20221571 Ver 1_DirtyBoots_100638_MP_2024_20240723

MITIGATION PLAN
Final

July 22, 2024
DIRTY BOOTS MITIGATION SITE
Chatham County, NC

Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03030003

USACE Action ID No. 2022-02401
DWR# 20221571

NCDEQ Contract No. 452048014-04
RFP #: 16-452048014
DMS ID No. 100638

PREPARED FOR:

NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services

1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203

July 11, 2024

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
Raleigh Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587

Attention: Casey Haywood

Subject:IRT Comment Response
Dirty Boots I Mitigation Site, Chatham County
Cape Fear River Basin HUC 03030003
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2022-02401
DWR No. 20221571
DMS ID No. 100638

Dear Casey:

We have reviewed the IRT’s comments on the draft mitigation plan for the Dirty Boots I Mitigation Site.
A memorandum with mitigation plan review comments from IRT members was sent in an email on June
21, 2024. At the IRT’s request, we are responding to the comments with this letter prior to submitting
the final mitigation plan. Below are responses to each of the IRT’s comments. Your original comments
are provided below followed by our responses in bold italics.
Maria Polizzi, NCDWR
1. If possible, please include buffers around wetland credit areas to minimize risk of hydrologic
trespass and/or future landowner actions that may degrade the wetland hydrology. If buffers cannot
be provided, please provide more detail about why hydrologic trespass is not expected to be an
issue and/or how it will be handled if it becomes one.

We do not believe hydrologic trespass will be an issue on this site based primarily on the
topography. We have captured all the area we feel is in the active floodplain and do not
anticipate backwater effects outside the easement boundary. Wildlands made every attempt to
capture and buffer all existing wetlands within the easement. There is only one area (Wetland E)
that we could not capture due to constraints imposed by the landowner. Some areas of wetland
re-establishment do not contain a buffer from the edge of the easement primarily because the
hydric soils area often extended beyond the easement boundary and we were limited by the
landowner as to the amount of pasture we could take.

2. Could crossing 2 be relocated upstream of the wetland reestablishment area? Additionally, please
consider using culverts that convey at least a ten-year storm event. Designing crossings for long-
2

term stability is important in order to reduce the need for future maintenance. DWR is also
concerned about the potential negative effect of the crossings bisecting the proposed wetland
reestablishment area.

Crossing #2 is the location of the existing crossing where the landowner had historically crossed
UT2. It is in a very disturbed area that is essentially devoid of vegetation. The road leading down
to that crossing has been graded and improved and the landowner preferred to keep that crossing
location and road approach intact. While there is a small area of wetland rehabilitation upstream
of the crossing point, we will have floodplain relief culverts to pass any overland flow at-grade
through to the rehabilitation area downstream of the crossing.

3. All existing wetlands are described as headwater forest on the WAM forms. DWR questions whether
Headwater Forest is an appropriate wetland type for all locations. Although the additional detail
about the WAM forms in Section 3.4.1 is appreciated, DWR would recommend using the available
knowledge of the site to inform WAM classifications and not limit 0 and 1st order stream
determinations to data from the USGS topographical map. This report describes UT3 (not shown on
USGS) as jurisdiction which would mean that Dirty Boots downstream of UT3 is a second order
stream based on the information known about the project. Headwater forests are also typically
located on the upstream extent of a particular stream feature. Although it seems likely that WAM
scores for project wetlands will still be low in most cases, as described, I wanted to bring up this
discussion since the classification of the wetland is important in how the score in calculated in the
WAM tool.
While Wildlands followed guidance and protocol in the NCWAM manual when determining stream
orders and wetland types within the Site, all available resources were also utilized to assist in
making our determinations. After reviewing onsite existing vegetative communities, soils,
hydrology, and topography (Section 6.8.1), Wildlands concluded that all wetlands within the Site
are appropriately classified as headwater forests.
4. It appears that wetland impacts may result from crossing 1. If correct, this should be noted in
Section 5.1, as it currently reads as if wetland impacts only result from stream restoration activities
and realignment.
There is a small wetland impact associated with Crossing 1. There really is not a better place to
install that crossing to allow the landowner access to the northeast pasture. Section 5.1 has been
updated to address this impact. Table 8 has been updated to include impacts to Wetlands E and F
separately from impacts to other project wetlands.
5. DWR wonders whether wetland A should be enhancement rather than rehabilitation. With
groundwater data showing 36.7% of the growing season consecutively above the 12” water table
depth, it seems like uplift will be primarily from livestock exclusion and revegetation efforts.
Wetland A has been changed to wetland enhancement (Figure 9). The proposed wetland approach
for groundwater gauge 3 in Table 5 has been updated. The existing acreages of wetland
3

enhancement and rehabilitation areas in Section 6.7 and Table 15 have been updated. The credits
generated from wetland enhancement and rehabilitation in Table 15 have been updated.
6. Please include a permanent vegetation plot in the drained pond area.
The random vegetation plot shown within the pond will remain confined to the pond bed and dam
footprint through all seven monitoring years. Wildlands prefers to have a mobile plot in this area
to document vegetation success throughout the pond’s footprint. A note stating this has been
added to Figure 9.
7. Please include an additional set of cross sections upstream of crossing 2 on UT2.
Two cross-sections have been added to UT2 Reach 2 above crossing 2 (Figure 9). According to the
2016 Compensatory Mitigation Update, two cross-sections per 1,000 linear feet are sufficient for
streams of this size. Therefore, with UT2 Reach 2 being only 975 linear feet, one cross-section was
removed from UT2 below crossing 2. Table 18 has been updated.
8. Please include the following vegetative performance standard: No single planted or volunteer
species shall comprise more than 50% of the total stem density within any plot.
In Section 8.0, Wildlands states that it will conform to vegetation performance standards listed in
Section V, B of the 2016 Compensatory Mitigation Update; the performance standard requested is
included as item number 3 in Section V, B of the Mitigation Update.
9. Historic aerials: In the future, please consider including property boundaries or CE boundaries on
historic aerials. Although it is simple enough to identify specific locations for this project, sometimes
it can be quite challenging, especially if the landscape is more uniform.
Historic aerial imagery was provided by EDR. In the future, Wildlands will request for EDR to
include project boundaries on historic aerials if possible or we will overlay an easement the best
we can using the EDR base.
10. Are impacts to preservation wetlands along UT3 anticipated as a result of bank grading and
stabilization? What impacts to vegetation are anticipated along UT3 Reach1?
Minimal impacts to preservation wetlands and existing vegetation along UT3 Reach 1 are
anticipated. This reach is proposed for stream enhancement II and will not require bank grading.
Any necessary work in this reach can be completed by hand or if equipment is required, UT3 Reach
1 can be accessed from the southern side of the stream.
11. How dependent are the UT3 Reach 1 wetlands on the pond, as a source of hydrology? Is there
concern that these wetlands may lose hydrology or shrink once the pond is removed?
Wetlands on UT3 Reach 1 are primarily driven by groundwater and surface runoff. The pond has
been breached for several years and the water level in the pond is maintained at a level that does
not backwater into the enhancement wetlands. As such, Wildlands is not concerned that
removing the pond will negatively affect hydrology of the wetlands on UT3 Reach 1 or result in the
loss of jurisdictional wetlands.
4

12. Would it be possible to incorporate a more varied stone sizing into the riffle material, especially for
smaller streams? DWR is concerned that with Class A and B rip-rap being the only stone sizes
included in the design, the bed material may be unnaturally large. Based on Table 14 (pg. 16) it
appears that the movable particle size is significantly smaller than the design D50, so it seems that
there may be some wiggle room. Additionally, it appears that the existing particle size distribution is
much smaller than that of the proposed channels. However, I am not an engineer, so feel free to
provide additional justification if WEI feels that this is necessary for the success of the design.

More varied stone sizing has been incorporated into riffle materials for all project streams.
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
1. I have reviewed the draft mitigation plan for Dirty Boots. Overall, the plan looks adequate, but I do
have a couple of comments.
a. I was glad to see individual crossing details included in the draft plan. The details include
appropriate design considerations for inlet and outlet inverts as well as backfill specifications
that will aid in promoting Aquatic Organism Passage. However, there was no reference to the
details on the plan sheets. Plan sheets with a crossing should include a reference to that
crossing’s detail.
Thank you for bringing this up. References to individual crossing details have been added to
the crossings on the stream design sheets.

b. Outlet stabilization: WRC understands the need and benefit of outlet stabilization for
culverts; however, more specific information should be included in the detail. As shown, this
could be a riprap dissipater pad. Outlet stabilization should be embedded with the intent to
armor the stream bed. Specifically, it should be embedded to tie into the elevations of the
material in the embedded culverts. This approach will provide scour protection, allow low
benches to form on the higher outside culverts and promote AOP. Sills are located
downstream of all the crossings; however, it appears there will be a gap between the scour
protection and the downstream sill. Setting a sill out of the outlet of the armored scour pool
may better promote long-term stability and AOP.
The scour protection has been extended to the downstream sill and the gap has been
eliminated.

Emily Dunnigan, USACE
1. Please add photo points to all crossings and the proposed BMP. Please include the BMP on the
monitoring map.
Crossing photos are listed as a monitoring feature in Table 16 and crossing locations are shown on
Figure 9. Table 18 has been updated for clarification. The BMP is no longer proposed, see Casey
Haywood, Comment 1 and Response.
5

2. Please add a fixed vegetation plot to the pond dam footprint.
The random vegetation plot shown within the pond will remain confined to the pond bed and dam
footprint during all seven monitoring years (Figure 9). Wildlands has noted to do an additional
random vegetation plot in the re-establishment area along UT3 below the pond during one of the
monitoring years.
3. Some areas of wetland credit are not represented by gauges. Please add at least 3 groundwater
gauges to the right bank side of Dirty Boots Reach 1, Dirty Boots Reach 2, and UT3 Reach 2.
Three groundwater gauges have been added to Figure 9 along the right bank of Dirty Boots
Reaches 1 and 2, and UT3 Reach 2. Table 18 has been updated.
4. Please add at least 1 cross section to UT2 Reach 1.
One cross-section has been added to UT2 Reach 1 (Figure 9). Table 18 has been updated.

Casey Haywood, USACE
1. To confirm, is the BMP on Dirty Boots Reach 1 located in an existing wetland? Please note that it is
not appropriate to install BMPs in jurisdictional features. The area appears to be an existing wetland
(Wetland E) on Figure 2 and is also called out in on the Jurisdictional Determination map (Appendix
4, Figure 3). Is wetland rehabilitation or enhancement more appropriate here? Also, I was trying to
find it in the notes, but I’m curious why the area was not included as part of the project? The stream
form for UT to Dirty Boots was provided in Appendix 3. Will cattle still have access to Wetland E
outside the easement?
The BMP has been removed from the project. Regarding Wetland E, Wildlands tried to
incorporate all of the existing wetlands into the project area. We discussed Wetland E with the
landowner, and they did not want a narrow easement protecting that wetland. They offered to
allow us to purchase that entire corner from the south side of Wetland E to the northern property
line but that would have required us to purchase an additional 1.5 acres for the benefit of a
wetland area that was less than a tenth of an acre in size. Since we were already over our
contracted limit in wetland credits, we could not justify the additional land purchase for the upper
portion of Wetland E. Unfortunately that area will remain unprotected.
2. Concur with DWR’s comment #5. The groundwater gauge in Wetland A is already meeting well
above the performance standard (likely from the downstream beaver dam). Is the location of GWG
3 representative of the entire area proposed for rehabilitation? Wetland enhancement is more
appropriate if functional uplift is limited to planting and cattle exclusion.
Wetland A has been changed to wetland enhancement (Figure 9). The proposed wetland approach
for groundwater gauge 3 in Table 5 has been updated. The existing acreages of wetland
enhancement and rehabilitation areas in Section 6.7 and Table 15 have been updated. The credits
generated from wetland enhancement and rehabilitation in Table 15 have been updated.
6

3. Is the origin on UT2A captured? It looks like it originates just outside the easement on Figure 8. Is it
possible to include it in the project? With the origin point starting just outside the easement, and
the length of the reach being approximately 80 LF, there is concern that future land use could
impact the reach given how small it is.
UT2A originates at the previously proposed easement boundary. The easement boundary has
been adjusted and is now approximately 20’ above the UT2A origin.

4. Section 6.7- Please update to reflect that Wetland I (not J) was changed from preservation to
enhancement. The labels for the existing wetlands on Figure 2 need to match the JD. Please update
the document as needed and verify credit totals.
Section 6.7 has been updated to accurately reflect wetland preservation and enhancement areas.
Figure 2 has been updated with the correct wetland labels. Credit totals have been verified and
updated in Table 15.
5. Figure 9 Monitoring Components:
a. Please add photo points to the crossings and BMP. Also recommend adding photo points to
the tops of the reaches.
Crossing photos are included as monitoring features in Table 16 and crossing locations are
shown on Figure 9. Table 18 has been updated. Photo points have been moved or added as
appropriate to capture where streams flow on- or offsite and where reach breaks occur.
b. There needs to be a fixed vegetation plot in the pond bed. Please also have a random veg
plot capture the area below the pond at some point during monitoring given the grading
sheet indicated 3’+ cut on UT3 R2.
The random vegetation plot shown within the pond will remain confined to the pond bed
and dam footprint during all seven monitoring years (Figure 9). Wildlands has made a
note to do an additional random vegetation plot in the area below the pond during one of
the monitoring years.
c. When installing additional wetland gauges, please install a gauge in the wetland
rehabilitation area adjacent to UT3 Reach 2/Dirty Boots Reach 1.
A groundwater gauge has been added to the wetland rehabilitation area between Dirty
Boots and UT3 (Figure 9). Table 18 has been updated.
d. Will a rain gauge be installed at the site? If not, please identify the proposed rainfall data
source location and distance from the project site. The IRT strongly encourages an onsite
gauge.
Wildlands will be using daily rainfall data from the KSCR (Siler City Municipal Airport)
weather station approximately 6.8 miles northwest of the Site. WETS Table data will be
acquired from the Siler City 2 N station approximately 8.9 miles north of the Site.
7

e. Please add a cross section to the upper section of Dirty Boots Reach 1 (within the wetland
enhancement area). The November 2022 site visit meeting minutes indicated the IRT was
concerned that dense wetland vegetation could overtake the channel.
One cross-section has been added to Dirty Boots Reach 1 within the wetland enhancement
area (Figure 9). Table 18 has been updated.
f. A cross section or photo point needs to be added at the southern end of Dirty Boots (Reach
2) to help monitor any impacts from the beaver dam downstream.
A photo point has been moved one riffle downstream on Dirty Boots Reach 2 to document
the stream as it flows offsite (Figure 9).
g. Recommend including planting zones on the map. WEI had another recent DMS project
submission that included the planting zones, and it was very helpful for our review.
Figure 10 Planting Zones Map was added to the attached set of figures.
6. Appendix 5: Appreciate the Categorical Exclusion summary provided in the report. It would be
helpful to include the IPaC Species List letter from USFWS as supporting documentation. The letter is
also important because it includes the USFWS project code that we would have to refer to if we had
to coordinate with the Service for the permit.
The IPaC Species List Letter from USFWS has added to Appendix 5.

