure 5).
Wildlands reviewed historic aerials from 1937 to present (Appendix A). Between 1937 and 1950 a mill
pond is visible upstream of the existing, breached mill dam on Britt Creek. It appears to have impounded
the creek to a point upstream of Jim Branch. The mill pond is no longer visible in the 1961 aerial and by
1964 Britt Creek can be seen flowing through the former impoundment. Other notable land use changes
include the construction of a gas line across upper Britt Creek between 1961 and 1964 and conversion of
forest to cattle pasture around lower Britt Creek between 1970 and 1977. Aside from these changes,
land use appears to have been consistent since the 1930's and the streams have existed in their
approximate locations over that time period.
Photographs showing the existing condition of the Site are provided in Appendix B. Descriptions of
project streams, wetlands, and riparian vegetation are included in the following sections and supporting
data is provided in Appendix C. A USGS topographic map of the Site is provided in Figure 6.
�. Widllands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 4

3.1.1 Existing Conditions - Streams
In February 2023, all Site streams were evaluated and scored. Britt Creek, Jim Branch, Alex Branch, Rob
Branch, and Matt Branch scored as perennial. Eric Branch, Ben Branch, and Gerardo Branch scored as
intermittent. Across the site, bed material consists of sand, gravel, and cobble with minimal LWD.
Table 3 and the descriptions below detail the existing conditions of project streams.
Table 3. Stream Existing Conditions
Existing
Bank
Drainage
Height
Stream
Existing Condition
Stream Reach
Length
Ratio
(ft)
Area (ac)
(ft/ft)
Ratio
Determination
Impairment
(ft/ft)
Britt Creek R11
382
2,630
8.7
1.4
Perennial
Incision
8.0
Incision, streambank
Britt Creek R2
2,918
3,082
1.6 -1.7
Perennial
11.0
erosion, LWD
Britt Creek R31
582
3,088
12.2
1.0
Perennial
---
Britt Creek R4'
488
3,162
12.7
1.3
Perennial
Straightening/relocation
Britt Creek R5'
674
3,194
9.5
1.0
Perennial
Streambank erosion,
livestock trampling, LWD
Incision, streambank
Britt Creek R6
2,374
3,322
9.1- 9.9
1.5 - 2.1
Perennial
erosion, livestock trampling,
LWD, riparian buffer
Jim Branch R11
685
298
10.4
1.3
Perennial
---
Incision, streambank
Jim Branch R2
641
301
9.0
2.3
Perennial
erosion, LWD
Alex Branch R1'
935
85
7.7
1.2
Perennial
---
Alex Branch R2'
368
90
7.5
2.1
Perennial
Incision, streambank
erosion, LWD
Ben Branch'
82
51
16.1
1.4
Intermittent
Incision, livestock trampling
Rob Branch R1'
75
50
16.2
1.5
Perennial
---
Rob Branch R21
131
51
14.2
2.1
Perennial
Streambank erosion
Incision, streambank
erosion, livestock trampling,
Eric Branch
320
8
4.0
2.3
Intermittent
LWD, riparian buffer,
straightening/relocation
Gerardo Branch'
230
19
25.3
1.0
Intermittent
---
Matt Branch'
273
60
20.7
1.0
Perennial
---
'Stream dimension metrics approximated from LiDAR data.
Rritt CrPPk
Britt Creek generally flows northeast through the Site. Reach 1 flows from a culvert under Humble Road
through a forested buffer approximately 50 feet wide with agricultural fields beyond. The floodplain is
narrow and flat in this area with Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)
along both banks. The channel is incised, straightened and has been impacted by a utility crossing at the
downstream end of the reach.
�. Widllands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site - Draft Prospectus Page 5

Reach 2 flows northeast through a mature hardwood forest with Chinese privet and multiflora rose in
the understory of the upper end of the reach. Ben Branch and Jim Branch flow into this reach. Erosion is
consistent throughout the reach. Incision is much greater downstream of a bedrock knickpoint within
the reach. The bank height ratio was calculated as 1.6 in the surveyed cross section below the
knickpoint. The reach has a moderately wide floodplain with moderate valley side slopes on either side.
Some bedrock steps exist in the channel bed.
Reach 3 starts at a 90-degree bend in the stream and flows east. An old mill dam that has been breached
is located in the upper portion of the reach. The reach ends at an existing farm access road (ford). This
reach has an established riparian buffer of mature hardwood species with areas of dense vines. The
floodplain is narrow with steep valley walls on both sides of the stream. The channel bed contains a
combination of small boulders and stones from the breached dam.
Reach 4 starts downstream of the existing farm access road (ford). Rob Branch flows into the middle of
this reach. Near the Rob Branch confluence, the stream has been relocated to allow drainage from
manmade upland areas associated with the old mill dam. Some signs of streambank erosion and incision
are present due to Reach 4 being beyond the old mill dam grade control influence. Similar to Reach 3,
riparian buffer is established and mature. The floodplain is narrow with a steep valley wall on the
Northern side of the stream. The Southern side of the stream contains Rob Branch and a few ditches
draining the wider portion of floodplain. Historical relocation for upland drainage has formed a large,
sandy depositional feature near the confluence with Rob Branch.
Reach 5 starts downstream of the footprint of the old mill site and extends approximately 180 feet
downstream of the confluence of Gerardo Branch. The reach is eroded in many locations along both
banks. Cattle have historically had access to Reaches 5 and 6 and there is one highly eroded access
point. The reach has a forested buffer that consists of mixed hardwood species along the right bank and
little to no wooded riparian buffer along the left bank. The floodplain is narrow and widens slightly at
the downstream end as valley slopes become more moderate.
Reach 6 flows northeast to a culverted crossing under Kimesville Road and continues downstream. Eric
Branch flows into Reach 6 upstream of Kimesville Road and Matt Branch flows into Reach 6 downstream
of Kimesville Road. Reach 6 is incised and eroded throughout. The bank height ratio was measured at
1.5 — 2.1 in the surveyed cross sections. The valley is generally narrow along both banks with low to
moderate grade slopes. Upstream of Kimesville Road, there is little to no riparian buffer on either side,
with pasture grasses dominating the floodplain and occasional woody plants such as Chinese privet,
river birch (Betula nigra), American sycamore, American holly, and red maple along the banks.
Downstream of Kimesville Road, a forested buffer ranging from 20-100 feet wide, with pasture beyond,
exists in the right floodplain and the left buffer area is completely forested. A large, high -quality wetland
borders the left streambank at the downstream extents. Relic hydric soils are present throughout the
floodplain.
lim Rrnnrh
Jim Branch flows southeast through the Site. Reach 1 begins downstream of Humble Road and flows
through a mature forested buffer. The floodplain is narrow along both banks with moderate valley
slopes. Bedrock near the middle of Jim Branch provides grade control for Reach 1.
Reach 2 begins just upstream of the bedrock grade control. The floodplain is narrow and widens as the
stream approaches the floodplain of Britt Creek. Valley slopes along both sides of this stream are
moderately sloped. The channel is incised and eroded. The bank height ratio was measured at 2.3 in the
surveyed cross section. 2-6 inch bedrock steps are present in the channel bed.
�. Widllands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 6

Alex Branch
Alex Branch flows south and begins approximately 1,350 feet upstream of the Site. Reach 1 has a mature
forested buffer over 200 feet wide. Valley wall slopes along both sides of this stream are moderate with
a narrow floodplain.
Reach 2 begins at an existing head -cut and flows into Jim Branch Reach 2. The stream is eroded and
incised. Similar to Reach 1, Reach 2 has a mature forested buffer over 200 feet wide characterized by
moderate valley wall slopes and a narrow floodplain.
Ben Branch
Ben Branch flows northwest into Britt Creek Reach 2. This stream divides cattle and agricultural fields,
flowing through a forested buffer before entering the Site in the floodplain of Britt Creek. Valley walls
along both sides of this stream are gently sloped with a narrow floodplain. The channel is incised. Cattle
have historically had access to this channel upstream of the Site.
Rob Branch
Rob Branch flows north and drains from upstream cattle and agricultural fields. The stream has a mature
forested buffer ranging from 20 to 100 feet on either bank. Reach 1 has a narrow floodplain with
moderately sloped valley walls.
Reach 2 has a narrow floodplain with moderately sloped valley walls that widens as the stream enters
the floodplain of Britt Creek. The channel exhibits some bank erosion and drains potential wetland
areas.
Eric Branch
Eric Branch flows north and enters the Site downstream of a culverted crossing under Kimesville Road.
The valley walls are moderately to steeply sloped along the stream and broaden as the stream enters
the floodplain of Britt Creek, where the stream appears to have been straightened and relocated to the
valley edge. There is little to no riparian buffer on either side of the stream, with pasture grasses
dominating the floodplain and occasional woody plants such as American sycamore (Platanus
occidentlias), American holly (Ilex opaca), and red maple (Acer rubrum) along the banks. The stream is
eroded and highly incised throughout. The bank height ratio was measured at 2.3 in the surveyed cross
section. The stream receives runoff and sediment from Kimesville Road.
Gerardo Branch
Gerardo Branch flows north and drains from upstream cattle and agricultural fields. The stream has a
mature forested buffer ranging from 40 to 50 feet at the upstream end that widens to over 300 feet as it
approaches the floodplain of Britt Creek. The channel is primarily stable. Valley walls along both sides of
the stream are moderately sloped with a narrow floodplain that widens as the stream approaches Britt
Creek.
Matt Branch
Matt Branch originates west of Kimesville Road and flows southeast through a forested corridor towards
Britt Creek. Matt Branch flows onto the Site through a culverted crossing beneath Kimesville Road. The
downstream invert of this culvert is perched approximately 18-24 inches above the normal pool
elevation of the downstream scour pool. The stream flows through the forested left buffer of Britt Creek
Reach 5, exhibiting low bank height ratio and stable pattern. Upstream of the confluence with Britt
Creek, the channel incises to match bed grade of Britt Creek at the confluence.
3.1.2 Existing Wetlands
Existing jurisdictional wetlands along Britt Creek Reaches 1, 2, 4, and 5 and Jim Branch are impaired by
the drainage influence of the incised stream channels and infrequent overbank events as well as project-
Widllands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
W Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 7

wide ditching. Existing wetlands along Britt Creek Reach 1 and the upper portions of Britt Creek Reach 2
are further impaired by the presence of invasive species such as Chinese privet and multiflora rose and
aggressively growing native species such as blackberry (Rubus pensilvanicus) and greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia). These wetlands provide minimal functional value to wildlife habitat or water quality
improvements. Hydroperiods are expected to be relatively short due to the effect of the incised stream
channels and ditches. A Licensed Soil Scientist (LSS) confirmed the presence of hydric soil in all existing
wetlands (Appendix D). There are additional areas containing hydric soils along all reaches of Britt Creek,
Jim Branch, Ben Branch, Eric Branch, and Rob Branch which do not currently have wetland hydrology.
This suggests the historic presence of wetlands that have been drained by stream incision and
manipulation of the Site.
3.1.3 Existing Vegetation
Riparian buffer conditions along project streams vary across the Site. Britt Creek Reach 1 has a forested
buffer consisting primarily of young tree and shrub species along its banks. Britt Creek Reaches 2 and 3
meanders through a forested buffer varying in width from 50 to over 300. Reach 4 of Britt Creek has
little to no wooded buffer along its left bank and Reach 5 has little to no wooded buffer along either
bank. Upslope of the Site boundary, Ben Branch has a forested buffer between 30 to 50 feet wide with
agricultural fields beyond. On site, Ben Branch flows through the wide forested buffer adjacent to Britt
Creek. Both Alex Branch and Jim Branch have riparian buffers consisting of mature mixed hardwood
forest that extend over 200 feet from both banks. Rob Branch and Gerardo Branch have similar buffer
conditions to Ben Branch upslope of the Site boundary, with wider buffers (100-200 feet) existing nearer
to the Site boundary. On site, Rob Branch and Gerardo Branch flow the forested Britt Creek floodplain. A
higher percent composition of saplings exists along Gerardo Branch than the remainder of the Site. Eric
Branch has little to no wooded buffer along either bank as it flows through an active hay field.
Forested buffer zones consist of mixed hardwood forests which vary in composition across the Site.
Common species include tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), American sycamore, winged elm (Ulmus
alata), red maple, river birch, sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua), American hornbeam (Carpinus
caroliniana), box elder (Acer negundo), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), American holly, American beech
(Fagus grandifolia), and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). Invasive species such as Chinese privet,
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and multiflora rose can be found in most forested areas in
variable densities but are not dominating native vegetation. In non -forested areas, pasture grasses
dominate the floodplains with occasional occurrences of trees, shrubs, and vines along channel banks.
3.1.4 Soils
The proposed project is mapped by the Web Soil Survey for Guilford County. The primary project area
soils are described below in Table 4 and Figure 7. Wehadkee soils are mapped along streams with
broader floodplains. Appling Sandy Loam, Cecil Sandy Loam, and Vance Sandy Loam soils are generally
mapped on hillslopes and narrower valleys. A LSS performed on -site soil evaluations within areas
proposed for wetland mitigation and determined that existing wetland hydric soils are most like the
Wehadkee series and areas with relic hydric soils between 11-20 inches are most like the Chewacla
series. The LSS report is included in Appendix D.
Table 4. Project Soil Types and Descriptions
�. Widllands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 8

Soil Name
Description
Wehadkee soils are poorly drained to very poorly drained soils, found on
Wehadkee Soils (WhA)
slopes ranging from 0 to 2%. They are frequently flooded and typically
located on floodplains. Permeability is moderately high to high. They
consist of loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock.
Appling Sandy Loam soils are well drained soils that consist of residuum
Appling Sandy Loam (ApQ
weathered from igneous and metamorphic rock. They can be located on
interfluves and side slopes, with slopes ranging from 2 to 10%. Their
permeability is moderately high to high.
Cecil Sandy Loam soils can be found on interfluves and summit shoulders
Cecil Sandy Loam (CcB,
with slopes ranging from 2 to 15%. The soils are well drained with
CcD, CeB2, CeC2)
moderately high to high permeability. Their parental material is saprolite
derived from granite and gneiss or saprolite derived from schist.
Chewacla Loam soils are poorly drained and found on slopes ranging from
Chewacla Loam (ChA)
0-2%. They are frequently flooded and typically located on floodplains.
The parent material is alluvium from weathered mica schist. Permeability
is moderate.
Madison Sandy Loam soils are well drained soils found on hillslopes and
Madison Sandy Loam
ridges ranging from 15 to 35%. Weathered mica schist or other micaceous
(MaE)
metamorphic rock is the parent material for this soil series. These soils
have moderately high to high permeability.
The Wilkes-Poindexter-Wynott complex is a well -drained soil series found
Wilkes-Poindexter-Wynott
on hillslopes and ridges ranging from 10 to 45%. Weathered residuum
complex (WkD, WkE)
from diorite, gabbro, diabase, or gneiss is the parent material for this soil
series. These soils have very low permeability
Vance Sandy Loam soils are well drained soils found on slopes ranging
Vance Sandy Loam (VaC,
from 2 to 15%, on hillslopes on ridges and interfluves. Their parent
Val))
material is saprolite derived from granite and gneiss or saprolite derived
from schist. Their permeability is moderately low to moderately high.
Source: Soil Survey of Guilford County, North Carolina, USDA-NRCS,
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov. usda. govlAppIWebSoilSurvey. aspx
3.1.5 Geology
The Project is in the Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The Piedmont Province is
characterized by gently rolling, well rounded hills with long low ridges and elevations ranging from 300-
1,500 feet above sea level. The Carolina Slate Belt consists of heated and deformed volcanic and
sedimentary rocks. Most of the proposed restoration site is located in the CZg formation of the Carolina
Slate Belt. The CZg formation consists of metamorphosed granitic rock characterized as megacrystic,
well foliated, and locally containing hornblende (NCGS, 2009).
Sources:
1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina 1:500,000 scale.
Compiled by Philip M. Brown at el. Raleigh, INC, North Carolina Geological Survey
h ttos: //ncdenr. moos. arcuis. com/coos/MaiiSeries/index. h tml?aooid=a8281 cbd24b84239b29cd2co798d4a10
Soil Survey of Guilford County, North Carolina, USDA-NRCS, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
`. Widllands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 9

3.2 Cultural Resources and Significant Natural Heritage Areas
The Site is not located near any sites listed on the National Register with the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO). The archaeological site files at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) have
not been reviewed at this time. All appropriate cultural resource agencies will be contacted for their
review and comment prior to any land disturbing activity. A breached mill pond dam is present within
the Site boundary.
3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
Wildlands searched the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) databases to identify federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal
species for Guilford County, NC. Currently the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), the Roanoke
logperch (Percina rex), and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) are listed as endangered and
the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) and small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) is listed as
threatened. Pedestrian surveys conducted on February 14 and February 16, 2023, indicated that the
project area does provide suitable habitat for the Atlantic pigtoe and small whorled pogonia. The Site
does not provide suitable habitat for the Cape Fear shiner, Roanoke logperch, and Schweinitz's
sunflower. Wildlands will conduct a full review for protected species during development of the
Mitigation Plan and will coordinate with USFWS and NCWRC as necessary based on that review.
Table S. Federally Protected Species in Chatham County, NC
Species
Federal Status
Habitat
Flowering Plant
Schweinitz's sunflower
Endangered
Inhabits roadsides, power line clearings, old pastures, and
(Helianthus schweinitzii)
woodland clearings. It prefers poor clayey or rocky soils.
Small whorled pogonia
Inhabits open, somewhat dry, hardwood or mixed hardwood
(Isotria medeoloides)
Threatened
and softwood forests, with scarce shrub and herb layers, small
breaks in canopy.
Clams
Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia
Threatened
Inhabits coarse sand and gravel in small creeks to large rivers
masoni)
with excellent water quality and silt free substrates.
Fish
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis
Inhabits streams and rivers with gravel, cobble, and boulder
mekistocholas)
Endangered
substrate. Found in slow pools, riffles, and runs. They are often
found near water willow beds.
Roanoke logperch (Percina
Endangered
Inhabits medium to large warm -water streams and rivers of
rex
moderate gradients with unsilted substrates.
Habitat information from the following website: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/species-listings-bv-current-range-
countV?fips=37037
3.4 Floodplain Compliance
Britt Creek is labeled South Prong Stinking Quarter Creek Tributary 1 and is mapped in a Zone AE Special
Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) on Guilford County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 8728 (Appendix Q.
A limited detailed study has been performed on Britt Creek with base flood elevations defined and a
delineated floodplain. The tributaries do not have detailed hydraulic studies performed, but the
downstream portions of all reaches confluent to Britt Creek fall within the SFHA. Effective hydraulic
modeling for Britt Creek will be obtained from the NC Floodplain Mapping Program. A no -rise condition
will be pursued if compatible with stream restoration and floodplain enhancement grading. If a no -rise
condition is not attainable, then a CLOMR will be prepared. Wildlands' engineers have successfully
�. Widllands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 10

navigated the No -Rise and CLOMR processes for several similar full -delivery project sites. The project
will be designed to avoid adverse floodplain impacts or hydrologic trespass on adjacent properties or
local roads.
3.5 Site Constraints and Access
Existing culverts beneath Humble Road and Kimesville Road provide minor constraints to the Site design
as they will dictate channel bed grade and bankfull stage elevation within their vicinity. Visual inspection
of these culverts indicates they are in good condition, and they are not proposed to be replaced or
altered as part of the proposed project. Due to difference in elevation between the existing convert
inverts and the floodplain, transitional sections of Priority II restoration and/or enhancement will be
implemented within the vicinity of the culverts to provide floodplain access at the bankfull stage.
An existing gas utility easement crossing the upstream end of Britt Creek Reach 2 provides another
minor Site constraint. Visual inspection of the area within the crossing indicates Priority 1 restoration
should be achievable through the existing easement. Wildlands will coordinate with the utility during
Mitigation Plan development to ensure the proposed design does not conflict with the interests and/or
requirements of the utility.
Three external crossings are proposed at the Site to maintain landowner access to a pasture and avoid
conflict with existing public right of way and utility easement. Proposed crossings will be maintained in
the same position as the existing crossings. Proposed crossings are summarized and numbered below in
Table 6 and on Figure 8.
Table 6. Proposed Easement Crossings
No.
Width (ft)
Location
Internal or External
Crossing Type
Purpose
1
60
Britt Creek Reach 1
External
Utility
Gas Line Crossing
2
50
Britt Creek Reach 3
External
Maintain Ford
Landowner Crossing
3
901
Britt Creek Reach 5
External
Maintain Culverts
Public RoW & Overhead
Utility Easement
1: Final crossing width to be determined based on deed research
The easement boundaries around streams proposed for mitigation credit provide the required 50-foot
minimum riparian buffer for Piedmont streams. The entire easement area can be accessed for
construction, monitoring, and long-term stewardship from Humble Road and Kimesville Road. There are
three small airports within five miles of the Site known as Kecks, Causey, and Hinshaw (Green Acres)
Airports. Kecks and Hinshaw are both grass strips that appear to be seldom used. Causey is a paved
runway with several hangers housing small private aircraft.
4.0 Mitigation Work Plan
4.1 Streams
The proposed bank will include 10,789 LF of stream restoration, enhancement level II, and preservation,
and 27.406 acres of wetland re-establishment, enhancement, and preservation. These approaches were
chosen to provide the highest degree of ecological uplift to the system. Figure 8 provides an overview of
the proposed mitigation activities on site.
W Wicillands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 11

4.1.1 Restoration
Project streams proposed for restoration include Britt
Creek Reaches 1, 2, 4 and 6, Jim Branch Reach 2, Alex
Branch Reach 2, Ben Branch, Rob Branch Reach 2, and
Eric Branch. The restoration reaches are all eroded, and
most are incised. The restoration reaches will be
designed and built with appropriate dimension,
pattern, and profile to allow for frequent overbank
flooding, provide stable bank slopes, enable biological
lift, and reconnect streams with existing wetlands and
floodplains. Reference streams will be identified and
will serve as one of the primary sources of information
on which restoration designs are based. Wildlands has developed a general approach to be used as the
basis for stream restoration design. The design approach, which is tailored to each Site, continues to
develop as additional projects are implemented. Outside of a few transition zones at upstream or
downstream ends of reaches, all reaches proposed for restoration will be designed with a Priority I
approach, raising channel beds to reconnect them with existing floodplains. Implementation of a Priority
I approach will result in restoring the natural flooding regime to the floodplain wetlands and decrease
the drainage effect on areas that are believed to be drained, historic wetlands. Bank revetments, such as
brush toes, will be used to stabilize outer meander bends where necessary. Installation of structures,
such as constructed riffles and bed scour inducing structures, within the restored channels will promote
water quality, increase bed and bank stabilization, provide bedform diversity, and increase aquatic and
terrestrial habitat. Buffers will be planted with native hardwood trees and invasives will be treated
within the conservation easement. Wildlands plans to evaluate stream substrate and determine
appropriate gradations/bed features for the Site streams. The appropriate substrate will be harvested
on -site if possible.
4.1.2 Enhancement II
Britt Creek Reach 5 is slated for an Enhancement II mitigation approach. This reach is not incised but
does exhibit frequent bank erosion. The primary enhancement activities include streambank
stabilization through installation of brush toe and log vanes, replanting as needed, and treating invasive
species within the established riparian buffers.
4.1.3 Preservation
Britt Creek Reach 3, Rob Branch Reach 1, Jim Branch Reach 1, Alex Branch Reach 1, Gerardo Branch, and
Matt Branch are proposed for preservation. These reaches are stable with low bank height ratios, riffle
pool sequences, and bedrock outcrops in the channels. The channels will not require any reconstruction
or installation of bank or in -stream structures. Supplemental planting will be completed on Gerardo
Branch to expand the width of the forested buffer as needed.
4.1.4 Restoration — Not for Credit
A portion of Britt Creek Reach 3 is not proposed for credit. This reach flows through the footprint of the
old mill pond dam which degrades some stream functions in the immediate vicinity of the dam. 100 LF
of this reach is not proposed for credit (50 feet upstream and 50 feet downstream of the dam).
W Widllands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 12