7. Design Sheets:
a. Thank you for providing the Grading Cut and Fill Exhibit. As mentioned previously the BMP
on Dirty Boots Reach 1 should not be installed if it is an existing wetland. Please be sure to
update this figure so that the existing wetland is not impacted by a 2-3’ cut.
This figure has been updated to reflect the removal of the BMP and associated cut.

b. Please add LOD to the design sheets to ensure there are no impacts to aquatic resources
outside the project area as mentioned in Section 5.
The LOD has been added to the design sheets.

Please contact me at 919-793-6886 if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Tim Morris
Project Manager

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page ii July 22, 2024

PREPARED BY:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 W Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]

This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title
33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2)
through (c)(14).
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In-Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010.
These documents govern DMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation.

Contributing Staff:
John Hutton, Principal in Charge
Tim Morris, Project Manager
Greg Turner, PE, Lead Designer
Roza Agioutanti, Designer
Catherine Warner, Construction Plan Production
Sydni Law, PWS, Lead Scientist, Wetland Delineation
Hanna Peterman, Stewardship Lead

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page iii July 22, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................1
2.0 Basin Characterization and Site Selection .................................................................................1
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions ..............................................................................................2
3.1 Watershed Conditions .................................................................................................................. 2
3.2 Landscape Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 3
3.3 Existing Streams ............................................................................................................................ 3
3.4 Existing Wetlands ......................................................................................................................... 6
3.5 Existing Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 8
3.6 Overall Functional Uplift Potential ............................................................................................... 8
4.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................9
5.0 Regulatory Considerations ..................................................................................................... 10
5.1 401/404 ...................................................................................................................................... 10
5.2 Biological and Cultural Resources............................................................................................... 11
5.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................. 12
6.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan ........................................................................... 12
6.1 Design Approach Overview ........................................................................................................ 12
6.2 Reference Streams ...................................................................................................................... 13
6.3 Design Channel Morphological Parameters ............................................................................... 14
6.4 Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis............................................................................................. 15
6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis ...................................................................................................... 16
6.6 Stream Design Implementation .................................................................................................. 17
6.7 Wetland Design Implementation ............................................................................................... 19
6.8 Vegetation, Planting Plan, and Land Management .................................................................... 20
6.9 Project Risk and Uncertainties .................................................................................................... 21
7.0 Determination of Credits ....................................................................................................... 22
8.0 Performance Standards ......................................................................................................... 23
9.0 Monitoring Plan .................................................................................................................... 24
9.1 Monitoring Components ............................................................................................................ 25
10.0 Long-Term Management Plan ................................................................................................ 26
11.0 Adaptive Management Plan ................................................................................................... 27
12.0 References ............................................................................................................................ 28

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page iv July 22, 2024
TABLES
Table 1: Project Attribute Table Part 1 ......................................................................................................... 1
Table 2: Project Attribute Table Part 2 ......................................................................................................... 3
Table 3: Summary of Stream Resources ....................................................................................................... 5
Table 4: Summary of Wetland Resources ..................................................................................................... 6
Table 5: Groundwater Gauge Summary ....................................................................................................... 8
Table 6: Mitigation Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 9
Table 7: Project Attribute Table Part 4 ....................................................................................................... 10
Table 8: Estimated Impacts to Project Wetlands ........................................................................................ 11
Table 9: Functional Impairments and Restoration Approach ..................................................................... 12
Table 10: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters ........................................ 13
Table 11: Summary of Morphological Parameters for Dirty Boots and UT3 .............................................. 14
Table 12: Summary of Morphological Parameters for UT2 and UT2A ....................................................... 15
Table 13: Summary of Design Discharge Analysis ....................................................................................... 16
Table 14: Results of Competence Analysis ................................................................................................. 17
Table 15: Project Stream Assets and Credits .............................................................................................. 22
Table 16: Summary of Performance Standards .......................................................................................... 24
Table 17: Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................................................... 25
Table 18: Monitoring Components ............................................................................................................. 26

FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Existing Conditions Site Map
Figure 3 USGS Topographic Map
Figure 4 Watershed Map
Figure 5 Soils Map
Figure 6 Reference Reach Vicinity Map
Figure 7 Discharge Analysis
Figure 8 Concept Design Map
Figure 9 Proposed Monitoring Components Map

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Figures, Data, Analysis, Supplementary Information
Appendix 2 Site Protection Instrument
Appendix 3 DWR Stream ID Forms, NCWAM, NCSAM
Appendix 4 Preliminary JD and Supporting USACE Forms
Appendix 5 Categorical Exclusion and Regulatory Correspondence
Appendix 6 Maintenance Plan
Appendix 7 Invasive Species Treatment Plan
Appendix 8 Financial Assurance
Appendix 9 Credit Release Schedule
Appendix 10 Plan Sheets

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 1 July 22, 2024
1.0 Introduction
The Dirty Boots Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Chatham County, NC, approximately seven miles
southeast of Siler City (Figure 1). The Site is located in the Cape Fear River Basin 14-digit Hydrologic Unit
Code (HUC) 03030003070050 and the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) Subbasin 03-06-12. The
Site will provide stream and wetland credits to the Cape Fear River Basin Cataloguing Unit (CU)
03030003 through the restoration and enhancement of four unnamed tributaries to Bear Creek
(referred to as Dirty Boots, UT2, UT2A, and UT3 for the project) and riparian wetland re-establishment,
rehabilitation, enhancement and preservation (Figure 2). This Site will provide 4,300 warm stream
credits and 5.295 wetland credits and will be protected by a 13.87-acre conservation easement. All
figures are in Appendix 1. The Site Protection Instrument detailing the easement is included in Appendix
2.
Table 1: Project Attribute Table Part 1
Project Information
Project Name Dirty Boots Mitigation Site
County Chatham
Project Area (acres) 13.87
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35°38'11.20"N 79°25'22.45"W
Planted Acreage (acres of woody stems planted) 12.5
2.0 Basin Characterization and Site Selection
Streams on the Site drain into Bear Creek, a 303(d) listed stream located east of US 421. Bear Creek is a
303 (d) listed stream due to poor to severe bioclassifications for benthic communities. Bear Creek
ultimately flows to the lower Rocky River, south of Pittsboro, NC. Streams on the Site are recommended
for water quality improvements in the Local Watershed Plan (LWP) for the Upper and Middle Rocky
River and the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) plan. Both Bear Creek and the Deep
River, where the Rocky River eventually flows, have noted occurrences of several rare, threatened, and
endangered mussel species, as well as the endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas).
The Upper and Middle Rocky River Local Watershed Plan (LWP) Identified the following primary
stressors as leading to poor water quality and aquatic biology ratings within the watershed:
• Stream and bank erosion;
• Lack of adequate forested buffer;
• Nutrient runoff;
• Fecal coliform bacteria;
• Livestock access to streams;
• Overuse of herbicides and pesticides;
• Stormwater runoff; and
• Floodplain development.
Management strategies listed in the LWP to address these stressors include:
• Restoring streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers;
• Excluding livestock from streams;
• Implementing stormwater and agricultural BMPS, including the reduction of herbicide and
pesticide usage; and
• Limiting development within floodplains.
The Cape Fear River Basin is also discussed in the 2015 North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission’s
(NCWRC) Wildlife Action Plan (WAP). This report notes that urbanization, dams, and animal feeding

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 2 July 22, 2024
operations are primary stressors within this watershed and that management activities such as riparian
land conservation and stream restoration should be implemented.
Restoration of the Site streams and wetlands will directly and indirectly address stressors identified in
the LWP and NCWRC WAP by removing livestock, creating stable stream banks, restoring forest in
agriculturally maintained buffer areas, and restricting potential development by establishing a
conservation easement. These actions will reduce fecal, nutrient and sediment inputs into the Rocky
River and may expand Critical Habitat for the Cape Fear shiner. These actions will also reconnect
instream and terrestrial habitats on the Site. Restoration of the Site directly correlates with
recommended management strategies in the LWP.
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions
3.1 Watershed Conditions
The Site topography, as indicated on the Siler City USGS 7.5-minute topographic triangle, shows the
valleys as broad with moderate slopes (Figure 3). Drainage areas for the project were delineated using 2-
foot contour intervals derived from the 2016/2017 North Carolina Emergency Management Light
Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data. Land uses draining to the project reaches are primarily agriculture
with smaller areas of forest. Bonlee Elementary School and a few residential parcels also exist in the
upper portion of the watershed. The watershed areas and current land uses are shown in Figure 4.
A review of historic aerials from 1950-2016 (Appendix 1) shows that onsite streams have existed in the
same approximate locations over the last 75 years, with some changes to the agricultural management
of the land. Aerials show that the riparian buffers for Dirty Boots, UT2, UT2A, and UT3 remained
undisturbed prior to 1993. A portion of the riparian buffer of Dirty Boots and the entire riparian buffer
of UT2 and UT3 were timbered and converted to agricultural use in the mid-1990’s. The remainder of
the riparian buffer and floodplain of Dirty Boots was later timbered and converted to agricultural use in
the late 1990’s. UT3 was impounded to create the existing manmade pond between 1999 and 2006 (see
1999 and 2006 aerial photos Appendix 1). Land use and buffer extents have remained consistent since
1999. A review of historic imagery for the greater Bear Creek Watershed draining to the Site shows little
land use change since 1950 as well. According to aerial photography, over half of the watershed area is
agricultural use with less than 15% developed area.
Two major watershed stressors, as noted in Section 2, are nutrient and bacteria loading, both of which
can be attributed to unrestricted livestock access throughout the Site. Livestock have access to all
riparian wetlands and streams and directly contribute fecal coliform and nutrients to wetland and
stream areas. Sediment input to streams is also a watershed stressor. Trampled stream banks and mass
wasting are prevalent along the project streams. A lack of riparian vegetation, due to constant grazing,
has created highly erodible streambanks.

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 3 July 22, 2024

Table 2: Project Attribute Table Part 2
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
Ecoregion Carolina Slate Belt
River Basin Cape Fear
USGS HUC (8-digit, 14 digit) 03030003; 03030003070050
NCDWR Sub-basin 03-06-12
Project Drainage Area (acres) 275
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 5.0%
CGIA Land Use Classification 60% agriculture/pasture, 10% developed, 27%
forest, 3% commercial
3.2 Landscape Characteristics
The Site is located 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. Specifically, the Site is in the CZmd formation of the Carolina Slate Belt. This
formation consists of metamudstone and meta argillite interbedded with metasandstone. (NCGS, 2009).
Shallow bedrock was not prevalent but was observed on Site and will be considered in the proposed
design. The bedrock will be an asset in implementing the proposed design approach as habitat and
grade control structures may be constructed with onsite native stone located within 30-40 inches of the
soil surface.
The surrounding fluvial landforms at the Site are typical of the Piedmont region (Figure 4). The valley
topography is gentle to moderate in slope. Dirty Boots has a flat, broad valley confined between steeper
hillslopes and the other tributaries that drain to Dirty Boots are situated in steeper, moderately confined
valleys. Shallow bedrock was observed but is not prevalent through the Site.
NRCS soil maps for the site show that Cid-Lignum complex is the dominant soil in the floodplain of Dirty
Boots and within the Site (Figure 5). These are somewhat poorly to moderately well drained soils that
transition from a silt loam to a silt clay loam before reaching first a consolidated bedrock layer and then
an unconsolidated bedrock layer. This series often contains inclusions of Wehadkee, which were
identified during soil mapping exercises. Cid-Lignum and Wehadkee are listed on the National Hydric Soil
List. The upstream portions of all project tributaries are located in the Cid silt loam or Callison-Lignum
mapping units. These moderately well drained soil types have very high runoff characteristics and are
moderately deep with underlying bedrock 20-40 inches below the surface. The soil and geologic
structures of the region indicate that habitat and grade control structures may be constructed with
natural stone harvested from the site.
3.3 Existing Streams
There are four jurisdictional stream channels on site: Dirty Boots, UT2, UT2A, and UT3 (Figure 2). The
streams are discussed in the sections below. Table 3 provides a detailed summary of each stream.
Surveyed cross sections and geomorphic details are included in Appendix 1. NCSAM field assessment
forms with the rating calculator outputs and NCDWR stream identification forms are included in
Appendix 3.

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 4 July 22, 2024
Dirty Boots
Dirty Boots, a perennial stream, flows south onto the Site
from an adjacent parcel and exits the site at the southern
project parcel boundary where the drainage area is
approximately 275 acres. Within the Site limits, livestock
have access to the entire stream and floodplain. The pasture
is extensively grazed and vegetation on the banks is limited
to a single line of trees sporadically spaced on each bank.
These trees are used as shade for livestock, leading to in-
stream wallow areas. The majority of the stream is incised
and actively eroding and becomes increasingly unstable in
the downstream direction. Where present, the banks are
held together by trees, which are often undercut and
extending over the stream, serving to collect debris. Active erosion and cattle access have led to
excessive downstream sedimentation and embedded riffles and pools.
The valley widens in the lower portion of Dirty Boots and past channelization is apparent as the stream
flows towards the property boundary. Beaver activity was noted below the project on the adjacent
property. The dam on the downstream property is causing a slight backwater effect on the lower reach
of the stream as it approaches the site boundary. An existing undersized culvert was located along the
lower reach of Dirty Boots and served as an equipment and cattle crossing, but has since been rendered
nonfunctional. With the crossing no longer present along the stream, cattle and equipment are now
crossing through the stream to access the eastern half of the parcel.
UT2
UT2, an intermittent stream, originates west of Edwards Hill
Church Road and enters the site through a culvert under the
road. Reach 1 of the stream above its confluence with UT2A
was channelized in the past and has no discernable bedform
diversity. This portion of the stream is also located in a
feedlot area and has been extensively trampled by cattle.
Reach 2, below the confluence has more clearly defined bed
and banks and active erosion is noted throughout the reach.
Banks in this portion of the stream have been trampled by
cattle. A ford crossing and failed culvert crossing are present
in this reach. As the stream flows down the valley, it narrows
and becomes more incised. While pasture grasses have
stabilized the valley in this area, the stream banks are unvegetated and typically vertical. There are a few
sections of the reach that are stable, however these areas lack any bedform diversity and were likely
channelized in the past. The drainage area of UT2 at its confluence with Dirty Boots is approximately 26
acres.