4.2 Wetlands
Proposed wetland mitigation includes enhancement and preservation of existing wetlands and re-
establishment of historic wetlands. Wetland enhancement practices will include hydrologic
improvement, invasive species management, and establishment of a native hydrophytic vegetation
community. Wetland hydrology will be restored in re-establishment areas through Priority I restoration
of project streams and filling existing ditches that accelerate drainage of the floodplain soils. Wetland re-
establishment is proposed in areas predominantly containing hydric soils. Some re-establishment is
proposed in areas that were slightly short in achieving hydric criteria but contained hydric features
between 10 to 20 inches of soil depth. These areas exhibited morphology caused by saturation and
infrequent bankfull events, but depletions comprise a slightly lower percentage of the matrix or begin at
a slightly greater depth than required to achieve hydric soil criteria (Appendix D). It is highly likely these
soils will support wetland hydrology following Priority 1 stream restoration. Wetland credit zones are
presented in Figure 8.
4.3 Vegetation Plan
Wildlands will work to protect and preserve mature, .;
native vegetation where possible. In areas disturbed
during construction and in areas lacking native
herbaceous and woody vegetation, native riparian
buffers will be planted. These areas include along
restored and enhanced stream reaches, in all proposed
wetland restoration zones, and in all riparian
restoration areas. Buffer restoration will involve seeding
native herbaceous riparian vegetation and planting
appropriate native tree species along the riparian
corridor. Herbaceous species in addition to those Planted Rioarian
seeded are expected to re-establish naturally
throughout the Site due to soil disturbances and deposition on the floodplain. Live stake shrub species
will be planted along restored streams. Vegetation management and herbicide applications will be
needed over the first few years of tree establishment in the riparian buffer restoration areas to prevent
encroachment of invasive species. A site -specific planting plan will be presented in the Mitigation Plan
and will be based on an appropriate nearby reference community and past project experience. The plan
will be developed to restore appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous layers).
Vegetation planted in restored wetland areas will be based on species identified within appropriate
reference locations and professional experience based on site conditions. Areas with an existing wooded
riparian corridor will be treated for invasive species. The Site will be protected in perpetuity under a
conservation easement and will be marked per US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and IRT guidelines.
5.0 Performance Standards and Monitoring Plan
The performance criteria for the Site will follow approved performance criteria presented in the October
2016 IRT Mitigation Monitoring Guidance. Annual monitoring will be conducted to assess the condition
of the completed project. Specific performance standard components are proposed for stream
morphology, hydrology, and vegetation. The stream restoration reaches of the project will be assigned
specific performance criteria components for hydrology, vegetation, and geomorphology. Performance
criteria will be evaluated throughout the seven years of post -construction monitoring. An outline of the
performance criteria components follows.
�. Widllands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 13

5.1 Stream Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
Dimension
Riffle cross sections on the Restoration reaches should be stable and should show little change in
bankfull area, bank height ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. Riffle cross sections should fall within the
parameters defined for channels of the appropriate stream type. If any changes do occur, these changes
will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Changes in the
channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width -
to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be taken
if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
In order to assess channel dimension performance, permanent cross sections will be installed on
Restoration reaches per the IRT Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines (October 2016). Each cross section will
be permanently marked with pins to establish its location. Cross section surveys will include points
measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. Cross
section and bank pin surveys (if applicable) will be conducted in monitoring years one, two, three, five,
and seven.
Profile and Pattern
Longitudinal profile surveys will be conducted during the as -built survey but will not be conducted
during the seven-year monitoring period unless other indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a
trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If a longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will
follow standards as described in the Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field
Technique (Harrelson et. al., 1994) for the necessary reaches.
5.2 Hydrology
Stream
Four bankfull flow events, occurring in separate years, must be documented on the Restoration reaches
within the seven-year monitoring period. Stream monitoring will continue until success criteria in the
form of four bankfull events in separate years have been documented. Bankfull events will be
documented using photographs and an automated pressure transducer. The device will be installed in
the stream within a surveyed riffle cross section. Photographs will also be used to document the
occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition.
Where Restoration activities are proposed for intermittent streams, monitoring gauges will be installed
to track the frequency and duration of stream flow events. Continuous surface water flow within the
tributaries must be documented to occur every year for at least 30 consecutive days during the seven-
year monitoring period. This 30-day period of flow can occur at any point during the year. Additional
monitoring may be required if surface water flow cannot be documented due to abnormally dry
conditions.
Wetland
Groundwater monitoring will be conducted for seven years after construction to evaluate the hydrologic
condition of the created and enhanced wetland areas. Wetland groundwater gages will be installed in
accordance with the techniques and standards described in the USACE document entitled "Technical
Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites" (ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2, June 2005).
Groundwater monitoring gages will be established throughout the wetland areas to adequately
�. Widllands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 14

characterize the different soils, vegetation communities, and surface topographic variations that are
found across the Site.
The LSS reports indicate that hydric soils within the study area are most similar to the Wehadkee series.
Performance criteria for the wetland hydrology of the Wehadkee soil series is 12-16%, as provided by
the 2016 Wilmington District Mitigation update. An appropriate value within this range will be selected
as the wetland hydrologic performance criterion based on further Site investigation. The growing season
start date will be based upon soil temperature remaining above 41 degrees Fahrenheit and observation
of bud burst, but may not begin prior to March V. The growing season end date will be based on
autumn leaf senescence and soil temperature remaining above 41 degrees Fahrenheit. Per USACE
guidance, soil temperature probes will be placed at a 12-inch soil depth.
5.3 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the riparian
corridors at the end of the required monitoring period (year seven). The interim measure of vegetative
success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320 native species stems per acre at the end of the
third monitoring year and at least 260 native species stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of
monitoring. Also, trees must average seven feet in height at the end of the fifth monitoring year, and ten
feet in height at the end of the seventh monitoring year. The extent of invasive species coverage will
also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required monitoring period.
Vegetation monitoring quadrants will be monitored for seven years and will be installed across the Site
to measure the survival of the planted trees. The number of monitoring quadrants required will be
based on the October 2016 IRT Mitigation Monitoring Guidance. Vegetation monitoring will occur in
monitoring years one, two, three, five, and seven between July 1st and leaf drop and will follow the CVS-
EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (2008) or another approved protocol.
5.4 Other Parameters
Photo Reference Stations
Photographs should illustrate the Site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of persistent mid -channel bars within the channel or vertical
incision. Grade control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane
arms is preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document stability for seven years following
construction. Permanent markers will be established and located with GPS equipment, so that the same
locations and view directions on the Site are photographed each year. Photos will be used to monitor
restoration and enhancement areas, as well as vegetation plots.
Longitudinal reference photos will be established at regular intervals along the channel by taking a
photo looking upstream and downstream. Cross sectional photos will be taken of each permanent cross
section looking upstream and downstream. Reference photos will also be taken for each of the
vegetation plots. Representative digital photos of each permanent photo point, cross section, and
vegetation plot will be taken when the stream and vegetation assessments are conducted. The
photographer will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Visual Assessments
W Widllands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 15

Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards for each metric as described
above. Visual assessments will be performed along stream reaches on a semi-annual basis during the
seven-year monitoring period. Problem areas such as channel instability (e.g., lateral and/or vertical
instability, instream structure failure/instability and/or piping, headcuts), vegetation health (e.g., low
stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive species, or encroachment), beaver activity, or livestock
access will be noted. Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed and will be accompanied by a
written description in the annual report. Problem areas will be re-evaluated during each subsequent
visual assessment. Should remedial actions be required, a plan of action will be provided in the annual
monitoring report.
6.0 Determination of Mitigation Credits
The mitigation stream and wetland credit calculations were derived using the USACE Stream Mitigation
Guidance and was based on Wildlands' conceptual design for maximum ecological uplift. Given the
existing conditions of the stream channels, wetlands, the disturbance factors, and the constraints,
management objectives for each reach have been established. The Site will be a combination of stream
restoration, enhancement level II activities, and preservation; as well as wetland re-establishment,
enhancement, and preservation activities. Stream restoration is proposed at a ratio of 1:1, stream
enhancement level II is proposed at 2.5:1, and stream preservation is proposed at 10:1. All areas
proposed for wetland re-establishment require hydrologic uplift through stream restoration and filling
drainage features. Wetland re-establishment is proposed at a ratio of 1:1. Wetland enhancement is
proposed at a ratio of 2:1, 2.5:1, or 3:1 depending on the level of hydrologic uplift needed. Wetland
preservation is proposed at a ratio of 10:1. The management objective, the mitigation type, and
proposed amount of mitigation is presented in the below Tables 7a and 7b.
�. Widllands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 16

Table 7a. Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits
Stream Credits
Reach
Management Objectives
Type of Mitigation
Length
(feet)
Credit
Ratio
Stream
Credits
RESTORATION
Britt Creek R1
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile
with Priority 1 restoration. Install habitat structures,
allow bankfull floodplain access. Enhance and establish
native riparian buffer.
Restoration
475
1
475
Britt Creek R2
2,750
2,750
Britt Creek R4
475
475
Britt Creek R6
2,500
2,500
Ben Branch
100
100
Jim Branch R2
688
688
Alex Branch R2
400
400
Rob Branch R2
163
163
Eric Branch
238
238
Restoration Subtotal:
7,789
7,789
ENHANCEMENT II
Britt Creek R5
Stabilize banks throughout and enhance and establish
native riparian buffer.
Enhancement II
570
2.5
228
Enhancement II Subtotal:
570
228
PRESERVATION
Britt Creek R3
Treat invasive species as needed.
Preservation
470
10
47
Rob Branch R1
80
8
Jim Branch R1
580
58
Alex Branch R1
860
86
Gerardo Branch
220
22
Matt Branch
220
22
Preservation Total
2,430
243
TOTAL:
10,789
8,260
Table 7b. Proposed Wetland Mitigation Credits
Wetland Credits
Type of
Area
Credit
Wetland
Area
Management Objectives
Mitigation
(Acres)
Ratio
Credits
Raise adjacent stream beds and fill ditches to re-
Wetland Re-
Wetland Re-
establish hydrology in relic wetlands and enhance and
16.558
1
13.8901
establishment
establishment
restore native wetland vegetation
Raise adjacent stream beds and remove ditches to
Wetland
Wetland
improve hydrology to existing wetlands and enhance
2.770
2
1.385
Enhancement
Enhancement
native wetland vegetation
Exclude livestock and remove ditches to improve
Wetland
Wetland
hydrology to existing wetlands and enhance native
2.369
2.5
0.948
Enhancement
Enhancement
wetland vegetation
Raise incised adjacent stream beds to improve
Wetland
Wetland
hydrology to existing wetlands and enhance native
3.141
3
1.047
Enhancement
Enhancement
wetland vegetation
Wetland
Wetland Preservation
Protect high -quality wetland resources
2.568
10
0.257
Preservation
TOTAL:
27.406
17.527
1: Credit calculation assumes loss of area due to channel realignment.
l,,. Widllands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 17

7.0 Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built surveys of the
Site. Under no circumstances shall the Bank be debited until the necessary Department of Army (DA)
authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided
written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required for construction of
the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the IRT, will determine if performance standards
have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where
some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the
specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to
which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of project credits will be in
compliance with the October 24, 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update Guidance Document. The proposed credit release schedule is shown in Tables 8 and
9.
Table 8. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Credit
Release
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Release
Released
Milestone
a. Execution of the UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE (this was a
modification to an instrument);
b. Approval of the final Mitigation Plan;
C. Confirmation that the Mitigation bank site is secured;
d. Delivery of the executed financial assurances described in the Mitigation
1
Plan;
15%
15%
e. Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion
acceptable to the USACE;
f. 404 permit verification for construction of the site; and,
g. Documentation of the establishment of the long-term endowment/escrow
account
Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made
2
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan
15%
30%
First year monitoring report demonstrates channels are stable and interim
3
performance standards have been met
10%
40%
Second year monitoring report demonstrates channels are stable and
4
interim performance standards have been met
10%
50%
Third year monitoring report demonstrates channels are stable and interim
5
performance standards have been met
10%
60%
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates channels are stable and
65%
6
interim performance standards have been met
o
5/0
(75%')
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
75%
7
being met
10%
(85%')
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
80%
8
being met
50/
(90%.)
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable,
90%
9
performance standards have been met.
o
10%
(100%.)
*A 10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
W Wicillands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 18

Table 9. Wetland Credit Release Schedule
Credit Release
Interim
Total
Milestone
Credit Release Activity
Release
Released
a. Execution of the UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE (this was a
modification to an instrument);
b. Approval of the final Mitigation Plan;
c. Confirmation that the Mitigation bank site is secured;
d. Delivery of the executed financial assurances described in the Mitigation
1
Plan;
o
15/0
0
15/0
e. Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion
acceptable to the USACE;
f. 404 permit verification for construction of the site; and,
g. Documentation of the establishment of the long-term endowment/escrow
account
Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made
2
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan
15%
30%
First year monitoring report demonstrates interim performance
3
standards are being met
10%
40%
Second year monitoring report demonstrates interim performance
4
standards are being met
10%
50%
Third year monitoring report demonstrates interim performance
5
standards are being met
15%
65%
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates interim performance
6
standards are being met
5%
70%
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met; Provided that all performance standards are met, the IRT
7
may allow the Bank Sponsor to discontinue hydrologic monitoring after
15%
85%
the fifth year, but vegetation monitoring must continue for an
additional two years after the fifth year for a total of seven years
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
8
being met
50/
90%
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
9
are being met, and project has received close-out approval
10%
100%
7.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits is defined as Bank Establishment in the October 24, 2016
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update Guidance Document. The
initial allocation can be released without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion
of the following activities:
a. Execution of the UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE.
b. Approval of the Final Mitigation Plan.
c. Recordation of the conservation easement and delivery of a title opinion acceptable to the
USACE.
d. Delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan.
e. 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.
�. Widllands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 19

7.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream projects, a reserve
of 10% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after four bankfull events have occurred in
separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event
that less than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits
shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As the bank approaches milestones associated with the credit
release, Wildlands will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation
substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included
with the annual monitoring report.
8.0 Maintenance and Long -Term Sustainability
8.1 Maintenance
The Site shall be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the project shall be conducted
on average at once per quarter throughout the post -construction monitoring period until performance
standards are met. Site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine
maintenance. Routine maintenance will be conducted to rectify identified deficiencies and may include
the activities listed in Table 11.
Table 11. Maintenance Plan
Component/
Maintenance Through Project Close -Out
Feature
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in -stream structures
to prevent piping, securing loose coir matting, and supplemental installations of live stakes and
Stream
other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows
intercept the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head -cutting.
Beaver dams that inundate the streams channels shall be removed and the beaver shall be
trapped.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted community.
Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting,
Vegetation
pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species affecting the viability of the
mitigation shall be controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation control
requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with the NC Department of
Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the Site and
Site
adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree -blazing,
Boundary
or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers
disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as -needed basis.
8.2 Adaptive Management
Upon completion of site construction, the Sponsor will implement the post -construction monitoring
protocols and minor remedial actions (routine maintenance) will be performed as needed for the
duration of the monitoring period. The Sponsor will notify the USACE immediately if monitoring results
or visual observations suggest a trend towards instability, major remedial actions are needed, or that
performance standards cannot be achieved. Should major remedial measures be required, the Sponsor
will submit a Corrective Action Plan and coordinate with the USACE until authorization is secured to
�. Wicillands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 20

conduct the adaptive management activities. The Sponsor is responsible for funding and/or providing
the services necessary to secure any necessary permits to support the proposed major remedial
adaptive management actions, to implement the corrective action plan, and to deliver record drawings
that depict the extent and nature of the work performed. If the USACE determines that the Site is not
meeting performance standards or the Sponsor is not complying with the terms of the instrument, the
USACE may take appropriate actions, including but not limited to: suspending credit sales, utilizing
financial assurances, and/or terminating the instrument.
8.3 Long -Term Management Provisions
The Sponsor will institute a Long -Term Management Plan responsible for assessing the condition of the
Bank and implementing maintenance provisions to maintain the performance of the Site. The proposed
conservation easement will help to ensure that only USACE and IRT approved activities take place. This
easement will be transferred to a USACE and IRT-approved non-profit organization once monitoring
success criteria have been achieved.
The provider for long-term management of the Site is anticipated to be Unique Places to Save
(UP2Save). UP2Save is a 501c3 nonprofit committed to land conservation through conservation planning
and management. The funding mechanism for long term management will be a stewardship
endowment funded by Wildlands. Contact information for UP2Save is listed below.
Unique Places to Save
206 Causeway Drive #206
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Phone: [phone]
Email: info@ uniqueplacestosave.org
To monitor the project's continued success, a Long -Term Management Plan will be implemented
following the seven-year monitoring period. All components of the Site will be inspected annually or less
frequently as needed to ensure that the Site remains stable in perpetuity. Sources of instability or other
deficiencies will be addressed. Invasive species will be managed annually or less frequently as needed to
ensure the long-term survivability of the planned native vegetation community. All reporting will be
documented and kept on file for future reference.
�. Widllands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 21

9.0 References
Geologic Map of North Carolina 1:500,000 scale, 1985. Compiled by Philip M. Brown at el. Raleigh, NC,
North Carolina Geological Survey.
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=a8281cbd24b84239b29cd2ca7
98d4a10
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2011. Web Soil Survey.
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2005. Cape Fear Basinwide Water Quality Plan,
accessed at: https://deq.nc.gov/media/309/download
NC Division of Mitigation Services. 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities
NCDMS Summary of Findings and Recommendations for the Rocky River (Upper & Middle) and Bear
Creek Local Watershed Plan. NCDMS 2005. Upper Rocky River LWP Detailed Assessment and
Targeting of Management Report. https://deg.nc.gov/media/8073/download
Soil Survey of Chatham County, North Carolina, USDA-NRCS, accessed at
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
W Widllands Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Underdog Mitigation Site — Draft Prospectus Page 22

Figures

aonington
• ■ • +� • r • r •ter•• r • r • r a,
• r • r -• r � ■ �' � r • r • a�e� • i
ti
/ r ■ ■� • ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ i y
• ■ •� r� ■ • r
I
! '
■ ■ ■ C%// ■ I
• ■ • •
■ • ■ 4° ;
iE
• • ,1 r o�A e` l a `
/ �■ ; ■ ■ rQt aJa
• /�• r
/ GI ■ Kecks 1
Airport r = project Location
• ■ A -
I _
/ V 1 A L Spoon
$F ■ r 1 Haw (Gana) 0
Airport
I
Guilford
Randolph.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._,.._..� ,
/ 0 / ■ ■ • ■ 0 ■ • Randolph Coutrty �
Open Space ; • . r
• • ■ • ■
OD
i 0 ■ • l Town of Uberty ll Hinshaw ,
Piedmont land Freedom Park [Greenaaw
■ r • • L It 4omffwni# • ■ I "-Airport/
• r • r • ■ r ■ �/`• ■ / ,q 3 :}.
Y.�, s
■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ 9 ■ / /r ✓ G ✓a s rf C
�Lierty/I . t
• r • r ■ / • ■
R ■ i • ■ i i • G1 ■ ■ �r �; I Upen SPaoe
Project Location Water Supply Watershed NC Historic Preservation Areas
Five Mile Radius Water Quality TRA Local Watershed Plan
County Line Habitat TRA 303d Listed Streams (Draft)
Municipalities Hydrology TRA Water Features
Hydrologic Unit Code {14-Digit} Significant Natural Heritage Areas © Airports
Q River Basin NC Natural Heritage Program Managed Areas
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
W I L D L A N D 5 ❑ 0.75 1.5 Mires Underdog Mitigation Site
ktww E N G 1 N E E R I N G Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
l l i l
Guilford County, NC

ID service Area - HUC 03030002
14 Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
County Boundaries
Municipalities
Underdog Mitigation Site
-•,-`.~.._..Y--Rural Hall ._.._.._..,
C
- Forsyth
CO -
I
j Iv9adisan
1 �
31.1
1
I
I r
•:E5] r e5u`ui"
1
j
i158, r
i
Ridge
visville Winston-Salem
O
1 w
R I
C:leni mxls 1
150
jj.._..,
- Davie '
CO� Y Thor,Lville
.+ .7— v j
Lexington
n
- Davidson
CO -
1
1+.�-.r••� r47 , 1
- Rowan CO - .-� - 49.
1
65
. Rn
1
14 1
1
;ingham Reidsville
87 I
.;'
1
�29J I
1
I
ord
e oro
- Randolph
64 CO ,=e11� 1rC
E4
221
s2 I
I
.. 1
D +41
1
I
I
i
644 1
1
I
j
I
i
902
j
Burlington
5iler City
0
j 1
119
Yanceyvrlle
o j x ro 1 96.
1585 1
- Caswell it
CO - - Person CO -
1
8649 I 168`, Uxford
1
I
j - Granville.
Co-
lebar
1
1
f
• %-I 1GL
CO
+ 501 I
++ I
I
�7
1,96 1 uButner Creedmoor
r
1
Hillsborough
q ' ►• ..�
- Orange CO.-
- Durham CO. "�••.
j }Durham
ilk, I
C11�1pe1 .lip ';+
87 VV
421.
r-
LeeCO-
r"
-Lee'CO-;,�nF1It C:arnlii�a
- Vance CO -
i
Ir
- Franklin
CO-
j 9fi
j
Wake
G
% 5 1
Cary Raleigh K3tightdale
�• 0 - Wake CO;-
pex -
40
�4j ; OFF ,.•..,.
lb 'No
1�
cHolly Springs L� � I' Clayton
t � � ��'• � dam.
•
�# - Johnston
�CO -
�•�••�•� Fuq;lay-Vanua I • 42 1 ; 70
= Harnett..,•
;• CO -
Figure 2. service Area Map
Underdog Mitigation Site
WILD LANDS 0 7 14 Miles Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
ENGINEERING �I l l lI I I
Guilford County, NC