Dirty Boots
UT2

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 5 July 22, 2024
UT2A
UT2A is a small intermittent tributary to UT2 that drains a
forested area to the southwest of the Site. It is located in a
feed lot area and has been extensively trampled by cattle. It
is devoid of woody riparian vegetation with pasture grass
cover reduced throughout the reach due to cattle activity.
The stream is actively eroding below a small headcut at the
upper end of its reach with banks becoming increasingly
unstable further downstream towards its confluence with
UT2. The drainage area of UT2A at the confluence of UT2 is
approximately 20 acres.
UT3
UT3 originates from a forested area northeast of the Site.
UT3 Reach 1 is located above a manmade pond and has a
relatively intact riparian buffer. Bank heights are generally
low with low to moderate bank erosion noted throughout
the reach. Cattle use this area for shade during summer
months, but it does not appear to be a preferred shelter.
Reach 2 flows through the pond and into a partially
breached dam and severely eroded outfall. As the flow exits
the steep pond outfall, the stream is less incised and
eroded, but is devoid of any bedform diversity. The banks
have been trampled in some areas where cattle and
equipment cross the stream. The drainage area of UT3 at its
confluence with Dirty Boots is approximately 48 acres. UT3
was classified as an intermittent stream.
Table 3: Summary of Stream Resources
Reach Summary Information
Parameter Dirty Boots UT2 UT2A UT3
Length of Reach (lf) 2,082 1,223 78 1,434
Valley Confinement (confined,
moderately confined, unconfined) U U U U
Drainage Area (acres) 282 61 22 48
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral P I I I
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Stream Classification1
(Existing/Proposed) E4/C4 B4/C4 NA2/C4 C4/C4
FEMA Classification -
NCSAM Overall Score3 Reach 1 – Low
Reach 2 – Low
Reach 1 – Low
Reach 2 – Low Low Reach 1 – Low
Reach 2 – Low
1. Source: Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199. Reaches not slated for restoration or
enhancement I were not classified (NC).
2. UT2A was severely degraded and eroded due to cattle trampling. Cross section surveys could not be performed.
3. NCSAM worksheets and scores can be found in Appendix 3.
UT2A
UT3

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 6 July 22, 2024
3.4 Existing Wetlands
3.4.1 Existing Jurisdictional Wetlands
Wildlands investigated the extent of Waters of the United States within the project area during
December of 2022. All jurisdictional resources were located by sub-meter GPS or conventional survey
and are shown on Figure 2. USACE staff provided email concurrence of extent of jurisdictional resources
on June 30, 2023 (Appendix 4). Existing wetland summary information is presented in Table 4.
Table 4: Summary of Wetland Resources
Parameter
Size of
Wetland
(acres)
Wetland Type NCWAM
Rating
Mapped
Soil Series
Drainage
Class
Soil
Hydric
Status
Source of Hydrology
Wetland A 0.415 Headwater
Forest Low Cid-Lignum MWD No Groundwater/Beaver
dam backwater
Wetland B 0.007 Headwater
Forest Low Cid-Lignum MWD No Groundwater
Wetland C 0.039 Headwater
Forest Low Cid-Lignum MWD No Overland
runoff/Groundwater
Wetland D 0.269 Headwater
Forest Low Cid-Lignum MWD No Overland
runoff/Groundwater
Wetland E 0.359 Headwater
Forest Low Cid-Lignum MWD No Overland runoff
Wetland F 0.050 Headwater
Forest Low Cid/Cid-
Lignum MWD No Overland runoff
Wetland H 0.423 Headwater
Forest Low Cid-Lignum MWD No Overland
runoff/Groundwater
Wetland I 0.184 Headwater
Forest Low Cid MWD No Pond backwater
Wetland J 0.125 Headwater
Forest Medium Cid MWD No Overland
runoff/Groundwater
Wetland K 0.031 Headwater
Forest High Cid MWD No Overland
runoff/Groundwater
Ten of the delineated wetlands were located within the proposed conservation easement and classified
and evaluated using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM). Wetlands were only
identified along UT3 and Dirty Boots and were classified as the Headwater Forest Type since they are
located adjacent to zero and first order streams, respectively, based on USGS topographical maps.
Wetland B, C, D, and F have compacted soils and appear to be the product of cattle crossings through
and wallows along Dirty Boots. Cattle paths throughout the site concentrate surface runoff through the
site and accelerate drainage of these wetlands. Wetland A is a result of backwater from an offsite
beaver dam downstream and has been impaired by cattle activity compared to offsite wetland areas
downstream. Similarly, Wetland H is hydrologically connected to a larger, relatively undisturbed
headwater forest that extends upstream offsite towards Edwards Hill Church Road, but its area within
the conservation easement has been impaired by cattle activity.
Wetlands J and K are currently forested and are used for shelter by cattle in warmer months. Ground
surface disturbance and soil compaction were noted in these wetlands from cattle activity. However,
since vegetation composition and structure heavily influence function and quality, Wetland K scored
high for the hydrology and water quality function ratings, as well as the overall function rating, while
Wetland J scored medium in these areas. Wetland J scored low in the habitat function rating due to a

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 7 July 22, 2024
contiguous boundary with open pasture and disconnection from other natural habitat, while Wetland K
scored medium due to its connection with other offsite forested areas.
All remaining existing wetlands scored low for the water quality and habitat function ratings as well as
the overall wetland ratings. Additionally, Wetlands A, D, and H scored low for the hydrology function
rating while Wetlands B, C, E, F, and I scored medium. Wetland impairments are the direct result of land
use as cattle pasture and the resulting stream incision and accelerated drainage to wetland areas.
Herbaceous vegetation within these wetlands is heavily grazed and very few woody stems are present.
Livestock cause nutrient and bacteria inputs, creating a pollutant source and reducing water quality
improvement mechanisms of riparian wetlands on adjacent streams. All of these wetlands are
fragmented and disconnected from other wildlife habitat types. NCWAM field assessment forms and the
rating calculator outputs are included in Appendix 3.
3.4.2 Relic Hydric Soils
A licensed soil scientist (LSS) evaluated the site on April 21, 2022 to assess the extent of hydric soils
onsite. The results of this investigation were used to determine wetland re-establishment potential.
Areas containing hydric soils but lacking a contemporary wetland hydrology regime were likely
functional wetlands prior to manipulation of the site for agricultural purposes. The LSS report and hydric
soil map are included in Appendix 1.
Soils throughout a majority of existing and proposed wetland areas in the floodplain of Dirty Boots are
mapped by NRCS as the moderately well drained Cid-Lignum complex (Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic
Aquic Hapludults) (Figure 5). However, based on the hydric soil field assessment, the LSS determined
that soils in the floodplain of Dirty Boots are most like the Wehadkee series (fine-loamy, mixed, active,
nonacid, thermic, Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts). This is supported by the depleted horizons observed
throughout the soil profile, most likely due to poor drainage and geographic position within the
floodplain.
The LSS investigation addressed the entire area proposed for wetland re-establishment. The forested
areas upstream of the onsite pond around UT3 Reach 1 were also evaluated, but are not proposed for
re-establishment or enhancement.
3.4.3 Existing Hydrology
Groundwater gauges (GW) were installed on site in February 2023 at locations shown on Figure 2.
Growing season dates for existing hydrology observations were determined using the WETS table for
years 1992 to 2022 from the Siler City 2 N, NC weather station (Coop ID 317924). Based on this period of
record and the 28-degree Fahrenheit temperature threshold, there is a 50% probability that the growing
season will occur from 3/17 to 11/17 (245 days). The longest hydroperiod observed on site occurred at
GW 3 with GW 1 closely behind. GW 3 recorded a hydroperiod of 36.7% and GW 1 recorded a 20.4%
hydroperiod. These locations are associated with existing wetlands driven by groundwater discharge
and concave relief. GW 3 is additionally impacted by downstream beaver activity and backwater from an
offsite beaver impoundment. GW 2, the remaining groundwater gauge is located in an area with relic
hydric soil and recorded a hydroperiod of 2.0% of the growing season. This area appears to be drained
by the adjacent incised stream channel and further impacted by cattle trampling and lack of vegetation.
A natural levee is present along portions of the stream and further prevent overbank events from
contributing to wetland hydrology in these areas. A summary of groundwater gauge data is provided in
Table 5 and plots for the entire observation period are in Appendix 1.

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 8 July 22, 2024
Table 5: Groundwater Gauge Summary
Gauge
Consecutive Days in Growing
Season with Groundwater Table
Above 12 in. Depth
Consecutive Percent of Growing
Season with Groundwater
Table Above 12 in. Depth
Proposed Wetland
Approach
1 50 20.4 Enhancement
2 5 2.0 Re-establishment
3 90 36.7 Enhancement
3.5 Existing Vegetation
The condition of the riparian buffer vegetation along the project streams varies throughout the site.
Reaches 1 and 2 of Dirty Boots start in an active pasture and have highly restricted riparian buffer
vegetation throughout their length. This buffer has been severely impacted by anthropogenic
disturbance, mainly grazing and clearing. Pasture areas consist of a variety of pasture grasses including
fescue (Festuca spp.), rye (Lolium sp.), barley (Hordeum sp.), and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), as
well as clover (Trifolium repens) and dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). Although clusters of mature
trees do exist through these reaches of Dirty Boots, they are scattered and typically in poor condition.
The existing wetland on Dirty Boots Reach 2 contains several herbaceous species such as soft rush
(Juncus effuses), lizard’s tail (Saururus cernuus), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), and fox sedge (Carex
vulpinoidea).
UT2 and UT2A have no woody vegetation. The area surrounding the streams is characterized by sparse
pasture grasses with a significant portion of the area containing bare and eroding soils. This area is a
primary feed area for cattle during the winter months.
UT3 Reach 1 has relatively intact riparian buffer vegetation characterized by a variety of canopy and
understory species. Prominent native species within the understory layer include winged elm (Ulmus
alata), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), black willow
(Salix nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). Prominent native canopy
species include green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), white oak
(Quercus alba), willow oak (Quercus phellos), hickory (Carya sp.), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and American elm (Ulmus americana).
Although cattle have access to this area, the herbaceous vegetation is well established through the
majority of the riparian area, and includes river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium), deertongue
(Dichanthelium clandestinum), smartweed (Polygonum spp.) and trumpet vine (Campsis radicans). UT3
Reach 2 enters a farm pond that cows can access. This area is devoid of woody vegetation from the
upstream end of the pond through the failing pond dam until UT3 enters the riparian area of Dirty
Boots. At its confluence with Dirty Boots, the UT3, Reach 2 riparian buffer shares a few sparse shade
trees with Dirty Boots but overall, the buffer vegetation is poorly developed.
3.6 Overall Functional Uplift Potential
The primary stressors to streams on Site are the vertical and lateral instability on Dirty Boots, UT2 and
UT3; livestock access on all reaches; and lack of riparian buffers on all but UT3 Reach 1. Without
intervention, livestock will continue to trample banks and wallow in the stream channels, expediating
the degradation and widening processes of the streams on Site and contributing to the sediment and
pollutant loads downstream. Small headcuts will accelerate bed erosion rates if not corrected.
Wetland functionality within the Dirty Boots floodplain has been compromised by agricultural
conversion. Wetland restoration practices will increase groundwater storage and residence time,
improve hydrologic interaction of the stream and floodplain wetlands, provide opportunity for water
quality treatment, and establish diverse wildlife habitat.

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 9 July 22, 2024
The primary functional uplift on site will be the reduction of sediment loads, stabilization of stream
channels and development of bedform diversity, establishment of riparian buffers, and improvements
to wetland functions. This will be accomplished through the implementation of the following activities:
• Addressing varying degrees of geomorphic instability through channel restoration and
enhancement.
• Removal of livestock from the proposed easement area.
• Reconnecting stream channels to their floodplains and existing or historic riparian wetlands.
• Establishing a riparian buffer for all restoration and enhancement reaches on site. Protecting the
Site in perpetuity with a conservation easement.
• Remove artificial barriers (pond dam) and install appropriately sized and constructed culvert
crossings.
These project components are described in Section 5 in terms of goals, objectives, and outcomes for the
project and in greater detail in Section 6 as the project site mitigation plan.
4.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives
The overall goal of the project is to reduce sediment, nutrients, and fecal coliform loading in the project
streams and greater Cape Fear watershed and improve stream and riparian wetland function through
the restoration and preservation of streams, the reestablishment and rehabilitation of riparian
wetlands, and the establishment and protection of riparian buffers.
Goals have been set to achieve the functional uplift outlined in Section 3 and alleviate the watershed
stressors discussed in Section 2. The project goals and related objectives are described in Table 6.
Table 6: Mitigation Goals and Objectives
Goal Objective Expected Outcomes
Exclude livestock
from streams and
wetlands.
Remove livestock from site or install
livestock exclusion fencing along the
conservation easement.
• Support LWP/WAP objective of reduction in
sediment, nutrient, fecal coliform, and
bacteria inputs through removal of livestock.
Improve the stability
of stream channels.
Construct stream channels that will
maintain stable cross-sections, patterns,
and profiles over time.
• Reduce shear stress on channel boundary.
Reduce sediment inputs from bank erosion.
• Support LWP/WAP objective of stabilizing
streambanks
Improve instream
habitat.
Install habitat features such as
constructed riffles, lunker structures, and
brush toes into restored/enhanced
streams. Add woody materials to channel
beds. Construct pools of varying depth.
• Increase and diversify available habitats for
macroinvertebrates, fish, mussels, and
amphibians leading to colonization and
increase in biodiversity over time. Add
complexity including LWD to the streams.
Reconnect channels
with floodplains.
Reconstruct stream channels with
appropriate bankfull dimensions and
depth relative to the existing floodplain.
• Allow more frequent flood flows to disperse
on the floodplain. Support geomorphology
and higher-level functions. Improve wetland
hydrology in the Rocky River floodplain.
Improve wetland
hydrology.
Remove livestock to allow soil profiles to
stabilize. Remove drain effect of
channelized stream and floodplain swales.
• Increased surface water residence time will
provide contact treatment and groundwater
recharge potential.
Restore and enhance
native floodplain and
streambank
vegetation.
Plant native tree and understory species in
riparian zones and plant native shrub and
herbaceous species on streambanks. Treat
invasive species within project area.
• Reduce sediment inputs from bank erosion
and runoff. Increase nutrient cycling and
storage in floodplain. Provide riparian
habitat. Add a source of LWD and organic

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 10 July 22, 2024
Goal Objective Expected Outcomes
material to stream. Support all stream
functions.
• Support LWP/WAP objective of restoring
riparian buffers
Permanently protect
the project site from
harmful uses.
Establish a conservation easement on the
site. Preserve high quality stream reaches
through the placement of a conservation
easement on site.
• Protect Site from encroachment on the
riparian corridor and direct impact to
streams and wetlands. Support all stream
functions.
5.0 Regulatory Considerations
Table 7, below, is a summary of regulatory considerations for the Site. These considerations are
expanded upon in Sections 5.1-5.4. Excerpts of the Categorical Exclusion are located in Appendix 5.
Table 7: Project Attribute Table Part 4
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes No Future PCN, 404 Permit
Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes No Future PCN, 401 Permit
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion Documents
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion Documents
Coastal Zone Management Act No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A
5.1 401/404
Design of the Site prioritized avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands that currently provide
appropriate function. Some small impacts were unavoidable and necessary to maximize ecological uplift
potential of the stream design on Dirty Boots and its tributaries. Most of these impacts are due to
conversion of wetland to stream resources. Small portions of Wetlands E and F will be permanently
impacted by an internal crossing. This crossing is necessary to gain access to the pasture located
between Dirty Boots and UT3. Impacts to these wetlands were minimized to the extent practical. The
location of the crossing also considered the future wetland re-establishment footprint and topography
for farm road approaches. The main area of concern will be the very upstream extent of Dirty Boots
where the stream exists an intact and functioning wetland area (Wetland H) and just downstream along
Wetlands E and F. Careful construction techniques to minimize the footprint of temporary impact will be
used in this area. Similar precautions will be needed at the downstream end of Dirty Boots (Wetland A).
Ultimately the wetlands will benefit from this work as the stream will be lifted and stabilized to avoid
partially draining the wetland which is currently occurring. Wildlands anticipates that the diverse seed
source in and around the area of disturbance will quickly revegetate with desirable wetland plants and
sod mats will be salvaged and reused as practical. Wetland gauges will be installed to monitor the pre-
and post-conditions of the wetland impact. Small impacts associated with realignment of the channel
may be unavoidable in Wetland C and minor grading associated with targeted bank work may be
required in the enhancement reach on UT3 (Wetlands I, J and K) although these impacts may be
avoidable if they are completed from the south side of the stream. Most of the other areas proposed for
wetland credits will be avoided or are re-establishment areas where hydric soils exist but vegetation