1 . S ....._..... .
■ .�-Alieghany �
y co- !
- Ashe Co
�••� ■
- Wilkes Co -
421
11
-r.._....,.�.._.._.,�..�.._..�..�..�..'.._........_.._.._.._.._.....i-_-----_-,_„_.._„_,--, ---
0.
i
- Surry Co -
- Stokes Co - j * f - Rockingham
52 j ■ Co -
•L•I I 31j
r
+ /
ar;
- Yad kin Co -
421 (�
Statewide Highway
Regional Highway
r. 7 Division Highway
i Interstate Maintenance
Bridge; None Bridge
/ Transition Highway
Other Highway; None Highway;
None Highway Safety
Statewide Aviation
+ Regional Aviation
Division Aviation
Aviation; Ex Aviation
;i Regional Ferry
Division Ferry
Transition Ferry
0 Statewide Rail
Regional Rail
Division Rail
Transition Rail
Other Rail; None Rail
Regional Public Transit
!I1
Division Public Transit
[. Other Public Transit
Division Bicycle And Pedestrian
M Transition Bicycle And Pedestrian
Statewide Highway
Regional Highway
Division Highway
IM
CMAQ
Other- Highway; None Highway;
None Highway Safety
Transition Highway
ea am Transition Rail
c=== Regional Public Transit
Division Public Transit
Division Bicycle And Pedestrian;
Regional Bicycle And Pedestrian
`■ Transition Bicycle And Pedestrian
Other Bicycle And Pedestrian; Ex
Congestion Mitigation -Non;
PT Public Transit
Irl Statewide Rail
■
- Forsyth_ r
1 Guilfor
Co
1 � °H
1 �• _ q r)
58 F)anvdl,,
360
— •— --i _••-- — ..,_.._.._.._.._.'. _.._.._.._..--501 .....—•-----•--- fp• —„--- ------
I j f
1
1 --- - Caswell
Co - ? 1--Person Co - .
• 1 j - Vance
Granville
Co -
.._.._..._._--•—.._.._.: ,k.._..i._.._..._.._,.._.._.._.._.._.. i
I97 I ; 5C'1
0 Bu,lingff Q'
Ptl. cc
.._.._,- j 1.
- Oran a Co -
Co- --Durham Co - i„� •�'•.�,, 0
I j r am
1 1 ► KAW
•'�
..l • ••�, I r� 1
87
.Y-- f j� '-�—,.4.._.. .._v •1� � fly'
i
►. p ��a� 158
IC7 -
- Warren Co -
/i
551
.I
- Franklin
-ti �• Nash Co -
IN
- Davidson `
Co - 540. I�- Waft Co. - -■.; ,�' .-�•..
40
- Randolph-FU / I r�� sa �►1 / ''
-Chatham—)Lj ,..• - Wilson
i C°- Co-
Co-
i �J ■ ;
49
10
] j y; l*•- C a r o l i n a�� f
j �.
._.._.._�. _.._,._._.._.._.._.._.._.._...._.._----._..1_.._.._.._.._..�.•� '�. li �-Johnston? �
Co-
:' `• `
� 421
+•� •�� '�• !' - Harnett.A
! / Co- i
Nbernarle 7 j 1''r
- Montgomery r ' nazi
:anly Co - 0 - l .� ;• ■ i .,,.r' - Wayne Co -
Moore Co - ao,
National Foresr. 11241
0 Service Area - HUC 03030002 i �• �..�•-�•'� '�ti ;r;F
---� County Boundaries '�•'` =.�:� ,��''•rr• r -Cuberland Sampson
r---- 1 [f► Co - /
% - HokeFC0-ihsrl, Co - i
Underdog Mitigation Site d ? i lin
1�1il�ta�y �; s - Dup-
� j' Reservatiai� ; -� j Co -
-Richmond CD - y �x0 11e
Figure 3. NCDOT STIP FY 2024-2033
■ N. W I L D L A N D 5 Underdog Mitigation Site
lZ! ENGINEERING a 12 24 Miles Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Guilford County, NC

` S�tii '-i Co61e
Church
rch Rd
l .K` r s..•l n r - � .�.
CO
14
ro
,7 Ms= T
■ r !' L
MOO
deaIn R [ ��if
igm w
Cr.
Cause y Aviation 32 i,• .F .
010
_ .•co
. ti• N!' SmithBritt 4
Creek
a
:: •. L
.: -Y
Subwatersheds
fs'r I Proposed Conservation Easement
WzRd—
X. I
o .e �+rlik
Intermittent
J' j 24) t �
�• ate`• o Non -Project
202�rlImagery 3; a - i�,r.. -

stir, • � 4' i } ,:i� .�[� �:. � �.
'k` #gym Yi } ►
PC
oh1 ' a
- a Chu►ch Rd_- ;,y• �,
r �f
Matt Branch
,.
60 ac,
Alex Branch 4
Jim Branch 90 ac 02.o
301 ac
Tj
Eric -
Cr; Y —Branch
Apo*its 8 ac 4•.
Britt Cre- - Watershed
-.
3,32 Rob Branch
�.' Gerardo
51 acSubwatersheds
r �: -
- Branch
Proposed
PerennialLaProject
yf:
fiPen Branch~
a 51 ac Intermittent Streams
Non -Project Streams
I Topographic Contours (2')
2022 Aerial 1 agery

PAWAWILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 5. Site Map
Underdog Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
0 250 500 Feet
Guilford County, NC

Kimesville, NC 7.5 Topographic Quadrangle
LAIR
ktWILDLANDS
ww ENGINEERING
'--.Proposed Conservation Easement
Figure 6. USGS Map
P Underdog Mitigation Site
0 500 1,000 Feet Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Guilford County, NC

ApC - Appling Sandy Loam, 6-10% Slopes _
Cc6 - Cecil Sandy Loam, 2-6% Slopes �''
CcD - Cecil Sandy Loam, 10-15% Slopes + f Wk©
VaC
= CeB2 - Cecil Sandy Clay Loam, 2-6% Slopes, Moderately Eroded
2 MaE
I° CeC2 - Cecil Sandy Clay Loam, 6-10% Slopes, Moderately Eroded - t
ChA - Chewacla Loam, 0-2% Slopes, Frequently Flooded ;P WhA'
MaE - Madison Sandy Loam, 15-35% Slopes eB2
Vac - Vance Sandy Loam, 6-10% Slopes
CeC2
VaD - Vance Sandy Loam, 10-15% Slopes
9 ` a
WhA - Wehadkee Loam, 0-2/o Slopes, Frequently Flooded �� _ ✓✓
CcD
WkD - Wilkes-Poindexter-Wynott Complex, 10-15% Slopes
WkE - Wilkes-Poindexter-Wynott Complex, 15-45%Slopes WhA � VaC
CeC2 eC2 s..•:
ChA
WkE-
�rVaC
CeC2 IVa
?4 :�
■
WhA -
FrVaD
CeC2 Va Project Location
CcB ! Proposed Conservation Easement
Perennial Project Streams
f ►4p� � r� ..... Intermittent Project Streams
Non -Project Streams
%0 WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 7. Soils Map
❑ 350 700 Feet Underdog Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Guilford County, NC

Figure S. Concept Design Map
Underdog Mitigation Site
ftAkA W I L D L A N D S Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
ENGINEERING 0 250 500Feet
I i i i I Guilford County, NC

k1k*ww W 1 L D L A N D S
ENGINEERING
Figure 9. LiDAR Map
0 300 600 Feet Underdog Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Guilford County, NC

Appendix A: Historic Aerial Photography

k ti E•.
4 t r• k ti
{- , w 6 • � _ !�" .. ..ram
im,
�;
1l, j
4EA
_ lyy �fV'i:,.t��4 �+. �• .i�f' {2. �i.� 1, y1q:= � Y r.�yy f �-' ! ` R/,..Z '�i •,
LL��[ j �yfyi'�l �: !� �. �. ta''r i. -f' .�C i� ����1 [ �• �J
•!' � .,��t j�3'j : �a cry . , F. {' 1 �, f: s :ta .!`' -
F'i.. Y : ✓;��V r'�.�[r.L1'e _5T! 3•.;.':�C,.`.•
'•� +-�, �• ,
. F, �;-�'r . i .1�5��'�`�1 "r�rr. /' : _ �i:.iy: �l �Y`ii! r�zV �k t_ E•L;'..1`r {y�'. :t• :?i l;�.... � ,fJ r F�c�' ,} •.• R::
�' r,; '� , i�,. �''',� t s' 'v ?. c'r. i' t '�i fig• �.�F.`•,;i;� '
yS •r�
�S •,�� �.x•� r.M 'iY,e i 1``y ;r�C'..' .c: +y a y, F - :•5i•'. �
a Sri. ^'• r+ fy,lt1� 1
•�••'. R'iYs4' t66 . �i 1
P_ q
f a
r
V.
r _ .It
,P
INQUIRY #: 7252057.5
YEAR: 2020 LI N "yF. ` ' ` ' + s 4

r
I 1
r .
e
.ram
Y.
w1 b
rF . —
" tin r
r'
. r
t
ENQUIRY k 7252057.5
YEAR! 20141000, .= `.•• '� .
EDR +� �w

• -a 'Le
qq
1AL-, A
INQUIRY M 7252057.5
YEAR: 2009 1. N
= 1000, (rEDR a6mim
14

r
INQUIRY k 7252057.5
YEAR: 2006 1 N
= 1000, EDR

y
•!k . 'r. a 1 11. i �`_
x
ri
•�
• �h F •
• r
Y
1
f '. -
,.r d 1
#NQUIRY k 7252057.5 N • !L s '' ~ ' "
YEAR: 1999 { 1: s•c.
FOR
= 1000' 1 s

ju
y f
1 rY•
m
s

r�
t.
t�. lk V
i'
f
INQUIRY k 7252057.5
.'
YEAR: 1950 4■ ■
= 1000' EDR 3 1

Appendix B: Site Photographs

Britt Creek Reach 1 (2/14/2023)
Britt Creek Reach 2 (2/14/2023)
Britt Creek Reach 2 and Jim Branch confluence (2/14/2023)

Britt Creek Reach 1— debris jam (9/6/2023) Britt Creek Reach 1— incision downstream of Humble Rd Bridge
(9/6/2023)
Britt Creek Reach 2 — major debris jam (2/14/2023) 1 Britt Creek Reach 2 — eroding and incised bank (2/14/2023) 1
�� tp �t .
y
f
1�
Britt Creek Reach 2 — eroding and incised bank (2/14/2023) Britt Creek Reach 2 — cross Section 1 downstream (2/14/2023)

Britt Creek Reach 2 — cross Section 1 upstream (2/14/2023) 1 Britt Creek Reach 2 — cross Section 5 downstream (2/14/2023) 1
Britt Creek Reach 2 — cross Section 5 upstream (2/14/2023) 1 Britt Creek Reach 3 — Mill Pond Dam and Stable Stream (2/14/2023)
Britt Creek Reach 4 — eroding, undercut banks (10/4/2023) 1Britt Creek Reach 5 — eroding banks (2/14/2023)

Britt Creek Reach S — active erosion around meander (2/14/2023) 1 Britt Creek Reach 6 — stream crossing (2/14/2023) 1
Britt Creek Reach 6 — low radius meander with eroding bank
(2/14/2023)
Britt Creek Reach 6 — Eric Branch confluence (2/14/2023)
Britt Creek Reach 6 — cross Section 3 upstream (2/14/2023) 1 Britt Creek Reach 6 — cross Section 3 downstream (2/14/2023)

12.1
,k� y

Britt Creek Reach 6 — cross Section 6 upstream (9/6/2023)
Britt Creek Reach 6 — cross Section downstream (9/6/2023)
Alex Branch Reach 1— perched culvert at head of reach (2/14/2023) 1 Alex Branch Reach 1— stable riffle section (2/14/2023) 1
�. 4
Alex Branch Reach 2 — headcut (2/14/2023) 1 Alex Branch Reach 2 — erosion and mass wasting (2/14/2023)

Jim Branch Reach 1— stable riffle section (2/14/2023) 1 Jim Branch Reach 2 — incision below Alex Branch confluence
Jim Branch Reach 2 — cross section 4 downstream (2/14/2023) 1 Jim Branch Reach 2 — cross section 4 upstream (2/14/2023)
Ben Branch — eroding and incised banks (2/14/2023) 1Ben Branch — headcut (2/14/2023)

Rob Branch Reach 1— stable riffle section (10/4/2023) 1 Rob Branch Reach 2 — confluence with Britt Creek (2/14/2023) 1
Rob Branch Reach 2 — incision upstream of Britt Creek (2/14/2023) 1 Rob Branch Reach 2 — eroding and incised banks (2/14/2023) 1
Eric Branch — eroding and incised banks (2/14/2023) 1Eric Branch — eroding and incised banks (2/14/2023)

;�
,� a
i�i
r J &�w
� r; �
�er� 4
�,,• . � � _
x x. x
;' y � r
� f �
���
`��, ' � �
x a x a,
� � � -�„� -
�r''� d e

Appendix C: Existing Conditions Data

Cross Section 1
Riffle - Britt Creek Reach 2
95
94
93 --------------------------
c
92
91
w 90
89
88
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Elevation (ft) Width (ft)
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
50.4
x-section area (ft.sq.)
--- W flood prone area (ft)
23.6
width (ft)
--- entrenchment ratio
2.1
mean depth (ft)
4.3 low bank height (ft)
2.6
max depth (ft)
1.6 low bank height ratio
26.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.0
width -depth ratio
Cross Section 2
Riffle - Britt Creek Reach 6
98
97
96 ------------------------------------
95
6 94
93
w 92
91
90
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Width (ft)
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
49.8
x-section area (ft.sq.)
--- W flood prone area (ft)
21.3
width (ft)
--- entrenchment ratio
2.3
mean depth (ft)
4.9 low bank height (ft)
3.4
max depth (ft)
1.5 low bank height ratio
23.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.1
width -depth ratio

Cross Section 3
100
99
98
_ 97
96
0 95
94
w 93
92
91
90
Riffle - Eric Branch
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
Bank -full Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
4.1
"x-section area (ft.sq.)
--- W flood prone area (ft)
4.0
"width (ft)
--- entrenchment ratio
1.0
mean depth (ft)
3.1 low bank height (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
2.3 low bank height ratio
5.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
4.0
'4width-depth ratio
Cross Section 4
70
Riffle - Jim Branch
97
96
95
94 - ------------- 7-7 ------ --- --- ---------------------------
c
0
Z� 93
w 92
91 - 0—.4/
90
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
12.0
x-section area (ft.sq.)
--- W flood prone area (ft)
10.4
width (ft)
--- entrenchment ratio
1.2
mean depth (ft)
3.7 low bank height (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
2.3 low bank height ratio
11.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.0
width -depth ratio

Cross Section 5
97
96
95
94
0 93
92
w 91
90
89
Riffle - Britt Creek Reach 2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
50.8
x-section area (ft.sq.)
--- W flood prone area (ft)
20.1
width (ft)
--- entrenchment ratio
2.5
mean depth (ft)
5.9 low bank height (ft)
3.4
max depth (ft)
1.7 low bank height ratio
22.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.0
width -depth ratio
Cross Section 6
Riffle - Britt Creek Reach 6 (Downstream of Kimesville Rd.)
97
96
95
94
0 93
> 92
a�
w 91
90
89
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
49.0
x-section area (ft.sq.)
--- W flood prone area (ft)
21.8
'width (ft)
--- entrenchment ratio
2.3
mean depth (ft)
6.3 low bank height (ft)
3.0
max depth (ft)
2.1 low bank height ratio
23.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.7
width -depth ratio

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ' �oa 3 Project/Site:
Evaluator: countye1�'�
Total Points: Stream Determination (circl o
: is at intermittent t
if >_ 19 eren
if 19 or perennial if = 30" Ephemeral Intermitten
Latitude: 3512,5916 , t
Longitude: UCI r,r1I1.1 71w/
Other WS � I I
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomornholoav (subtotal F Absent Weak Moderate T Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
sequence_
0
1
2
0
-ripple-pool
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control )beasron a �_
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
1 0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
I No = 0
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R HVrlrnlnev (Suhtntal = Oi.S 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria '� QA,
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
Q
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = s
C Rininov (Suhtntal = R_ 5 ]
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
Q
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 er =
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
u �
Sketch:

x
NC DWO gtream Idimfifientinn Form Vercion'4 11
Date:
Project/Site:
Latitude: 35,IQ11
Evaluator:
Count
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination circle one)
E hemera n Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
if _> 19 or perennial if >_ 30*
p , ntermitt
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = }
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
;0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
CO)
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
e
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1 '`
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel p� D
,; % No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R' Hvrimlonv (.r uhtntal = Ll _ 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5'
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
o =
Yes = 3
C_ Bioloav (Subtotal = A)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1)
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2,
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
op1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1''
1.
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 ther =
*perennial streams may, also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: 5kyog S_
aA
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: February 16, 2023
Project/Site:
Underdog
Latitude: 35.928675
Evaluator: CL
Trib/Reach: Jim Branch
Longitude: -79.572619
Total Points: 45
Stream Determination: Perennial >= 30
County: Guilford
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
24.5)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1. Continuity of channel bed
and bank
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
103
2. Sinuosity of channel along
thalwe
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
0 3
3. In -channel structure
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
0 3
4. Particle size of stream
substrate
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
0 3
5. Active/relict floodplain
❑ 0
❑ 1
0 2
❑ 3
6. Depositional bars or
benches
❑ 0
❑ 1
0 2
❑ 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
❑ 0
❑ 1
0 2
❑ 3
8. Headcuts
❑ 0
0 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
9. Grade control
❑ 0
110.5
0 1
❑ 1.5
10. Natural valley
❑ 0
❑ 0.5
❑ 1
0 1.5
11. Second or greater order
channel
❑ No - 0
0 Yes - 3
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 9.5)
12. Presence of Baseflow
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
0 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
100
❑ 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
14. Leaf litter
0 1.5
❑ 1
❑ 0.5
❑ 0
15. Sediment on plants or
❑ 0
❑ 0.5
0 1
❑ 1.5
debris
16. Organic debris lines or
❑ 0
❑ 0.5
01
❑ 1.5
piles
17. Soil -based evidence of
1-1No= 0
0 Yes = 3
high water table?
C. Biology (Subtotal = 11)
18. Fibrous roots in
streambed
0 3
❑ 2
❑ 1
❑ 0
19. Rooted upland plants in
streambed
❑p 3
❑ 2
❑ 1
❑ 0
20. Macrobenthos (note
diversity and abundance
❑ 0
❑ 1
0 2
❑ 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
❑ 0
❑ 1
0 2
❑ 3
22. Fish
100
❑ 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
23. Crayfish
❑ 0
0 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
24. Amphibians
0 0
❑ 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
25. Algae
❑ 0
0 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
26. Wetland plants in
streambed
❑ FACW = 0.75; ❑ OBL = 1.5; 0 Other = 0
Notes:
lung snails, caddisflies, mayflies, bedrock

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: February 16, 2023
Project/Site:
Underdog
Latitude: 35.931668
Evaluator: CL
Trib/Reach: Alex Branch
Longitude: -79.569933
Total Points: 37
Stream Determination: Perennial >= 30
County: Guilford
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
19.5)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1. Continuity of channel bed
and bank
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
103
2. Sinuosity of channel along
thalwe
❑ 0
❑ 1
0 2
❑ 3
3. In -channel structure
❑ 0
❑ 1
0 2
❑ 3
4. Particle size of stream
substrate
❑ 0
❑ 1
0 2
❑ 3
5. Active/relict floodplain
❑ 0
❑ 1
0 2
❑ 3
6. Depositional bars or
benches
❑ 0
❑ 1
0 2
❑ 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
❑ 0
0 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
8. Headcuts
❑ 0
0 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
9. Grade control
0 0
110.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
10. Natural valley
❑ 0
❑ 0.5
❑ 1
0 1.5
11. Second or greater order
channel
❑ No - 0
0 Yes - 3
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 9)
12. Presence of Baseflow
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
0 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
14. Leaf litter
❑ 1.5
0 1
❑ 0.5
❑ 0
15. Sediment on plants or
❑ 0
❑ 0.5
0 1
❑ 1.5
debris
16. Organic debris lines or
❑ 0
❑ 0.5
01
❑ 1.5
piles
17. Soil -based evidence of
1-1No= 0
0 Yes = 3
high water table?
C. Biology (Subtotal = 8.5)
18. Fibrous roots in
streambed
0 3
❑ 2
❑ 1
❑ 0
19. Rooted upland plants in
streambed
❑p 3
❑ 2
❑ 1
❑ 0
20. Macrobenthos (note
diversity and abundance
❑ 0
0 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
❑ 0
0 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
22. Fish
100
❑ 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
23. Crayfish
M 0
❑ 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
24. Amphibians
0 0
❑ 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
25. Algae
❑ 0
0 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
26. Wetland plants in
streambed
❑ FACW = 0.75; ❑ OBL = 1.5; 0 Other = 0
Notes:
completed at confluence of two tribs above culvert

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: February 16, 2023
Project/Site:
Underdog
Latitude: 35.928180
Evaluator: CL
Trib/Reach: Rob
Longitude: -79.566433
Total Points: 31
Stream Determination: Perennial >= 30
County: Guilford
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
15)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1. Continuity of channel bed
and bank
❑ 0
❑ 1
102
❑ 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along
thalwe
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
❑✓ 3
3. In -channel structure
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
Z 3
4. Particle size of stream
substrate
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑✓ 2
❑ 3
5. Active/relict floodplain
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑✓ 2
❑ 3
6. Depositional bars or
benches
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑✓ 2
❑ 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
8. Headcuts
❑✓ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
9. Grade control
0 0
110.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
10. Natural valley
❑ 0
❑ 0.5
❑✓ 1
❑ 1.5
11. Second or greater order
channel
❑p No - 0
❑ Yes - 3
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 8.5)
12. Presence of Baseflow
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
❑✓ 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
100
❑ 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
14. Leaf litter
❑ 1.5
101
❑ 0.5
❑ 0
15. Sediment on plants or
❑ 0
100.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
debris
16. Organic debris lines or
❑ 0
❑ 0.5
0 1
❑ 1.5
piles
17. Soil -based evidence of
1-1No= 0
❑✓ Yes = 3
high water table?
C. Biology (Subtotal = 7.5)
18. Fibrous roots in
streambed
❑p 3
❑ 2
❑ 1
❑ 0
19. Rooted upland plants in
streambed
0 3
❑ 2
❑ 1
❑ 0
20. Macrobenthos (note
diversity and abundance
❑ 0
❑✓ 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
❑✓ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
22. Fish
100
❑ 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
23. Crayfish
❑✓ 0
❑ 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
24. Amphibians
❑p 0
❑ 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
25. Algae
❑ 0
0 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
26. Wetland plants in
streambed
❑ FACW = 0.75; ❑ OBL = 1.5; ❑✓ Other = 0
Notes:
several scuds, drains from cattle field