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 11 July 22, 2024
and/or hydrology are lacking. Wildlands anticipates the stream construction activities are necessary in
order to re-establish functional wetlands in these areas but they are currently non-jurisdictional and not
subject to 404/401 permitting. A significant net gain of wetland area and function is expected and the
majority of impacts to wetland features should be short-term. Wetlands within the limits of disturbance
will be shown on construction plans and erosion and sediment control plan and detail sheets, and
avoidance procedures will be described in project specifications. Estimated wetland impacts are
provided in Table 8 for the project as a whole. The Pre-Construction Notification will itemize impacts in
greater detail and will be provided with the Final Mitigation Plan.
Table 8: Estimated Impacts to Project Wetlands
Jurisdictional
Feature Classification Acreage
Permanent (P) Impact Temporary (T) Impact
Type of
Activity
Impact Area
(acres)
Type of
Activity
Impact Area
(acres)
Wetlands A, C-
F, H, & I
Headwater
Forest 1.74
Conversion
to Stream
Resource
0.23 Floodplain
Grading 0.31
Wetlands E & F Headwater
Forest 0.41
Conversion
to Stream
Resource,
Internal
Crossing
0.10 Floodplain
Grading 0.05
5.2 Biological and Cultural Resources
A Categorical Exclusion was approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on January 4,
2023. As part of the screening process to meet regulatory standards, Wildlands conducted an
assessment within the project boundary for the presence of threatened and endangered (T&E) species
protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and historical resources protected under the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. As part of the Categorical Exclusion consultation process,
scoping letters were submitted to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). See Figure 1 for
protected lands within proximity to the Site and Appendix 5 for the approved Categorical Exclusion and
agency correspondence.
5.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species
Wildlands searched the USFWS’ Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) and the NC Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) data explorer for federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal
species within the project parcels. There are currently four federally protected species listed for the
proposed Site: red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas),
harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum), and the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni). Additionally, the
tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) (TCB) was proposed endangered on September 14, 2022 after initial
assessments were completed. The TCB was not included on the original IPaC species list in the
Categorical Exclusion. In anticipation of its formal listing, the species list was updated on January 25,
2023 and is included in Appendix 5.
In a pedestrian survey conducted on April 6, 2022, no suitable habitat or individuals were observed for
the listed threatened and endangered species. USFWS responded to a scoping letter on October 10,
2022 stating they did not have any concerns with the project “…adversely affecting any other federally-
listed endangered or threatened species.” Additionally, NCWRC has no issue with the project as
proposed.

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 12 July 22, 2024
In anticipation of the final TCB ruling, Wildlands conducted a pedestrian survey on July 19, 2023.
Pedestrian surveys identified suitable summer roosting habitat for the TCB along forested areas within
the site and adjacent to the parcel boundaries. No roosts were observed within the project area at the
time of the assessment. Per the NHP data explorer, there are no known occurrences within the project
area or within 20-miles of the project area. Wildlands will continue to monitor the listing status for TCB.
If project construction activities are not complete once the listing becomes finalized, the project team
will re-initiate consultation with USFWS, as appropriate, in order to ensure ESA, Section 7 compliance.
Results from pedestrian surveys and agency correspondence are located in Appendix 5.
5.2.2 Cultural Resources / Conservation Lands / Natural Heritage Areas
No historic resources are listed in the State Historic Preservation Office’s National Register on or in close
proximity to the Site parcels. No other architectural structures or archaeological artifacts have been
observed or noted on the site. The NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) does not list any Managed or
Significant Natural Areas within or adjacent to Site parcels. All appropriate cultural resource agencies
have been contacted for their review and comment. There are no objections to the proposed project
from SHPO. SHPO correspondence is included in Appendix 5.
5.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
The site is located on the Chatham County Flood Map 3710866800J. The Site is located within FEMA
Zone X and has minimal associated flood risk. Project tributaries are not FEMA mapped and do not have
associated models. A local floodplain development permit will not be required for this project.
The project will be designed to avoid adverse floodplain impacts or hydrologic trespass on adjacent
properties or local roads.
6.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan
6.1 Design Approach Overview
The design approach (Figures 7 and 8) for this site was developed to maximize functional uplift and meet
the goals and objectives described in Section 4. The table below summarizes the primary impairments to
each resource and the proposed restoration activity.
Table 9: Functional Impairments and Restoration Approach
Resource Reach(es) Primary Stressors/Impairments Restoration Approach
Dirty Boots 1, 2
Livestock access, bank erosion, channel incision and
mass wasting, lack of in-stream habitat diversity, lack
of wooded buffer
Restoration
UT2 1 Livestock access, bank erosion and mass wasting, lack
of in-stream habitat diversity, lack of wooded buffer Enhancement I
UT2 2
Livestock access, incision and bank erosion, inadequate
ability to dissipate energy from upstream culvert
discharge, lack of wooded buffer in lower section
Restoration
UT2A -
Livestock access, incision and bank erosion, inadequate
ability to dissipate energy from upstream drainage
resulting in a headcut, lack of wooded buffer
Restoration
UT3 1 Livestock access, lack of channel definition, lack of
wooded buffer Enhancement II
UT3 2 Livestock access, eroded condition of pond outfall lack
of wooded buffer Restoration

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 13 July 22, 2024
Resource Reach(es) Primary Stressors/Impairments Restoration Approach
Relic hydric soils in
floodplain Dirty Boots Floodplain drainage, livestock access, lack of wooded
buffer, compaction Reestablishment
Existing floodplain
wetlands
Dirty Boots,
UT3 Livestock access, lack of wooded buffer, compaction Rehabilitation
Existing floodplain
wetlands (wooded) UT3 Livestock access Preservation
6.2 Reference Streams
Reference reaches were chosen to inform the design because of their similarities to the Site streams
including drainage area, valley slope, morphology, and bed material. Proximity of the reference reaches
to the project site and location within similar physiographic and geologic regions were also considered.
In all, eleven reference reaches were used to develop and support the design of stream reaches on site
(Figure 6). Geomorphic parameters for these reference reaches are summarized in Appendix 1. A brief
description of each reference reach is included in Table 10.
Table 10: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters
Reference
Reach
Stream
Type Landscape Position Chosen For Used For Design Reaches
Long Branch C4/E4
Central piedmont region of NC
receiving runoff primarily from
wooded and agricultural areas, and
some low-density residential areas
Similar valley slope
as the design reaches
Discharge,
Dimension,
Pattern,
Profile
Dirty Boots
Reaches 1 and 2
UT to Varnals
Creek C4/E4 Forested area in the central
piedmont region of NC
Proximity to the
project site and
similar valley slope as
the design reaches
Discharge,
Dimension,
Pattern,
Profile
UT2 Reach 1,
UT2A
UT to Wells
Creek C4 Central piedmont region of NC with
a nearly entirely forested watershed
Proximity to the
project site and
similar valley slope as
the design reaches
Discharge,
Dimension,
Pattern,
Profile
UT2 Reach 1,
UT2A
UT to South
Crowders (A) E4 Forested area in the central
piedmont region of NC
Similar valley slope
and drainage area as
the design reaches
Dimension,
Pattern,
Profile
UT2 Reaches 1
and 2, UT2A,
UT3 Reach 2
UT to South
Crowders (B) E4 Forested area in the central
piedmont region of NC
Similar valley slope
and drainage area as
the design reaches
Dimension,
Pattern,
Profile
UT2 Reaches 1
and 2, UT2A,
UT3 Reach 2
UT to Cane
Creek C4/E4 Forested area within the Carolina
Slate Belt region
Low valley slopes,
similar drainage area
as the design reaches
Discharge,
Dimension,
Pattern,
Profile
Dirty Boots
Reaches 1 and 2
Walker Branch
(Cane Creek) C4/E4 The area is in a semi-mature forest in
southwest NC
Similar landscape
position and valley
slope ranges as the
design reaches
Discharge,
Dimension,
Pattern,
Profile
UT2 Reaches 1
and 2, UT2A,
UT3 Reach 2
Spencer Creek
1 E4/C4 Forested area in the central
piedmont region of NC
Similar valley slope
ranges as the design
reaches
Dimension,
Pattern,
Profile
UT2 Reach 2,
UT2A, UT3
Reach 2

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 14 July 22, 2024
Reference
Reach
Stream
Type Landscape Position Chosen For Used For Design Reaches
Spencer Creek
2 E4 Forested area in the central
piedmont region of NC Low valley slopes
Discharge,
Dimension,
Pattern,
Profile
Dirty Boots
Reaches 1 and 2
Foust
Upstream C4 Forested area within the Carolina
Slate Belt region
Similar valley slope
ranges as the design
reaches
Discharge,
Dimension,
Pattern,
Profile
Dirty Boots
Reaches 1 and 2
UT to Polecat
Creek E4
Piedmont region of NC in a mature
forested area receiving runoff from
agricultural, wooded, and low-
density residential areas
Similar valley slope
to the design reaches
Discharge,
Dimension,
Pattern,
Profile
UT2 Reach 2,
UT2A, UT3
Reach 2
UT to Sandy
Run E4 Heavily forested area in the
Piedmont ecoregion
Similar valley slope
ranges as the design
reaches
Pattern,
Dimension
UT2 Reaches 1
and 2, UT2A,
UT3 Reach 2
6.3 Design Channel Morphological Parameters
A combination of reference reach data and designer experience was used to develop design parameters
for streams on site. Key morphological parameters are summarized in Table 11 and Table 12 12 below
and extended parameter tables can be found in Appendix 1. UT2A does not list existing morphological
parameters for its restoration reach because the existing stream has lost channel definition due to
extensive livestock trampling.
Table 11: Summary of Morphological Parameters for Dirty Boots and UT3
Parameter
Existing Parameters Reference
Parameters Proposed Parameters
Dirty Boots
R1
Dirty Boots
R2 UT3 R2 Long Branch Dirty Boots
R1
Dirty Boots
R2 UT3 R2
Valley Width (ft) 200+ 200+ 100+ - 200+ 200+ 100+
Contributing Drainage
Area (acres) 147 282 48.0 954 147 282 48.0
Channel/ Reach
Classification E4 C4 C4 C4/E4 C4 C4 C4
Bankfull Width (ft) 6.5 14.8 8.5 14.8-18.6 13.4 17.0 8.5
Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.0 1.0 0.3 1.3-2.1 0.78 1.0 0.57
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 6.3 14.5 2.2 25.0-34.6 10.5 17.0 4.9
Bankfull Discharge
Velocity (ft/s) 3.7 3.0 2.2 3.6-4.0 2.7 2.7 2.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 23.2 42.8 5.0 100-120 28.0 46.0 12.0
Water Surface Slope (%) 0.69-1.8 0.5-0.9 1.3-1.5 0.4 0.3-1.1 0.2-1.7 0.1-2.1
Sinuosity 1.07 1.07 1.08 1.2-1.3 1.17 1.19 1.28
Width/ Depth Ratio 6.7 15.0 31.8 7.9-13.8 17.0 17.0 15.0
Bank Height Ratio 1.9 1.1 1.0 1.2-1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio 11.4 4.5 4.9 >3.4 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 15 July 22, 2024

Table 12: Summary of Morphological Parameters for UT2 and UT2A
Parameter
Existing Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed Parameters
UT2 UT2A
UT to
Varnals
Creek
UT to
Polecat
UT to
Wells
Creek
UT2 R1 UT2 R2 UT2A
Valley Width (ft) 100+ 50+ - - - 75+ 100+ 50+
Contributing
Drainage Area (acres) 61.0 22.0 262 262 83.0 27.0 61.0 22.0
Channel/ Reach
Classification C4 - C4/E4 E4 C4/E4 C4 C4 C4
Bankfull Width (ft) 5.4 - 9.3-10.5 5.3-10.9 6.2-8.6 6.4 8.5 6.4
Bankfull Depth (ft) 0.8 - 1.1-1.2 1.0-1.1 0.6-1.0 0.43 0.57 0.43
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 4.2 - 10.3-12.3 5.4-12.4 3.9-6.3 2.8 4.9 2.8
Bankfull Discharge
Velocity (ft/s) 4.4 - 4.4-5.2 2.2-3.5 2.4-3.8 2.9 2.9 2.5
Bankfull Discharge
(cfs) 18.3 - 54.0 20.3 15.0 8.0 14.0 6.5
Water Surface Slope
(%) 0.70-1.90 - 0.17 1.18 2.0 0.2-1.7 0.9-2.9 0.5-1.8
Sinuosity 1.13 - 1.20 1.40 1.40 1.28 1.20 1.34
Width/ Depth Ratio 7.1 - 8.7 5.2-9.6 6.1-12.6 14.9 14.9 14.9
Bank Height Ratio 1.6 - 1.0 1.0-1.1 1.0-1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.9 - 1.9-6.1 3.2-8.3 1.9-4.1 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2
6.4 Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis
Stream restoration reaches on the site will be hydraulically connected to their existing floodplains to
allow for energy dissipation and prevent erosion. To achieve this, a design discharge must be selected
that allows for frequent overbank events. The following methods were used to develop design
discharges for the restoration reaches:
• Published regional curve data (Harman et al., 1999, Harman et al., 2000)
• Natural Resources Conservation Service regional curves for the from the North Carolina Rural
Piedmont (Walker, unpublished)
• Regional flood frequency analysis performed by Wildlands using U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
gage sites
• Site specific reference reach data
• Existing bankfull indicators from surveyed cross sections
Results for the design discharge analysis are shown in Table 13 and illustrated in Figure 7. The selected
design discharge for each reach generally falls in the range of the 1.5-year flood event from the
Wildlands Regional Flood Frequency analysis and the site-specific reference reach curve.