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: February 16, 2023
Project/Site:
Underdog
Latitude: 35.927666
Evaluator: CL
Trib/Reach: Eric
Longitude: -79.562627
Total Points: 28.5
Stream Determination: Intermittent 19 to < 30
County: Guilford
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
13)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1. Continuity of channel bed
and bank
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
103
2. Sinuosity of channel along
thalwe
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑✓ 2
❑ 3
3. In -channel structure
❑ 0
❑ 1
Z 2
❑ 3
4. Particle size of stream
substrate
❑ 0
0 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
5. Active/relict floodplain
❑ 0
❑✓ 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
6. Depositional bars or
benches
❑ 0
❑ 1
0 2
❑ 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
❑ 0
0 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
8. Headcuts
❑✓ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
9. Grade control
0 0
110.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
10. Natural valley
❑ 0
❑ 0.5
❑✓ 1
❑ 1.5
11. Second or greater order
channel
❑p No - 0
❑ Yes - 3
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 8)
12. Presence of Baseflow
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
❑✓ 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
❑✓ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
1-13
14. Leaf litter
❑ 1.5
❑ 1
100.5
❑ 0
15. Sediment on plants or
❑ 0
100.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
debris
16. Organic debris lines or
❑ 0
❑ 0.5
01
❑ 1.5
piles
17. Soil -based evidence of
1-1No= 0
❑✓ Yes = 3
high water table?
C. Biology (Subtotal = 7.5)
18. Fibrous roots in
streambed
❑p 3
❑ 2
❑ 1
❑ 0
19. Rooted upland plants in
streambed
0 3
❑ 2
❑ 1
❑ 0
20. Macrobenthos (note
diversity and abundance
❑ 0
❑✓ 1
❑ 2
1-13
21. Aquatic Mollusks
❑✓ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
1-13
22. Fish
100
❑ 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
23. Crayfish
❑✓ 0
❑ 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
24. Amphibians
❑p 0
❑ 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
25. Algae
❑ 0
0 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
26. Wetland plants in
streambed
❑ FACW = 0.75; ❑ OBL = 1.5; ❑✓ Other = 0
Notes:
sedimentation cominh from road runoff, scuds

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 L7whf 4
16 �0
Date:
Project/Site:
Latitude.
Evaluator: L
'J
County: U
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream
Stream M!", ircle one)
!Ilr
Other
if ? 19 or perennial if 2! 30*
Ephe , ftdht erennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_i
Absent
Weak
Moderate
A"g
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2
�" 3 �)
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
1 In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2 J,
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
5
1
1.5
11. o2 greater order channel
.�22_
t C No
Yes 3
arlITICIal ditches are not rated; see in (Subtotal
_ q'*cussi ns manuai
B. Hydrology (Subt _
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes= 3
C. Biolo (Subtotal = =J
_J
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
-3-,
2
f
. 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
_b
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
2.51
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =f5
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: September 6, 2023
Project/Site:
Underdog
Latitude: 35.931712
Evaluator: CL
Trib/Reach: Matt Branch
Longitude: -79.562472
Total Points: 33
Stream Determination: Perennial >=30
County: Guilford
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
16.5)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1. Continuity of channel bed
and bank
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
0 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along
thalwe
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
0 3
3. In -channel structure
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
0 3
4. Particle size of stream
substrate
❑ 0
❑ 1
0 2
❑ 3
5. Active/relict floodplain
❑ 0
❑ 1
0 2
❑ 3
6. Depositional bars or
benches
❑ 0
❑ 1
0 2
❑ 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
❑ 0
0 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
8. Headcuts
00
❑ 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
9. Grade control
0 0
❑ 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
10. Natural valley
❑ 0
100.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
11. Second or greater order
channel
0 No - 0
❑ Yes - 3
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 9)
12. Presence of Baseflow
❑ 0
❑ 1
❑ 2
0 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
❑ 0
0 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
14. Leaf litter
❑ 1.5
211
❑ 0.5
❑ 0
15. Sediment on plants or
❑ 0
0 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
debris
16. Organic debris lines or
❑ 0
0 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
piles
17. Soil -based evidence of
❑ No = 0
0 Yes = 3
high water table?
C. Biology (Subtotal = 7.5)
18. Fibrous roots in
streambed
❑ 3
212
❑ 1
❑ 0
19. Rooted upland plants in
streambed
❑ 3
0 2
❑ 1
❑ 0
20. Macrobenthos (note
diversity and abundance
❑ 0
❑ 1
0 2
❑ 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
100
❑ 1
❑ 2
❑ 3
22. Fish
0 0
❑ 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
23. Crayfish
0 0
❑ 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
24. Amphibians
❑ 0
0 0.5
❑ 1
❑ 1.5
25. Algae
❑ 0
❑ 0.5
0 1
❑ 1.5
26. Wetland plants in
streambed
❑ FACW = 0.75; ❑ OBL = 1.5; 0 Other = 0
Notes:
Coming from a culvert

Appendix D: Licensed Soil Scientist Report

Soil & Environmental
1 lulu (?even Ridge Road • R:Ilcigh< North Carolina 27614
www,SandEC.c,a u
Consultants, PA
Phone: 1919) S46,-5900 • Fax; (')I')) xan-14(,7
PRELIMINARY HYDRIC SOIL INVESTIGATION
Underdog Mitigation Site
Humble Rd
Liberty, NC
Piedmont
Cape Fear River Basin
Guilford County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Mr. John Hutton
Wildlands Engineering Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
_-:)g -
SM -SC.
��
March 3rd, 2023
1

INTRODUCTION
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC, PA) was retained to perform a preliminary evaluation to
assess the presence and extent of hydric soils onsite. Most of the study area that was evaluated is
wooded but a small area in the eastern most section of the study area is in pasture.
METHODOLOGY
On February 20`", 2023, Kevin Martin (LSS, PWS) of S&EC, PA performed a preliminary soil evaluation at
the site. Hand auger borings were advanced on the property at locations as appropriate to approximately
estimate the location and extent of hydric soils within the project area (see attached Figure 1— Hydric Soil
Map). Each soil boring was evaluated to assess the presence or absence of hydric soil indicators. Hydric
soil indicators were identified utilizing the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States - A
Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils in the United States (Version 8.2, 2018).
All areas evaluated are mapped as the Wehadkee (Fine -loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic
Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts) by NRCS. Most soils with hydric indicators present between 11" and 20"
below land surface were most like the Chewacla soil series (Fine -loamy, mixed, active, thermic
Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts). Soils in the non-hydric areas were most like the Congaree soil series. Hydric
soils observed onsite are most like the Wehadkee soil series.
RESULTS
Eighty-five soil borings were performed within the floodplain of Britt Creek. Fifty-nine borings
contained hydric (Seventeen of the fifty-nine hydric borings contained only the F19 indicator
while forty-two of the hydric soil borings contained the F3b indicator). Sixteen borings contained
a hydric soil indicator at 11" to 20" below land surface. Hydric soil indicators were not found
within 20" of the soil surface at ten boring locations. See Table 2 — Soil Observations, for the
specific findings at each boring location.
A circle on the map indicates approximate soil boring locations (see Figure 1— Hydric Soil Map).
Green circles are at locations that contained hydric soils while the red circles are at non-hydric
soil locations. Yellow circles are at boring locations where the depth to hydric soil indicators was
between 11" and 20" below land surface. At all boring locations considered to contain hydric
soils, hydric soil indicators were found to begin at less than 10" below land surface. Borings
where hydric soils were present contain a depleted matrix and/or the Piedmont Flood Plain Soils
indicator.
Indicator F3: Depleted Matrix
Technical Description: A layer that has a depleted matrix with 60 percent
or more chroma of 2 or less and that has a minimum thickness of either:
(a) 2 in. (5 cm) if the 2 in. (5 cm) is entirely within the upper 6 in. (15 cm)
of the soil, or
(b) 6 in. (15 cm) starting within 10 in. (25 cm) of the soil surface.
2

Indicator F19.—Piedmont Flood Plain Soils
Technical Description: On flood plains, a mineral layer at
least 15 cm (6 inches) thick, starting at a depth <_25 cm (10 inches)
from the soil surface, with a matrix (60 percent or more of the volume)
chroma of less than 4 and 20 percent or more distinct or prominent redox
concentrations occurring as soft masses or pore linings.
All borings performed in hydric soil areas contained the F3b and/or F19 indicator within 10" of
the land surface. A typical soil profile is attached for borings that were performed at boring
locations 25 and 79 and are representative of soil borings that contained only the F3b hydric soil
indicator within 10" of the land surface (See Table 1). The profile description performed at
boring 18 is representative of locations within the study area containing both the F3b and F19
hydric soil indicators within 10" of the soil surface (See Table 1).
3

oop
tram,
~
82
080
ool
74
In
NA
13
1.6
15
,22

Table 1. — Soil Profile Descriptions
Soil Profile #1 Description
Soil Profile #1 / Boring Location 18
Hydric Soil Indicator: F19 and F3b
Series and Taxonomic Class: Wehadkee (Fine -loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts)
Horizon
Matrix
Redox Features
Depth
Horizon
Color
%
Texture
Notes
(inches)
(moist)
Color (moist)
%
Type
Location
0-2
A
10YR 4/3
100
Sandy Clay
Loam
2-8
Bw
2.5Y 5/3
70
7.5YR 4/4
15
C
PL
Sandy Clay
Manganese masses
7.5YR 3/2
15
C
M
Loam
8-14
Bg
2.5Y 6/2
60
10YR 3/2
25
C
M
Sandy Clay
Manganese and iron masses
5YR 4/6
15
C
M
Loam

Soil Profile #2 Description
Soil Profile #2 / Boring Location 25
Hydric Soil Indicator: F3b
Series and Taxonomic Class: Wehadkee (Fine -loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts)
Horizon
Matrix
Redox Features
Depth
(inches)
Horizon
Color
(moist)
%
Texture
Notes
Color (moist)
%
Type
Location
0-4
A
2.5Y 5/2
85
5YR 4/6
15
C
PL
Clay Loam
4-8
Bg
2.5Y 5/1
85
7.5YR 4/6
15
C
PL/M
Clay Loam
8-12
C
2.5Y 5/1
60
7.5YR 4/4
20
C
M
Loamy Sand
10YR 5/4
20
C
M
Soil Profile #3 Description
Soil Profile #3 / Boring Location 79
Hydric Soil Indicator: F3b
Series and Taxonomic Class: Wehadkee (Fine -loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts)
Horizon
Matrix
Redox Features
Depth
Horizon
Color
%
Texture
Notes
(inches)
(moist)
Color (moist)
%
Type
Location
0-6
A
10YR 4/4
100
Clay Loam
6-12+
Bw
2.5Y 5/2
75
7.5YR 3/3
15
C
PL/M
Clay Loam
5YR 3/4
10
C
PL/M

Table 2 - Soil Observations
Boring Number
Description
1
Depleted Matrix at 12"
2
Chroma <4 with significant
concentrations at 14"
3
Depleted Matrix at 19"
4
F3 at 0"
5
Depleted Matrix at 14"
6
F19at10"
7
F19 at 6"
8
Depleted Matrix at 19"
9
Depleted Matrix at 17"
10
F3 at 10"
11
F3 at 2"
12
F3 at 2"
13
F19at10"
14
Upland; Depleted sandy layer at
27"
15
F19 at 6"
16
Upland
17
F3 at 1"
18
F3 at 8"
19
F19 at 8"
20
F19 at 6"
21
F3 at 0"
22
F3 at 6"
23
F3 at 0"
24
F3 at 2"
25
F3 at 0"
26
Depleted Matrix at 16"
27
F3 at 0"
28
F3 at 6"
29
F3 at 6"
30
Chroma <4 with significant
concentrations at 14"
31
Chroma <4 with significant
concentrations at 18"
32
F19 at 2"
33
Upland
34
Upland
35
Chroma <4 with significant
concentrations at 14"
36
Chroma <4 with significant
concentrations at 16"
37
F3 at 10"