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 16 July 22, 2024

Table 13: Summary of Design Discharge Analysis

Dirty
Boots R1
Dirty
Boots R2 UT2 R1 UT2
R2 UT2A UT3 R2
DA (acres) 147 282 27 61 22 48
DA (sq. mi.) 0.23 0.44 0.043 0.095 0.034 0.075
NCSU Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (cfs) 31 49 9.2 16 7.7 14
NRCS Piedmont/Mountain Regional Curve (cfs) 18 29 4.7 8.7 3.9 7.3
Wildlands Regional
Flood Frequency
Analysis (cfs)
1-year event 7.5 13 1.9 3.6 1.5 3.0
1.2-year event 26 42 7.7 14 6.4 12
1.5-year event 38 61 11 20 9.6 17
Manning's Equation at
Surveyed Riffles
XS1 23 - - - - -
XS3 - - - 18 - -
XS6 - 52 - - - -
XS7 - - - - - 5
Site Specific Reference Reach Curve (cfs) 21 37 4.6 9 3.7 8
Design Q 28 46 8 14 6.5 12
6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
To gain a better understanding of the quantity of sediment supplied to the project streams and how it is
transported through the system, Wildlands performed a qualitative assessment of sediment supply and
sources in the project watershed, based on visual inspection and review of historic aerial photos. For a
description of the historical land uses and changes in land use in the watershed, refer to Section 3.
The watershed assessment indicates that the watershed is stable and there is not a significant sediment
accumulation in the project streams. Moreover, the future land uses indicate that the development
pressures for the project area are minimal. Due to the rural nature of the watershed and the moderately
stable land use, the sediment load to the project streams is expected to be low and stable throughout
the life of the project.
The primary sources of sediment along the project reaches of Dirty Boots Creek are the result of cattle
access and streambank erosion, which includes streambank erosion from an offsite area immediately
upstream of the project. This offsite area is part of a separate Wildlands Engineering stream restoration
project that is currently in the design phase. Therefore, there will be minimal offsite sediment input
expected in Dirty Boots Creek Reaches 1 and 2.. Cattle access and streambank erosion also impact the
sediment load within the project area. The downcutting of the channels which can predominately be
observed in UT2 is also contributing to the sediment load.
The design approach will address the major onsite sediment sources by using a priority 1 restoration
approach and designing streams to geomorphic dimensions that will reduce shear stress within the
channel and reconnect the stream to its floodplain. All stream banks will be stabilized with native
vegetation, and livestock will be excluded from the easement area to prevent bank trampling.
Since sediment loads will be reduced and there are currently no capacity issues, the focus of this analysis
is on competence. A competence analysis was performed using shear stress as calculated by the Shields
(1936) curve and Andrews (1984) equation described by Rosgen (2001). The analysis was done to
evaluate the current conditions of site streams and to aid in the design of threshold channels.

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 17 July 22, 2024
Table 14: Results of Competence Analysis
Dirty Boots
Reach 1
Dirty Boots
Reach 2 UT2 Reach 2 UT3 Reach 2
Design Abkf (sq ft) 10.5 17.0 4.9 4.9
Design Wbkf (ft) 13.4 17.0 8.5 8.5
Design Dbkf (ft) 0.79 1.00 0.57 0.57
Design Schan (ft/ft) 0.0075 0.0054 0.013 0.011
Existing Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.70 2.80 4.40 2.20
Design Bankfull Velocity (fps) 2.70 2.70 2.50 2.60
Existing Bankfull Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft) 0.50 0.37 0.75 0.19*
Design Bankfull Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft) 0.36 0.33 0.45 0.38*
Movable particle size (mm) 26.8-71.5 24.5-67.1 34.1-84.7 28.6-74.9
Design D50 (mm) 150 150 170 170
Largest particle from sediment sample (mm) 11 16 10 12
*Note on the bankfull shear stress of UT3 Reach 2:
As can be seen in Table 14, the existing bankfull shear stress of UT3 Reach 2 is less than the design
bankfull shear stress. The reason for that is that the existing conditions data were collected from
downstream of the dam. The presence of the dam has altered the natural discharge of the reach,
resulting in reduced bankfull shear stress. The restoration design involves the removal of the dam to
restore natural flow conditions. With the dam removed, the proposed channel is designed to
accommodate a higher bankfull discharge. The channel will be deeper and feature a larger cross-
sectional area, allowing for increased water flow and sediment transport capacity. The removal of
the dam will result in a more natural flow regime, increasing the bankfull shear stress to levels
suitable for sediment transport and channel stability.
Competence analysis of the proposed stream channels indicates the particle sizes that will become
mobile during a bankfull event are within the size range of coarse gravel to small cobble. The
proposed channels will have gravel-dominated beds, as there is expected to be a limited future
sediment supply to the project streams. Material used to build the constructed riffles will
incorporate bed material larger than the size range expected to move at bankfull flows. This
material, along with log sills and boulder sills will protect against downcutting of the proposed
channels.
6.6 Stream Design Implementation
Restoration, Enhancement I and Enhancement II approaches will be implemented on the Site. Further
details on proposed design approaches are discussed below and illustrated in Figure 8. Draft
construction plans are included in Appendix 8.
Dirty Boots Reach 1 and 2 – Restoration
Dirty Boots Reaches 1 and 2 are both perennial and will be restored as C-type streams implementing a
Priority 1 restoration approach. The reaches will be reconnected with the floodplain and the channel will
be reconstructed with stable dimension, pattern, and profile that will transport the water and sediment
delivered to the system. More specifically, the stream pattern will be constructed so that both reaches
will meander through flat areas on the historic floodplain where it likely existed prior to being altered.
The project area is typically flat, with average valleys slopes ranging from 0.65% to 0.9% depending on

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 18 July 22, 2024
the design reach. Generally, this allows for moderate sinuosity to reflect the relationship between
sinuosity and slope observed in reference reaches.

There are existing wetlands and areas proposed for wetland reestablishment all along both reaches that
will be improved by raising the stream bed and increasing the hydrologic input to the areas. Wherever
possible, the design alignment has been developed to avoid impacts to existing wetlands. The design
approach balanced tree preservation with other project goals to minimize the removal of existing, native
trees. In cases where that was inevitable, clusters of trees were preserved to maximize habitat quality
and shading.
The restored profiles will consist of alternating riffle-pool bed features. Pools will be constructed of
varying depth for habitat diversity and are designed to be long and flat to maintain slope on riffles, thus
providing varied flow dynamics and increases in sediment transport capability. The cross-sectional
dimensions of the design channels will be constructed to frequently inundate adjacent floodplains and
wetland areas. Raising streambeds in these areas will re-establish wetlands and rehabilitate the
hydrology of existing wetlands. The reconstructed channel banks will be built with stable side slopes,
matted, and planted with native vegetation for long-term stability.
A variety of structures will be used in the restoration reaches to maintain restored bed grades, protect
banks, add wood into channels, and provide a variety of habitat types. Five types of constructed riffles
are proposed for Dirty Boots Reaches 1 and 2 including native material riffles, angled log riffles, jazz
riffles, woody riffles, and chunky riffles. Other types of structures will include brush toe bank
revetments, angled log sills and a log j-hook. Two crossings are to be built, one on Reach 1 and one on
Reach 2.
UT2, Reach 1 – Enhancement 1
UT2, Reach 1 will be restored using a Priority 1 restoration approach. Streams will be reconnected with
its narrow floodplain and the channels will be reconstructed with stable dimension, pattern, and profile
that will transport the water and sediment delivered to the system. Streams will meander through their
natural valleys, restoring patterns to previously straightened and ditched systems. Although a
restoration approach will be employed on UT2, Reach 1 because the existing channel condition was
primarily stable, Wildlands is only requesting Enhancement 1 credit as discussed during the IRT site walk
(Appendix 5).
Instream structures along the reach will consist of native material riffles, woody riffles, chunky riffles,
and angled log riffles. The constructed riffles will maintain restored bed grades, protect banks and
prevent headcutting. Varying riffle types will add diversity and variation to the channel. Deep pools with
brush toe or sod mats will be constructed on most of the meander bends to provide habitat and prevent
erosion. Pools will have no slope to allow riffle slopes to be maximized aiding sediment transport
processes.
UT2 Reach 2 – Restoration
UT2 Reach 2 will be restored using a Priority 1 restoration approach. Streams will be reconnected with
an active floodplain and the channels will be reconstructed with stable dimension, pattern, and profile
that will transport the water and sediment delivered to the system. Streams will meander through their
natural valleys, restoring patterns to previously straightened and ditched systems. There are existing
wetlands along Reach 2, as well as areas designed to reestablished wetlands by raising the channel bed
and associated groundwater elevation in the riparian zone.
Instream structures along the reach will consist of native material riffles, woody riffles, chunky riffles,
and angled log riffles. The constructed riffles will maintain restored bed grades, protect banks and

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 19 July 22, 2024
prevent headcutting. Varying riffle types will add diversity and variation to the channel. Deep pools with
brush toe or sod mats will be constructed on most of the meander bends to provide habitat and prevent
erosion. Pools will have no slope to allow riffle slopes to be maximized aiding sediment transport
processes. A new crossing will be installed on UT2 Reach 2 in the location of an existing ford crossing
and cattle path.
UT2A - Restoration
UT2A is a short restoration reach of approximately 120 LF that flows into UT2 Reach 2. It has a moderate
slope (1.5%) and will employ a Priority 1 restoration approach as a C channel. The reach will be
reconnected with the floodplain and the channel will be reconstructed with stable cross section
dimensions, pattern, and profile. Constructed riffles and brush toe bank revetments are proposed for
grade control, erosion control, and habitat enhancement.
UT3 Reach 1 – Enhancement II
UT3 Reach 1 begins in a forested area. The channel is in a fairly good condition and therefore Reach 1 is
proposed to have an Enhancement II approach where the primary restoration activities are removal of
livestock from the stream and treating invasive species along the stream banks. Targeted bed
treatments will occur in areas where small headcuts exist and woody material in the form of brush toe
will be installed on targeted outer banks. If removal of invasive species on the channel banks leaves any
unstable soil, bank grading or bioengineering may be used to provide channel stabilization.
UT3 Reach 2 – Restoration
UT3 Reach 2 includes the pond bed. The pond will be dewatered prior to construction. Soft sediments
(pond muck) will be removed from the pond bed in the areas where the proposed corridor will be
constructed and stockpiled for drying and potential re-use. Existing embankment soils or suitable
salvaged topsoil from other areas of the property will be used to backfill the pond where restoration is
performed, to the required design elevation. Prior to construction of the channel within the pond bed,
the Designer will inspect the soils to ensure that it is properly compacted and suitable for channel
construction. UT3 Reach 2 will be constructed as a Priority 1 restoration approach with a moderately
sloped channel (1.3%) to allow the creation of a meandering pattern through the natural valley. The
reach will be reconnected with its floodplain and the channel will be reconstructed with stable cross
section dimension, pattern, and profile. At the lower downstream end of the reach and until the stream
reaches the confluence with Dirty Boots Reach 2, there are existing wetlands and areas proposed for
wetland reestablishment. In that area the stream bed will be raised to increase the hydrological input to
the riparian zone.
Four types of constructed riffles are proposed for UT3 Reach 2 including native material riffles, angled
log riffles, woody riffles, and chunky riffles. Other types of structures will include brush toe bank
revetments, sod mats, curved boulder sills, and angled log sills. Pools will be constructed with varied
depths for habitat diversity. Live stakes will be planted where streambanks are restored to provide long
term bank protection. The proposed channels are sized to carry the design bankfull flow.
6.7 Wetland Design Implementation
Proposed wetland restoration activities at the Site include re-establishment of drained, historic wetlands
and rehabilitation and enhancement of existing jurisdictional features. Wetland re-establishment is
proposed on 4.482 acres that contain hydric soils lacking a contemporary wetland hydrology regime.
Wetland rehabilitation is proposed on 0.513 acres of existing jurisdictional features that exhibit
substantial impairments to hydrology, water quality, and habitat functions. Wetland enhancement is
proposed on 0.910 acres of existing jurisdictional features through vegetation improvements and cattle
exclusion. Wetland preservation is proposed on 0.156 acres of existing jurisdictional features that are
forested and do not exhibit impairments from cattle activity (Figure 6).

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 20 July 22, 2024
Rehabilitation and re-establishment of wetland hydrology will primarily be accomplished by elevating
the Dirty Boots and UT2 streambeds, installing plugs in relic channel features and removing cattle paths
that provide surface drainage, and creating surface roughness to alleviate compaction in soils. Raising
the streambeds relative to their current elevation will reduce groundwater drainage to existing stream
channels and increase frequency of interaction of the stream with floodplain wetlands. Where feasible,
surface roughness will be increased on existing, smooth land surfaces by tilling the soil. The close
proximity of the current stream alignment of Dirty Boots, Reach 2 to the right valley wall does not
provide opportunity for discharge at the toe of slope to hydrate the soil profile throughout most of the
right floodplain. Re-aligning the channel farther from the right valley wall will also allow groundwater
discharging near the toe of slope to hydrate more of the right floodplain area. Water quality treatment
and potential and wildlife habitat will be addressed in rehabilitation and re-establishment areas through
the removal of livestock and planting of a native, hydrophytic vegetation community.
Wetland enhancement is proposed in Wetlands A, F, H, and I, totaling 0.910 acres. Enhancement will be
achieved through the removal of livestock from the Site and re-establishment of a healthy native
riparian buffer. It is likely livestock removal will promote some level of functional uplift, particularly
related to lower strata vegetation, nutrient cycling, and decreased soil compaction.
Wetland preservation is proposed in Wetlands J and K, totaling 0.156 acres. Preservation wetlands are
forested and do not exhibit significant impairments from historic land use as cattle pasture. Preservation
will be achieved through cattle exclusion and permanent protection within a conservation easement.
While wetlands proposed for preservation are not significantly impaired, they will likely still receive
some level of functional uplift related to lower strata vegetation.
6.8 Vegetation, Planting Plan, and Land Management
6.8.1 Vegetation and Planting Plan
The objective of the planting plan is to establish, over time, 50-foot (minimum) thriving riparian buffer
composed of native tree, shrub, forb, and grass species. Though the Site’s existing plant communities
are degraded from grazing, plant invasion, and other disturbances from its agricultural history, there are
some remnant portions of diverse forest and herb layer that are able to guide the vegetation plan for
the Site. The existing tree and herbaceous species on portions of the Site indicate that the Site has
floristic components of the Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest (Hardpan Subtype) and Piedmont
Alluvial Forest community types (Schafale, 2022). This is further supported by the Cid and Lignum soils
and gently sloping topography that occur on the Site. The restored buffer will improve riparian habitat,
enhance stream stability, shade the streams, and provide a source of organic material to the streams.
The selected species assemblage is based on the existing natural community types and professional
judgement regarding species establishment for the anticipated Site conditions. Some adaptations were
made to the planting plan’s target natural communities based on the need to include early successional
tree species that will create more favorable conditions for climax species, and to omit undesirable tree
species (Acer rubrum, Liquidambar styraciflua, and Pinus taeda). The streambanks and the channel toe
will be planted with regionally appropriate live stakes and herbaceous plugs to strengthen streambanks,
provide habitat, and cool water temperatures via shading. Permanent native seed mixes were based on
the proposed target community, professional judgement regarding seed establishment, and commercial
availability. Separate seed mixes were developed for riparian buffers and wetland areas and will be
broadcast on all disturbed areas in the conservation easement. The complete planting plan is found in
the preliminary design plans.
An existing conditions floristic inventory found portions of the easement in pasture or forest to be
largely devoid of a developed herbaceous layer. Dominant tree species observed were willow oak

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 21 July 22, 2024
(Quercus phellos), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), American elm (Ulmus americana), and green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica); with American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana) and winged elm (Ulmus
alata), dominant in the understory. Common herbaceous species found throughout the Site’s forested
areas and wetlands were trumpet vine (Campsis radicans), river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium), fox
sedge (Carex vulpinoidea) and lurid sedge (Carex lurida). Many of these species are indicative of both
Piedmont Headwater Stream Forests (Hardpan Subtype) and Piedmont Alluvial Forests as described by
Schafale (2022).
6.8.2 Land Management/Stewardship
Land management activities will include vegetation management, plant community enhancement,
erosion control, and conservation easement compliance work and will include controlling invasive plant
populations within the conservation easement. Chinese privet and multiflora rose occur at low densities
(<1%) in the riparian corridor. Where feasible, invasive species will be mechanically removed during
construction. Otherwise, invasive plant species will be managed using a variety of mechanical and
chemical methods based on species, size, extent, and professional judgement. The extent of invasive
species coverage will be monitored, mapped, and controlled as necessary throughout the required
monitoring period.
To help ensure tree growth and survival, soil amendments may be added to areas of the floodplain
throughout the Site where earthen material is removed. Soil tests may be performed in areas of cut and
amendments may be applied based on results. Additionally, topsoil may be stockpiled and reapplied
before permanent seeding and planting activities take place. All haul roads or other high traffic areas
within the easement compacted by construction equipment during construction will be ripped before
planting. Additionally, ungraded areas that currently host dense pasture grasses will be chemically
treated and reseeded with a variety of native grasses and forbs. Initial chemical treatment of pastures
grasses will likely be directed by the presence and density of desirable and undesirable species and
involve multiple methods including boom spraying, selective spraying, and ring spraying. Pasture grasses
that persist after construction will be monitored and managed as needed to ensure they do not
substantially inhibit the establishment of planted native species, primarily through selective chemical
treatments.
6.9 Project Risk and Uncertainties
There are no utility crossings on site, and no external easement breaks on the project. There are three
existing crossings to facilitate cattle and farm equipment movement between the four pastures on site.
The crossings will be reconstructed with culverts to convey the 5-year flow event and appropriate scour
protection will be placed around the inlet and outlet of the culvert to minimize erosion during storm
events. Crossings will be gated on both ends of the easement and fencing will be installed along the
crossings to ensure cattle cannot access the stream as the cross between pastures.
An existing pond and associated pond dam will be removed as part of the project. Soft sediments in the
pond bottom will be dewatered, removed, and replaced with workable topsoil prior to grading the
stream channel through the old pond bed. The pond will be dewatered through a silt bag to avoid the
spread of invasive species prior to excavation of the dam and pond sediments.
The streams have been designed not to induce hydrologic trespass on neighboring properties. Raising of
the water table along the Dirty Boots floodplain is intended to develop riparian wetlands. The easement
extends across the entirety of the floodplain and areas potentially affected by the rising water table.
Potential risks to the project include both onsite and offsite beaver activity, encroachments on the
easement, and the spreading of invasive species. Beaver activity was noted immediately downstream of
the Site during the assessment phase of the project. If impacts to the easement result from downstream

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 22 July 22, 2024
beaver activity, beaver trapping and dam removal will need to be coordinated with the downstream
landowner. On site streams will be monitored for future beaver activity according to the monitoring and
maintenance plans. Invasive species management and encroachment are described above in Section
6.8.2. Potential maintenance activities that address these risks and uncertainties are discussed below in
Section 10 – Long Term Management Plan.
7.0 Determination of Credits
The final stream credits proposed for the Site are listed in Table 15. Stream restoration is proposed at a
ratio of 1:1. The ratio for UT2 Reach 1 is proposed at the standard enhancement I ratio of 1.5:1. This
area will be completely restored with new planform and profile but the existing condition of the
channel, although channelized, was relatively stable. The IRT suggested that the area could benefit from
installing habitat features in this reach and although the effort will be constructed as full restoration, the
functional gain between pre and post construction condition warrants a ratio of 1.5:1. UT3 Reach 1 is
proposed for Enhancement II with a ratio of 3:1. Limited in channel work will be conducted on UT3
Reach 1 although some brush toe material will be installed to stabilize several outer bends in this
channel. Planting will occur on the outer perimeter of the buffer and supplemental planting will occur in
the understory along the partially forested near stream area. Cattle exclusion will occur along the
entirety of UT3, Reach 1. Wetland reestablishment is proposed at a ratio of 1:1, wetland rehabilitation is
proposed at a ratio of 1.5:1, wetland enhancement is proposed at a ratio of 2:1, and wetland
preservation is proposed at a ratio of 10:1. Specific approaches for wetland crediting are described in
Section 6.7.
Table 15: Project Stream and Wetland Assets and Credits
Project Segment
Existing
Footage or
Acreage1
Mitigation
Plan Footage
or Acreage1,2
Mitigation
Category
Restoration
Level
Priority
Level
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)

Credits
Dirty Boots
Reach 1 704 663 Warm R 1 1 663.000
Dirty Boots
Reach 2 1,269 1,263 Warm R 1 1 1,263.000
UT2 Reach 1 259 348 Warm EI -- 1.5 232.000
UT2 Reach 2 900 975 Warm R 1 1 975.000
UT2A 78 121 Warm R 1 1 121.000
UT3 Reach 1 564 564 Warm EII -- 3 188.000
UT3 Reach 2 792 858 Warm R 1 1 858.000
Wetland
Rehabilitation
1.5:1
0.674 0.513 Riparian RH -- 1.5 0.342
Wetland Re-
establishment
1:1
-- 4.482 Riparian R -- 1 4.482
Wetland
Enhancement
2:1
1.072 0.910 Riparian E -- 2 0.455
Wetland
Preservation
10:1
0.156 0.156 Riparian P -- 10 0.016
1. Mitigation plan wetland acreage accounts for loss of existing wetlands due to stream channel relocation and varies from
existing wetland acreage.

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 23 July 22, 2024
2. Mitigation Plan Footage or Acreage column reflects stream channel lengths and wetland areas after construction and is not a
calculation of credits.

Restoration Level
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-
Riparian
Wetland
Coastal
Marsh Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 3,880.000
Re-establishment 4.482
Rehabilitation 0..342
Enhancement 0.455
Preservation 0.016
Enhancement I 232.000
Enhancement II 188.000
Creation
Preservation
Additional Credit from
Extended Buffers
TOTAL 4,300.000 5.295
8.0 Performance Standards
The stream and wetland performance standards for the project will follow approved standards
presented in the North Carolina Interagency Review Team’s (NCIRT) Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina (February 2013) and the
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (NCIRT, October 2016).
Annual monitoring and routine site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished
project by a qualified scientist. Specific performance standards that apply to this project are those
described in the 2016 Compensatory Mitigation Update including Vegetation (Section V, B, Items 1
through 3) and Stream Channel Stability and Stream Hydrology Performance Standards (Section VI, B,
Items 1 through 7). Wetland performance criteria has been developed in accordance with Section IX –
Wetland Hydrology Monitoring. Table 16 summarizes performance standards.
The estimated growing season dates indicated by the WETS table using data from years 1992-2022 at
the Siler City 2N, NC weather station (Coop ID 317924) are 3/17-11/17 (245 days) based on the 50%
probably and 28-degree Fahrenheit temperature thresholds. Wildlands proposes to establish the
growing season dates for wetland hydrology monitoring as March 1st through November 17th (261 days).
Based on the findings of the LSS during the hydric soil field assessment, Wildlands proposes to use the
hydroperiod criterion for Wehadkee soils as opposed to the Cid-Lignum complex mapped by NRCS.
Table 1 in the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (2016)
indicates the hydroperiod criterion for Wehadkee soils is 12%. This equates to 32 consecutive days
during which the water table must remain within 12 inches of the soil surface to attain the performance
criterion based on the growing season end date proposed.
March 1st is proposed as the start date based on observations of soil temperature exceeding 41 degrees
Fahrenheit and bud burst occurring prior to March 1st at numerous mitigation sites in Chatham and
surrounding counties. November 17th is proposed as the end date based on the WETS table and
observations of leaf senescence. Wildlands visually estimated site-scale leaf color change as a proxy for
leaf senescence. The senescence process begins prior to visible color change; however, color change is
readily observable and requires no laboratory procedures or special equipment (Gill et al. 2015, Mariën
et al. 2019). Based on this information, Wildlands assumed leaf senescence as occurring on a given site

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 24 July 22, 2024
when 50% of the leaves across that site had changed color. This threshold was generally reached during
mid- to late October of 2022 and 2023 for observed locations in Chatham and the surrounding counties,
which supports the conclusion that the growing season has ended by November 17th.
Table 16: Summary of Performance Standards
Parameter Monitoring Feature Performance Standard
Dimension Cross-Section Survey BHR <1.2; ER >2.2 for C/E channels.
Pattern and Profile Visual Assessment Should indicate stream stability.
Photo
Documentation
• Cross-Section Photos
• Photo Points
• Crossing Photos
No excessive erosion or degradation of banks.
No mid-channel bars, Stable grade control.
Crossings are stable and in good condition.
Stream Hydrology
Crest Gauge Four bankfull events during the 7-year period, in separate years.
Flow Gauge At least 30 consecutive days of flow on intermittent restoration and
enhancement reaches.
Wetland Hydrology Groundwater Well
Water table within 12 inches of the ground surface for a consecutive
12% of the growing season (32 consecutive days). Proposed growing
season dates are March 1 through November 17 (261 days).
Vegetation Vegetation Plots
MY3 success criteria: 320 planted stems per acre,
MY5 success criteria: 260 planted stems per acre, average of 7 feet in
height in each plot.
MY7 success criteria: 210 planted stems per acre, average of 10 feet
in height in each plot.
Note: shrub and subcanopy species will be omitted from average
height calculations
Invasive Species Visual Assessment and
GPS mapping
Riparian invasive coverage not to exceed 5% of the easement
acreage.
Visual Assessment CCPV Signs of encroachment, stream instability, invasive species.
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.
Invasive vegetation will be mapped, photographed, and visually assessed annually. Invasive species will
be treated by mechanical and/or chemical methods so that riparian invasive species do not exceed 5%
of the easement acreage. All herbicide applications will be performed in accordance with the NC
Department of Agriculture rules and regulations.
9.0 Monitoring Plan
The Site monitoring plan has been developed to ensure that the required performance standards are
met, and project goals and objectives are achieved. Annual monitoring data will be reported using the
DMS Annual Monitoring Reporting Template (October 2020). The monitoring report shall provide
project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, ease
population of DMS databases for analysis and research purposes and assist in close-out decision making.
Using the DMS As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report Template (October 2020), a baseline monitoring
document and as-built record drawings of the project will be developed within 60 days of the planting
completion and monitoring installation on the restored Site. Monitoring reports will be prepared in the
fall of each monitoring year and submitted to DMS by November 30. These reports will be based on the
DMS Annual Monitoring Template (October 2020). Full monitoring reports will be submitted to DMS in
monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Abbreviated reports will be submitted in monitoring years 4 and 6.

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 25 July 22, 2024
The monitoring period will be seven years beyond completion of construction or until performance
standards have been met.
Table 17, below, describes how the monitoring plan is set up in order to verify project goals and
objectives have been achieved.
Table 17: Monitoring Plan
Goal Objective Performance Standards Monitoring Metric
Exclude livestock
from streams.
Exclude livestock through
removal of livestock from the
project parcel.
Preventing livestock encroachment. Visual inspection
Improve the
stability of
stream channels.
Construct stream channels
that will maintain stable
cross-sections, patterns, and
profiles over time.
Entrenchment ratio over 2.2 for C/E
restoration reaches and bank height ratio
below 1.2 with visual assessments
showing progression towards stability.
Cross-section
monitoring and visual
inspections.
Improve
instream habitat.
Reconstruct stream channels
with appropriate bankfull
dimensions and depth
relative to the existing
floodplain.
There is no required performance
standard for this metric. N/A
Reconnect
channels with
floodplains.
Reconstruct stream channels
with appropriate bankfull
dimensions and depth
relative to the existing
floodplain.
Four bankfull events in separate years
within monitoring period. Thirty days of
continuous flow each year on
intermittent streams.
Crest and flow gauges
(pressure transducers)
will record flow
elevations.
Improve wetland
hydrology.
Remove livestock to allow
soil profiles to stabilize.
Remove drain effect of
channelized stream and
floodplain swales.
Free groundwater table within 12 inches
of the ground surface for 12% of the
growing season.
Groundwater gauges
will be placed in
wetland areas and
monitored annually.
Restore and
enhance native
floodplain and
streambank
vegetation.
Plant native tree and
understory species in
riparian zones and plant
native shrub and herbaceous
species on streambanks.
Treat invasive species within
project area.
210 planted stems per acre at MY7.
Interim survival rate of 320 planted
stems per acre at MY3 and 260 at MY5.
Trees in each plot must average 7 ft at
MY5 and 10 ft at MY7 (excluding shrub
and subcanopy species).
Vegetation plots, each
covering 100 square
meters, will be placed
on 2% of the planted
area of the project and
monitored annually.
Permanently
protect the
project site from
harmful uses.
Establish a conservation
easement on the site. Prevent easement encroachment.
Visually inspect the
perimeter of the Site to
ensure no easement
encroachment is
occurring.
9.1 Monitoring Components
Project monitoring components are listed in more detail in Table 18. Approximate locations of the
proposed monitoring components are illustrated in Figure 9.

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 26 July 22, 2024

Table 18: Monitoring Components
Parameter Monitoring Feature
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Frequency Notes Dirty Boots UT2 UT2A UT3
R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2
Dimension Riffle Cross-sections 2 2 1 2 N/A N/A 1 Year 1, 2, 3,
5, and 7 1 Pool Cross-sections 1 1 N/A 1 1
Pattern Pattern N/A N/A 2 Profile Longitudinal Profile N/A N/A
Stream
Hydrology Crest Gage 1 CG 1 CG, 1 FG 1 FG 1 CG, 1 FG Quarterly 3
Vegetation Vegetation Plots 10 Fixed Plots, 2 Random Plots Year 1, 2, 3,
5, and 7 4
Wetlands Groundwater Wells 11 Quarterly 5
Visual
Assessment
Photographs and
Notes Semi-Annual
Exotic and
nuisance
vegetation
Photographs and
Mapping Semi-Annual 6
Project
Boundary
Photographs and
Mapping Semi-Annual 7
Reference
Photos Stream Photographs 3 6 2 6 1 2 4 Annual 8

1. Cross-sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope,
including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg.
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile will be collected during as-built baseline
monitoring survey only, unless observations indicate lack of stability and profile survey is warranted in additional years.
3. Crest gages will be monitored using automated pressure transducers. Transducers will set to record bankfull events at least twice a day
and will be inspected quarterly.
4. Vegetation monitoring will follow CVS protocols. Vegetation will only be monitored visually in years 4 and 6.
5. Groundwater well data will be collected using automated pressure transducers. Transducers will set to record at least twice a day and
will be inspected quarterly.
6. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
7. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.
10.0 Long-Term Management Plan
The site will be transferred to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for
the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation easement are upheld. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program is developing an endowment
system within the non-reverting, interest-bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The
use of funds from the Endowment Account will be governed by North Carolina General Statue GS 113A-
232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used for the purpose of stewardship,
monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable. The Site Protection
Instrument can be found in Appendix 2.