38
Chroma <4 with significant
concentrations at 12"
39
Upland; Chroma <4 with
significant concentrations at 24"
40
Depleted Matrix at 16"
41
Depleted Matrix at 14"
42
Depleted Matrix at 16"
43
F3 at 0"
44
F3 at 7"
45
F3 at 0"
46
Depleted Matrix at 19"
47
F19 at 0"
48
F3 at 8"
49
Upland; Depleted Matrix at 24"
50
F3 at 8"
51
Upland; Chroma <4 with
significant concentrations at 24"
52
F3 at 8"
53
F3 at 0"
54
F3 at 2"
55
F19 at 0"
56
F3 at 5"
57
F3 at 0"
58
F3 at 0"
59
F3 at 5"
60
F3 at 10"
61
F3 at 8"
62
F19 at 8"
63
F3 at 7"
64
F3 at 0"
65
F3 at 0"
66
F3 at 2"
67
F19 at 8"
68
F19 at 7"
69
F3 at 6"
70
F3 at 0"
71
F3 at 9"
72
F19 at 8"
73
F19 at 6"
74
F3 at 7"
75
Depleted Matrix at 11"
76
F3 at 6"
77
F3 at 7"
78
Depleted Matrix at 11"

79
F3 at 6"
80
F3 at 0"
81
F3 at 6"
82
Upland
83
F19 at 8"
84
F19 at 2"
85
F19 at 6"

Appendix E: Effective FEMA FIRM 3710872800L

1820000 FEET 1840000 FEET
800000 FEET 79°36'0"W 79°35'30"W 79°35'0"W 79°34'30"W 79°34'0"W 79°33'30"W 79°33'0"W 79°32'30"W 800000 FEET
l:<. tide �' ZONE AE ► r ;ter t� ,
1 r AP
792
CL
L 1 R A.
35°56'30"N ong Stinking bo r+iK ,� # ,rt , ;�
�oYth°Gk Tri'butar7 m
q-� a 0,0 35°56'30"N
Breen Dr y *f1 I •, 821 a�Y
638.3
$„ YIL SY
AI226'8 t
s
E #
co
o
:w ,; cif > •7 • !yr GrJ r: r ' i P
35°56'0"N
35°56'0"N
833 T 1
r
`i '14►.
853 1
031
1 I,.. � � l .f- , r �079 8
� ii
6gs4 ;eP7�1
-
L _
asz . ,.-' ' •, � ' `_ E ,00 � oao 583.3 m
00 Q
35°55'30"N
r N 1
'.' R 1 _ , �, y a 35°55'30"N
871 a r Alp
{r
71
' 2" y - 4 ;', r .�• �o UN�INCOO RPORATED AREAS �- I 067 Se, '� f
8
• � 1111 r 370
_..
' � � '7154 14s '• . " •r -1. !.-: � 076 Sgi♦•O
{ ZONE AE
4r ' M ♦ o458
35°55'0"N r fr
:'�-.•,,- .......; 1ss 6' T tp 35°55'0"N
0
r - Smilhwo°d"Rd :fir * 1os 3gg?
41
14 - T
77 1 _.r
Lf
x
r+
O +
35°54'30"N 35°54'30"N
235
li 7 ` +i ." + k+ 1 •♦ 'a . Y F 143 ✓!
ir
Z
1ti o.
t
sett G'iee� ,�°'e ' # Par x - •`��" " y ,52 619,E # ; S�
0� m kview l2d' %
_ w' South
L ` * m
Trails End Rd + , ' + Prong S,'inking { Q
35°54'0"N '� uarter Creek 1a7 60r� <rl
35°54'0"N
17-2
,•E
-
- � r. RAND � LPH ♦ 0 7" Y O COUN "
°r�„w tijal•`+ _ Y ''" , � �tda2tR ""' � UNIINCORPOI'�TED A]EZE J ,es s45.8 ' x *,,. �
',+ • fir` oeaOnia Loop R_d � d I , 370195 , f s3se5
' r j' � 649.6 •4
� � } " � � � .t - � s '~ Richland C��Cor ,s7 oza Stinking , llf •.. �
.d Quarter Cyr ek
_ ,:�* � � ', � 1 v� - o"z9 •2 Teri-butary 3 � '
rk ifi 4k 9 V $
35°53'30"N - 1s`�dOµ4 r� a� � 780000 FEET
780000 FEET 79°36'0"W 79°35'30"W 79°35'0"W 79°34'30"W 79°34'0"W 79°33'30"W 79°33'0"W 79°32'30"W
1820000 FEET 1840000 FEET
FC ILI C!�ERATIHG TECHNICAL PAFMgE-q
This digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) was produced through a unique
cooperative partnership between the State of North Carolina and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The State of North Carolina has
implemented a long term approach to floodplain management to decrease the
costs associated with flooding. This is demonstrated by the State's commitment
to map flood hazard areas at the local level. As a part of this effort, the State of
North Carolina has joined in a Cooperating Technical State agreement with
FEMA to produce and maintain this digital FIRM.
FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION NOTES TO USERS SCALE
SEE FIS REPORT FOR ZONE DESCRIPTIONS AND INDEX MAP
THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT
HTTP://FRIS.NC.GOV/FRIS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A,V, A99
With BFE or Depth zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
OTHER
AREAS
GENERAL
STRUCTURES
OTHER
FEATURES
Regulatory Floodway
0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1%Annual Chance Flood with Average
Depth Less Than One Foot or With Drainage
Areas of Less Than One Square Mile zone x
Future Conditions 1%Annual
Chance Flood Hazard zone x
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee
See Notes
Areas Determined to be Outside the
`
0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain zone x
-------------
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Accredited or Provisionally Accredited
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
1 f i i i i i i i i i i i
Non -accredited Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
BM5510 X
North Carolina Geodetic Survey bench mark
BM5510®
National Geodetic Survey bench mark
BM5510<�>
Contractor Est. NCFMP Survey bench mark
i2 1's-2—
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
Water Surface Elevation (BFE)
a- - - - -
Coastal Transect
--- --- Coastal Transect Baseline
- Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
For information and questions about this map, available products associated with this FIRM including
historic versions of this FIRM, how to order products or the National Flood Insurance Program in general,
please call the FEMA Map Information eXchange at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Map
Service Center website at http://msc.fema.gov. An accompanying Flood Insurance Study report, Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) revising portions of this panel, and digital versions of this
FIRM may be available. Visit the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program website at http://www.ncfloodmaps.con
or contact the FEMA Map Service Center.
Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well as
the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Map Service Center at the number listed above.
For community and countywide map dates refer to the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in the community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National
Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.
Flood Insurance Study (FIS) means an examination, evaluation, and determination of flood hazards, corresponding
water surface elevations, flood hazard risk zones, and other flood data in a community issued by the North Carolina
Floodplain Mapping Program (NCFMP). The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) is comprised of the following products
used together: the Digital Flood Hazard Database, the Water Surface Elevation Rasters, the digitally derived,
autogenerated Flood Insurance Rate Map and the Flood Insurance Survey Report. A Flood Insurance Survey is a
compilation and presentation of flood risk data for specific watercourses, lakes, and coastal flood hazard areas within
a community. This report contains detailed flood elevation data, data tables and FIRM indices. When a flood study is
completed for the NFIP, the digital information, reports and maps are assembled into an FIS. Information shown on
this FIRM is provided in digital format by the NCFMP. Base map information shown on this FIRM was provided in
digital format by the NCFMP. The source of this information can be determined from the metadata available in the
digital FLOOD database and in the Technical Support Data Notebook (TSDN).
ACCREDITED LEVEE NOTES TO USERS: If an accredited levee note appears on this panel check with your local
community to obtain more information, such as the estimated level of protection provided (which may exceed the
1-percent-annual-chance level) and Emergency Action Plan, on the levee system(s) shown as providing protection.
To mitigate flood risk in residual risk areas, property owners and residents are encouraged to consider flood
insurance and floodproofing or other protective measures. For more information on flood insurance, interested
parties should visit the FEMA Website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/index.shtm.
PROVISIONALLY ACCREDITED LEVEE NOTES TO USERS: If a Provisionally Accredited Levee (PAL) note
appears on this panel, check with your local community to obtain more information, such as the estimated level of
protection provided (which may exceed the 1-percent-annual-chance level) and Emergency Action Plan, on the
levee system(s) shown as providing protection. To maintain accreditation, the levee owner or community is
required to submit the data and documentation necessary to comply with Section 65.10 of the NFIP regulations.
If the community or owner does not provide the necessary data and documentation or if the data and documentation
provided indicates the levee system does not comply with Section 65.10 requirements, FEMA will revise the flood
hazard and risk information for this area to reflect de -accreditation of the levee system. To mitigate flood risk in
residual risk areas, property owners and residents are encouraged to consider flood insurance and floodproofing
or other protective measures. For more information on flood insurance, interested parties should visit the FEMA
Website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/index.shtm.
LIMIT OF MODERATE WAVE ACTION NOTES TO USERS: For some coastal flooding zones the AE Zone
category has been divided by a Limit of Moderate Wave Action (LiMWA). The LiMWA represents the approximate
landward limit of the 1.5-foot breaking wave. The effects of wave hazards between the VE Zone and the LiMWA
(or between the shoreline and the LiMWA for areas where VE Zones are not identified) will be similar to, but less
severe than those in the VE Zone.
Limit of Moderate Wave Action (LiMWA)
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) NOTE
This map may include approximate boundaries of the CBRS for informational purposes only. Flood insurance is not
available within CBRS areas for structures that are newly built or substantially improved on or after the date(s)
indicated on the map. For more information see http://www.fws.gov/cbra, the FIS Report, or call the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Customer Service Center at 1-800-344-WILD.
CBRS Area Otherwise Protected Area
Map Projection:
North Carolina State Plane Projection Feet (Zone 3200)
Datum: NAD 1983 (Horizontal), NAVD 1988 (Vertical)
1 inch = 1,000 feet 1:12,000
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Meters
0 150 300 600
PANEL LOCATOR
I r
Stokes � Rockingham i Caswell
I
i I
----- 7901 1% 7921 7931 7941 7951 7961 7971
69801 - --- --- --- --- - -- --- --- --- _ j -8940 --
Forsyth 7900 7910 7920 7930 7940 7950 7960 7970 7980 7990 8900 8910 8920 8930
I ,
6899 7809 7819 7829 7839 7849 7859 7869 7879 7889 7899 8809 8819 8829 8839 8849
6898 7808 7818 7828 7838 7848 7858 7868 7878 7888 7898 8808 8818 8828 8838 8848
I
6,897 7807 7817 7827 7837 7847 7857 7867 7877 7887 7897 8807 8817 8827 8837 8847
I
r
6896 7806 7816 7826 7836 7846 7856 7866 7876 7886 7896 8806 8816 8826 8836 i8846
I
6895 7805 7815 7825 7835 7845 7855 7865 7875 7885 7895 8805 8815 8825 8835 j8845
6894 7804 7814 7824 7834 7844 7854 7864 7874 7884 7894 8804 8814 8824 8834 j8844
6893 7803 7813 7823 7833 7843 7853 7863 7873 7883 7893 8803 8813 8823 8833 II8843
'6892 7802 7812 7822 7832 7842 7852 7862 7872 7882 7892 8802 8812 8822 8832 8842
Alamance
6891 7801 7811 7821 7831 7841 7851 7861 7871 7881 7891 8801 8811
8820 8840
6890 7800 7810 7820 7830 7840 7850 7860 7870 7880 7890 8800 8810
6799 7709 7719 7729 7739 7749 7759 7769 7779 7789 7799 8709 8719
--- --- - -_-- — _ 8728
7718 7728 7738 7748 7758 76-§ 8 7788 7798 8708 87.18
I I
Randolph
I I
I I
i
NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
cc
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
NORTH CAROLINA
a�eLRt
y.
ZY
�
PANEL 8728
x
v+vo
sti�4
W
FEMA
U
a
cc
Panel Contains:
COMMUNITY CID
PANEL SUFFIX
ALAMANCE COUNTY 370001
8728 L
GUILFORD COUNTY 370111
8728 L
RANDOLPH COUNTY 370195
8728 L
U.
cc
ICU
VERSION NUMBER
2.3.3.2
MAP NUMBER
3710872800L
MAP REVISED
November 17, 2017