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 27 July 22, 2024
11.0 Adaptive Management Plan
Upon completion of site construction DMS will implement the post-construction monitoring protocols
previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described Appendix 6
and invasive species control work will be implemented as described in Appendix 7. If, during the course
of annual monitoring, it is determined the site’s ability to achieve site performance standards are
jeopardized, DMS will notify the USACE and the NCIRT of the need to develop a Plan of Corrective
Action. The Plan of Corrective Action may be prepared using in-house technical staff or may require
engineering and consulting services. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized DMS will:
• Notify the USACE and NCIRT as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
• Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE and NCIRT.
• Obtain other permits as necessary.
• Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
• Provide the USACE and NCIRT a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall
depict the extent and nature of the work performed.

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 28 July 22, 2024
12.0 References
Harman, W.H., et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2019. Web Soil Survey.
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Division of Water Resources 2016. Surface Water Classifications.
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-planning/classification-standards/river-
basin-classification
North Carolina Division of Water Resources. 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities.
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Cape_Fear_River_Basin/RBRP
%20CapeFear%202009%20Revised%20032013.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Resources. 2005. Upper and Middle Rocky River Local Watershed Plan
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Cape_Fear_River_Basin/Uppe
r_Middle_RockyRiver/Upper%20and%20Middle%20%20Rocky%20River%20%28CF%2003%29%20LWP
%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985, Geologic Map of North Carolina: Raleigh, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Geological Survey Section, scale
1:500,00, in color.
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT), 2013. Monitoring Requirements and Performance.
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT), 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update.
North Carolina Stream Assessment Method. 2015. Prepared by North Carolina Stream Functional
Assessment Team.
North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method. 2016. Prepared by North Carolina Wetland Functional
Assessment Team.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal
Interagency Sediment Conference, Reno, NV, March 2001.
Shields, D. F., Copeland, R. R, Klingman, P. C., Doyle, M. W., and Simon, A. 2003. Design for Stream
Restoration. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129(8): 575-582.
United States Army Corps of Engineers Routine On-Site Determination Method presented in the 1987
Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual, and subsequent Eastern Mountains and Piedmont guidance

Figures
!P
!P
!P
!P
!
!
!
!
XY
!
XY
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!
!
XY!
XY
XY
ÛÚ
ÛÚ
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 1
XS1
XS2
XS
3
XS
4
XS
5
X
S
6
Wetland I
Wetland H
Wetland E
Wetland F
Wetland D
Wetland J
Wetland K
Wetland C
Wetland B
Wetland A
Wetland A
!A
!A
!A
!A!A
GWG1
GWG3
GWG2
Edw
a
r
ds

H
ill Chu
r
c
h

R
d
A
and

L
Ln
Edw
a
r
d
s

H
i
ll Chu r ch

R
d
D
i
r
t
y

B
o
o
t
s
UT2
D
i
r
t
y

B
o
o
t
s
UT3
UT2A
Figure 2 Existing Conditions Site Map
Dirty Boots Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Basin 03030003
2021 Aerial Photography
Chatham County, NC¹0 100 200 Feet
Parcels
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Wetland
Existing Pond
Cattle Access
Perennial Project Stream
Intermittent Project Stream
Non-Project Stream
Cross-Section
Topographic Contours (2')
!P Reach Break
##Seep/Flow Origin
XY Existing Headcut
!Existing Cattle Wallow
ÛÚ Existing Culvert
Existing Ford Crossing
Existing Cattle Wallow
XY Existing Headcut
!A Groundwater Gauge
!A Barrotroll
!A Soil Temperature Probe
Siler City, NC 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle
Figure 3 USGS Topographic Map
Dirty Boots Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Basin 03030003
Chatham County, NC
Proposed Conservation Easement
¹0 150 300 Feet
UT2
41 ac
UT3
48 ac
Dirty Boots
275 ac
UT2A
20 ac
Edw
ards
Hill

C
h
u
rc h R d
A

a
n
d

L
L
n
UT2
D
i
r
t
y

B
o
o
t
s
UT3
UT2
A
UT3
Figure 4 Watershed Map
Dirty Boots Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Basin 03030003
2021 Aerial Photography
Chatham County, NC
Proposed Conservation Easement
Dirty Boots Watershed
Subwatersheds
Perennial Project Streams
Intermittent Project Streams
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contours (2')
¹0 200 400 Feet
UT2
0 10.5 Miles
Dirty Boots
275 ac
CaB
CkC
CmB
Edw
a
r
d
s

H
ill Chu
r
c
h

R
d
A
an
d
L
Ln
Edw
a
r
d
s

H
ill Chu
r
c
h

R
d
UT2
D
i
r
t
y

B
o
o
t
s
UT3
UT2
A
UT3
Figure 5 Soils Map
Dirty Boots Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Basin 03030003
2021 Aerial Photography
Chatham County, NC
CaB - Callison - Lignum complex, 2-6% Slopes
CkC - Cid silt loam, 6-10% Slopes
CmB - Cid-Lignum complex, 2-6% Slopes
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Perennial Project Streams
Intermittent Project Streams
Non-Project Streams
¹0 150 300 Feet
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
Dirty Boots Mitigation Site
UT to Wells
UT to Cane Creek
UT to Varnals
Foust Upstream
Long Branch
Spencer Creek 1
UT to Polecat
Walker Branch (Cane Creek)
UT to South Crowders A & B
Spencer Creek 2
Figure 6 Reference Reach Map
Dirty Boots Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Basin 03030003
Chatham County, NC
2013 Aerial Photography
##Project Location
##Reference Sites
0 8 16 Miles ¹

Figure 8 Concept Map
Dirty Boots Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Basin 03030003
Chatham County, NC
!P
!P
!P
¬«2
¬«1
¬«3
UT2
UT3
UT2A
D
i
r
t
y

B
o
o
t
s
D
i
r
t
y

B
o
o
t
s
Edw
a
r
ds

H
ill Chu
rch

R
d
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 1
¹0 100 200 Feet
Parcels
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Proposed Internal Crossing
Existing Pond
Proposed Wetland Re-establishment 1:1
Proposed Wetland Rehabilitation 1.5:1
Proposed Wetland Enhancement 2:1
Proposed Wetland Preservation 10:1
Proposed Stream Restoration
Proposed Stream Enhancement I
Proposed Stream Enhancement II
No Stream Credit
Non-Project Stream
Topographic Contours (2')
!P Reach Break
#
Figure 9 Proposed Monitoring Components Map
Dirty Boots Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Basin 03030003
Chatham County, NC
!P
!P
!P
Edw
a
r
ds

H
ill Chu
rch

R
d
A
and

L
Ln
Edw
a
r
d
s

H
ill Chu r ch

R
d
!A !A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GFGFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
¬«2
¬«1
¬«3
D
i
r
t
y

B
o
o
t
s
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 1
UT2
UT3
UT2A
D
i
r
t
y

B
o
o
t
s
Plot to remain within
pond bed and
dam footprint.
¹0 100 200 Feet
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Bank Conservation Easement
Proposed Internal Crossing
Existing Pond
Proposed Wetland Re-establishment 1:1
Proposed Wetland Rehabilitation 1.5:1
Proposed Wetland Enhancement 2:1
Proposed Wetland Preservation 10:1
Fixed Vegetation Plot
Random Vegetation Plot
Proposed Stream Restoration
Proposed Stream Enhancement I
Proposed Stream Enhancement II
No Stream Credit
Cross-Section
Topographic Contours (2')
!P Reach Break
GF Photo Point
!A Barotroll
!A Soil Temperature Probe
!A Crest Gauge
!A Flow Gauge
!A Groundwater Gauge
#
Figure 10 Planting Zones Map
Dirty Boots Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Basin 03030003
Chatham County, NC
!P
!P
!P
E d war
ds

H
ill Chu
rch

R
d
A

a
n
d

L

L
n
¬«2
¬«1
¬«3
D
i
r
t
y

B
o
o
t
s
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 1
UT2
UT3
UT2A
D
i
r
t
y

B
o
o
t
s
Plot to remain within
pond bed and
dam footprint.
¹0 100 200 Feet
Parcels
Project Location
Proposed Internal Crossing
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Pond
Proposed Wetland Re-establishment 1:1
Proposed Wetland Rehabilitation 1.5:1
Proposed Wetland Enhancement 2:1
Proposed Wetland Preservation 10:1
Riparian Planting Zone
Wetland Planting Zone
Streambank Planting Zone
Fixed Vegetation Plot
Random Vegetation Plot
Non-Project Stream
Topographic Contours (2')
!P Reach Break
#
Appendix 1
Historic Aerial Photos
6868133.5
1950
= 500'
6868133.5
1961
= 500'
6868133.5
1965
= 500'
6868133.5
1973
= 500'
6868133.5
1983
= 500'
6868133.5
1993
= 500'
6868133.5
1999
= 500'
6868133.5
2006
= 500'
6868133.5
2009
= 500'
6868133.5
2012
= 500'
6868133.5
2016
= 500'
Appendix 1
Existing Stream Cross Sections
Cross Section 1
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
6.3 x-section area (ft.sq.)74.6 W flood prone area (ft)7.9 D50 Riffle (mm)
6.5 width (ft)11.4 entrenchment ratio 14 D84 Riffle (mm)
1.0 mean depth (ft)3.0 low bank height (ft)24 threshold grain size (mm):
1.6 max depth (ft)1.9 low bank height ratio
7.7 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type
0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)---
6.7 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
3.7 velocity (ft/s)0.035 Manning's roughness 0.97 channel slope (%)
23.2 discharge rate (cfs)0.15 Darcy-Weisbach fric.0.50 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.71 Froude number 10.6 resistance factor u/u*0.51 shear velocity (ft/s)
21.1 relative roughness 2.2 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Missing: , , Sinuosity, ,
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Width
Dirty Boots Creek Reach 1, Riffle
Cross Section 2
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
0.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)--- W flood prone area (ft)7.9 D50 Riffle (mm)
0.0 width (ft)--- entrenchment ratio 14 D84 Riffle (mm)
0.0 mean depth (ft)--- low bank height (ft)--- threshold grain size (mm):
0.0 max depth (ft)--- low bank height ratio
0.0 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type
0.0 hydraulic radius (ft)---
0.0 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
--- velocity (ft/s)--- Manning's roughness 0.97 channel slope (%)
--- discharge rate (cfs)--- Darcy-Weisbach fric.--- shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
--- Froude number --- resistance factor u/u*--- shear velocity (ft/s)
--- relative roughness --- unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 102030405060708090
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Width
Dirty Boots Creek Reach 1, Pool
Cross Section 3
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
4.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)10.3 W flood prone area (ft)1.7 D50 Riffle (mm)
5.4 width (ft)1.9 entrenchment ratio 8.3 D84 Riffle (mm)
0.8 mean depth (ft)1.9 low bank height (ft)37 threshold grain size (mm):
1.2 max depth (ft)1.6 low bank height ratio
6.3 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)---
7.1 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
4.4 velocity (ft/s)0.035 Manning's roughness 1.8 channel slope (%)
18.3 discharge rate (cfs)0.16 Darcy-Weisbach fric.0.75 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.94 Froude number 11.3 resistance factor u/u*0.62 shear velocity (ft/s)
28.3 relative roughness 3.8 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Missing: , , Sinuosity, ,
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 102030405060
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Width
UT2 Reach 2, Riffle
Cross Section 4
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
0.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)--- W flood prone area (ft)1.7 D50 Riffle (mm)
0.0 width (ft)--- entrenchment ratio 8.3 D84 Riffle (mm)
0.0 mean depth (ft)--- low bank height (ft)--- threshold grain size (mm):
0.0 max depth (ft)--- low bank height ratio
0.0 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type
0.0 hydraulic radius (ft)---
0.0 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
--- velocity (ft/s)--- Manning's roughness --- channel slope (%)
--- discharge rate (cfs)--- Darcy-Weisbach fric.--- shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
--- Froude number --- resistance factor u/u*--- shear velocity (ft/s)
--- relative roughness --- unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 102030405060
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Width
UT2 Reach 2, Pool
Cross Section 5
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
0.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)--- W flood prone area (ft)0.3 D50 Riffle (mm)
0.0 width (ft)--- entrenchment ratio 6 D84 Riffle (mm)
0.0 mean depth (ft)--- low bank height (ft)--- threshold grain size (mm):
0.0 max depth (ft)--- low bank height ratio
0.0 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type
0.0 hydraulic radius (ft)---
0.0 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
--- velocity (ft/s)--- Manning's roughness --- channel slope (%)
--- discharge rate (cfs)--- Darcy-Weisbach fric.--- shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
--- Froude number --- resistance factor u/u*--- shear velocity (ft/s)
--- relative roughness --- unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 102030405060
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Width
Dirty Boots Creek Reach 2, Pool
Cross Section 6
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
18.6 x-section area (ft.sq.)--- W flood prone area (ft)0.3 D50 Riffle (mm)
21.0 width (ft)--- entrenchment ratio 6 D84 Riffle (mm)
0.9 mean depth (ft)2.2 low bank height (ft)14 threshold grain size (mm):
2.2 max depth (ft)1.0 low bank height ratio
22.2 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type
0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)---
23.7 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
2.8 velocity (ft/s)0.035 Manning's roughness 0.54 channel slope (%)
51.6 discharge rate (cfs)0.15 Darcy-Weisbach fric.0.28 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.54 Froude number 13.0 resistance factor u/u*0.38 shear velocity (ft/s)
44.9 relative roughness 0.83 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Missing: , , Sinuosity, ,
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Width
Dirty Boots Creek Reach 2, Riffle
Cross Section 7
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
2.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)41.2 W flood prone area (ft)0.1 D50 Riffle (mm)
8.5 width (ft)4.9 entrenchment ratio 4.9 D84 Riffle (mm)
0.3 mean depth (ft)0.5 low bank height (ft)10 threshold grain size (mm):
0.5 max depth (ft)1.0 low bank height ratio
8.6 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type
0.3 hydraulic radius (ft)---
31.8 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
2.2 velocity (ft/s)0.030 Manning's roughness 1.2 channel slope (%)
5.0 discharge rate (cfs)0.16 Darcy-Weisbach fric.0.20 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.77 Froude number 10.4 resistance factor u/u*0.32 shear velocity (ft/s)
16.5 relative roughness 0.44 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Missing: , , Sinuosity, ,
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Width
UT3 Reach 2, Riffle
Cross Section 8
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
0.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)--- W flood prone area (ft)0.1 D50 Riffle (mm)
0.0 width (ft)--- entrenchment ratio 4.9 D84 Riffle (mm)
0.0 mean depth (ft)--- low bank height (ft)--- threshold grain size (mm):
0.0 max depth (ft)--- low bank height ratio
0.0 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type
0.0 hydraulic radius (ft)---
0.0 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
--- velocity (ft/s)--- Manning's roughness --- channel slope (%)
--- discharge rate (cfs)--- Darcy-Weisbach fric.--- shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
--- Froude number --- resistance factor u/u*--- shear velocity (ft/s)
--- relative roughness --- unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Width
UT3 Reach 2, Pool
Appendix 1
Licensed Soil Scientist Report
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!!
!!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
GE
GD
GC
GB
GA
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
JMH
APR 2022
1:3300
22-022
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Chatham County, NC
WETLAND
MITIGATION
1
³Legend
Parcels
Hydric Soils
Existing Wetland
Relict Channel
!.Soil Profiles
!Wetland/Hydric Soil Boundary GPS Points
0 400 800200Feet
DIRTY BOOTS
SITE
E
d
w
a
r
d
s

H
i
l
l

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
Appendix 1
Existing Groundwater Hydrographs
Groundwater Gauge Plot
Existing Conditions
Dirty Boots Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100638
St
a
r
t

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
3/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
En
d

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
50 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Existing Conditions
Daily Precipitation Gauge #1 Reference Gauge Depth Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Dirty Boots Groundwater Gauge #1
Groundwater Gauge Plot
Existing Conditions
Dirty Boots Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100638
St
a
r
t

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
3/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
En
d

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
5 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Existing Conditions
Daily Precipitation Gauge #2 Reference Gauge Depth Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Dirty Boots Groundwater Gauge #2
Groundwater Gauge Plot
Existing Conditions
Dirty Boots Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100638
St
a
r
t

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
3/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
En
d

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
90 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Existing Conditions
Daily Precipitation Gauge #3 Reference Gauge Depth Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Dirty Boots Groundwater Gauge #3
Appendix 1
Existing and Proposed Geomorphic Parameters
min max min max min max
stream type
drainage area DA sq mi
bankfull cross-sectional area Abkf SF
avg velocity during bankfull
event vbkf fps
width at bankfull wbkf feet
maximum depth at bankfull dmax feet
mean depth at bankfull dbkf feet
bankfull width to depth ratio wbkf/dbkf
low bank height feet
bank height ratio BHR
floodprone area width wfpa feet
entrenchment ratio ER
max pool depth at bankfull dpool feet
pool depth ratio dpool /dbkf
pool width at bankfull wpool feet
pool width ratio wpool /wbkf
Bkf pool cross-sectional area Apool SF
pool area ratio Apool /Abkf
pool-pool spacing p-p feet 28.8 60.1 25.9 61.0 16.6 36.6
pool-pool spacing ratio p-p/Wbkf 4.43 9.25 1.8 4.0 1.95 4.31
valley slope Svalley feet/ foot
channel slope Schannel feet/ foot 0.0069 0.018 0.005 0.009 0.013 0.015
sinuosity K
belt width wblt feet 29.2 45.4 33.5 71.3 16.4 72.1
meander width ratio wblt/wbkf 4.49 6.98 2.3 4.8 1.93 8.48
meander length Lm feet 71.5 127 45.0 254 40.2 142
meander length ratio Lm/wbkf 11.0 19.6 3.0 17.1 4.73 16.7
Linear Wavelength LW 60.9 121 42.0 240 29.6 114
Linear Wavelength Ratio LW/wbkf 9.37 18.6 2.8 16.2 3.48 13.4
radius of curvature Rc feet 13.2 36.8 19.9 77.5 9.20 50.5
radius of curvature ratio Rc/ wbkf 2.03 5.66 1.3 5.2 1.08 5.94
0.007
1.071.07
0.009 0.004
1.08
2.5
2.5
74.6
11.4
1.3
66.2
4.5
1.12 0.59
2.3
16.1
2.3
1.09
16.3
0.6
2.0
1.4
5.9
0.91
5.6
0.66
2.2
0.3
0.5
8.5
3.0 2.2
41.2
4.9
8.8
3.0
1.9
6.7 15.0
2.2
1.1
1.0
6.5
1.6
6.3
14.8
1.9
1.0
3.7
14.5
Existing Conditions Geomorphic Parameters
Parameter Dirty Boots Reach 1 UT3 Reach 2Dirty Boots Reach 2
C4
0.44
E4
0.23
C4
0.08
28.3
0.5
1.0
Notation Unit
Existing Conditions Geomorphic Parameters
Parameter UT2 Reach 2 UT2A
min max min max
stream type C4 -
drainage area DA sq mi 0.04 0.034
bankfull cross-sectional area Abkf SF 4.2 -
avg velocity during bankfull
event vbkf fps 4.4 -
width at bankfull wbkf feet 5.4 -
maximum depth at bankfull dmax feet 1.2 -
mean depth at bankfull dbkf feet 0.8 -
bankfull width to depth ratio wbkf/dbkf 7.1 -
low bank height feet 1.9 -
bank height ratio BHR 1.6 -
floodprone area width wfpa feet 10.3 -
entrenchment ratio ER 1.9 -
max pool depth at bankfull dpool feet 1.2 -
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf 1.5 -
pool width at bankfull wpool feet 4.5 -
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf 0.83 -
Bkf pool cross-sectional area Apool SF 2.7 -
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf 0.64 -
pool-pool spacing p-p feet 14 44 -
pool-pool spacing ratio p-p/Wbkf 2.6 8 -
valley slope Svalley feet/
foot 0.024 -
channel slope Schannel feet/
foot 0.007 0.019 -
sinuosity K 1.13 -
belt width wblt feet 14 28 -
meander width ratio wblt/wbkf 2.5 5.1 -
meander length Lm feet 41 104 -
meander length ratio Lm/wbkf 7.6 19.2 -
Linear Wavelength LW 37 93 -
Linear Wavelength Ratio LW/wbkf 6.9 17.2 -
radius of curvature Rc feet 11 41 -
radius of curvature ratio Rc/ wbkf 2.1 7.6 -
Notation Units
Min Max Min Max Min Max
stream type
drainage area DA sq mi
design discharge Q cfs
bankfull cross-sectional
area Abkf SF
average velocity during
bankfull event vbkf fps
width at bankfull wbkf feet
maximum depth at
bankfull dmax feet 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.5
mean depth at bankfull dbkf feet
bankfull width to depth
ratio wbkf/dbkf
max depth ratio dmax/dbkf feet 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.5
bank height ratio BHR -
floodprone area width wfpa feet 29.5 67.0 37.4 85.0 18.7 42.5
entrenchment ratio ER -2.2 5.0 2.2 5.0 2.2 5.0
valley slope Svalley feet/ foot
channel slope Schnl feet/ foot 0.003 0.011 0.002 0.017 0.001 0.021
riffle slope Sriffle feet/ foot 0.0111 0.027 0.006 0.020 0.012 0.039
riffle slope ratio Sriffle/Schnl -1.60 3.30 1.20 3.30 1.20 3.30
pool slope Sp feet/ foot
pool slope ratio Sp/Schnl -
pool-to-pool spacing Lp-p feet 26.8 80.4 34.0 102.0 0.00 51.0
pool spacing ratio Lp-p/wbkf -2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 3.0 6.0
pool cross-sectional
area Apool SF 21.1 36.9 34.0 59.4 9.8 17.1
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf -2.0 3.5 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.5
maximum pool depth dpool feet 2.4 3.6 3.0 4.6 1.6 2.3
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf -3.0 4.6 3.0 4.6 2.8 4.0
pool width at bankfull wpool feet 16.1 20.1 20.4 25.5 10.2 12.8
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf -1.2 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.5
sinuosity K -1.10 1.30 1.10 1.30 1.10 1.30
belt width wblt feet 26.8 72.4 34.0 91.8 17.0 42.5
meander width ratio wblt/wbkf -2.0 5.4 2.0 5.4 2.0 5.0
linear wavelength 
(formerly meander 
length)
LW feet 54.9 161 69.7 204 51.0 102
linear wavelength ratio 
(formerly meander 
length ratio)
LW/wbkf -4.1 12.0 4.1 12.0 6.0 12.0
meander length Lm feet 65.9 193 83.6 245 61.2 122
meander length ratio Lm/Wbkf -4.92 14.4 4.9 14.4 7.2 14.4
radius of curvature Rc feet 26.8 63.0 34.0 79.9 17.0 40.0
radius of curvature ratio Rc/ wbkf -2.0 4.7 2.0 4.7 2.0 4.7
Pattern
C4
0.075
4.9
Proposed Geomorphic Parameters
12.0
17.0
46.0
10.5
28.0
0.0130.001
0.00
0.00
0.009
0.00
Notation Units
0.00
Profile
0.00
0.00
2.6
8.5
2.7
Dirty Boots Reach 1
0.23
C4 C4
0.44
Dirty Boots Reach 2 UT3 Reach 2
Slope
13.4
2.7
17.0
0.79
1.0
Cross Section
17.0
1.00
17.0
0.57
15.0
1.0 1.0
Parameters
Min Max Min Max Min Max
stream type
drainage area DA sq mi
design discharge Q cfs
bankfull cross-
sectional area Abkf SF
average velocity
during bankfull event vbkf fps
Cross Section
width at bankfull wbkf feet
maximum depth at
bankfull dmax feet 0.52 0.65 0.69 0.86 0.52 0.65
mean depth at
bankfull dbkf feet
bankfull width to
depth ratio wbkf/dbkf
max depth ratio dmax/dbkf feet 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.5
bank height ratio BHR -
floodprone area
width wfpa feet 14.1 32.0 18.7 42.5 14.1 32.0
entrenchment ratio ER -2.2 5.0 2.2 5.0 2.2 5.0
Slope
valley slope Svalley feet/ foot
channel slope Schnl feet/ foot 0.002 0.017 0.009 0.029 0.005 0.018
Profile
riffle slope Sriffle feet/ foot 0.022 0.072 0.015 0.048 0.017 0.050
riffle slope ratio Sriffle/Schnl -1.20 3.30 1.20 3.30 1.20 3.30
pool slope Sp feet/ foot
pool slope ratio Sp/Schnl -
pool-to-pool spacing Lp-p feet 12.8 31.4 17.0 51.0 9.0 23.0
pool spacing ratio Lp-p/wbkf -2.0 4.9 2.0 6.0 2.0 5.1
pool cross-sectional
area Apool SF 5.5 9.7 9.8 17.1 5.5 9.7
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf -2.0 3.5 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.5
maximum pool
depth dpool feet 1.2 1.7 1.6 2.3 1.2 1.7
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf -2.8 4.0 2.8 4.0 2.8 4.0
pool width at
bankfull wpool feet 7.7 9.6 10.2 12.8 7.7 9.6
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf -1.2 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.5
Pattern
sinuosity K -1.10 1.30 1.10 1.30 1.30 1.35
belt width wblt feet 12.8 32.0 17.0 42.5 12.8 32.0
meander width ratio wblt/wbkf -2.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 5.0
linear wavelength 
(formerly meander 
length)
LW feet 26.2 62.7 51.0 102 38.4 76.8
linear wavelength 
ratio (formerly 
meander length 
ratio)
LW/wbkf -4.1 9.8 6.0 12.0 6.0 12.0
meander length Lm feet 31.5 75.3 61.2 122 42.2 84.5
meander length ratio Lm/Wbkf -4.9 11.8 7.2 14.4 6.6 13.2
radius of curvature Rc feet 12.8 28.8 17.0 40.0 12.8 30.1
radius of curvature 
ratio Rc/ wbkf -2.0 4.5 2.0 4.7 2.0 4.7
0.024 0.016
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.01.0 1.0
2.5
0.43 0.57 0.43
2.8 4.9
C4 C4
0.043 0.095 0.034
2.8
8.0 14.0
Proposed Geomorphic Parameters
C4
6.5
6.4
2.9 2.9
6.4 8.5
0.016
0.00
Notation Unit
UT2 Reach 1 UT2 Reach 2
0.00
UT2A
14.914.9 14.9
0.00
Parameters
Appendix 1
Reference Geomorphic Parameters
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Stream Type
Drainage Area DA sq mi
Bankfull Discharge Qbkf cfs 100 120 21 53 88 95
Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area Abkf SF 25 34.6 8.5 11 18 20
Average Velocity During Bankfull Event vbkf fps 3.6 4.0 2.4 5.0 4.9 5.4 2.9 3.7
Width at Bankfull wbkf ft 14.8 18.6 8.2 12
Maximum Depth at Bankfull dmax ft 1.9 2.9 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.6 1.8 2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull dbkf ft 1.3 2.1 0.90 1.0 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.3
Bankfull Width‐to‐Depth Ratio wbkf/dbkf ‐ 7.9 13.8 7.9 13 5.8 7.1 14 16
Depth Ratio dmax/dbkf ‐ 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.7
Bank Height Ratio BHR ‐ 1.2 1.5
Floodprone Area Width wfpa ft 60 > 110 55 100
Entrenchment Ratio ER ‐5.5 > 10 2.9 5.3
Valley Slope Svalley ft/ft
Channel Slope Schannel ft/ft
Riffle Slope Sriffle ft/ft 0.013 0.012
Riffle Slope Ratio Sriffle/Schannel ‐ 3.3 3.0
Pool Slope Spool ft/ft 0.00030 0.0030 0.00070 0.00090
Pool Slope Ratio Spool/Schannel ‐ 0.10 0.80 0.15 0.19
Pool‐to‐Pool Spacing Lp‐p ft 50 110 1.6 95
Pool Spacing Ratio Lp‐p/wbkf ‐ 3.4 7.1 0.10 8.6 6.3 6.6
Pool Cross‐Sectional Area at Bankfull Apool SF 26 33 29 35
Pool Area Ratio Apool/Abkf ‐ 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.5
Maximum Pool Depth at Bankfull dpool ft 2.5 2.9
Pool Depth Ratio dpool/dbkf ‐ 0.80 1.2 1.8 2.0 1.9 2.3
Pool Width at Bankfull wpool ft 16 19 15 21
Pool Width Ratio wpool/wbkf ‐ 0.90 1.3 0.80 1.1
Sinuosity K ‐
Belt Width wblt ft 50 77 38 41
Meander Width Ratio wblt/wbkf ‐ 3.2 4.1 4.2 9.4 3.4 3.6
Linear Wavelength LW ft 66 190 29 96 46 48
Linear Wavelength Ratio LW/wbkf ‐4.5 10 2.6 8.7 4.1 4.4
Meander Length Lm ft
Meander Length Ratio Lm/wbkf ‐
Radius of Curvature Rc ft 16 87 11 27 11 15
Radius of Curvature Ratio Rc/wbkf ‐ 1.1 4.7 1.0 2.5 1.3 1.4
d16 mm
d35 mm
d50 mm
d84 mm
d95 mm
Slope
Profile
Pattern
Sediment
19
1.3 1.2
1.0
> 50
> 3.4
0.0060 0.0057
0.0040 0.0046
> 40
> 4.6
2.2
11
1.7
3.3
0.30
2.6
1.01.0
Cross Section
Dirty Boots Reach 1 and 2
24
Long Branch UT to Cane Creek
C4/E4 C4/E4
1.5 0.28
97
Parameter Notation Units Spencer Creek 2 Foust Creek
E4 C4
0.96 1.4
2.6 2.8 ‐
0.0010 ‐
0.012 0.013 ‐
0.011 0.0095
0.0047 0.0090
‐
‐
‐
‐‐‐‐
‐
2.3 1.1
60 ‐
1.7
12 18
1.5 1.6
13 25
1.5
‐
71 ‐
‐
d50 Description ‐‐Medium Gravel Very Coarse Gravel
‐
‐‐‐‐
‐
130
Reach Wide
‐‐90 1100
‐‐< 0.062 9.6
‐‐3.0 37
42 ‐8.8 61
‐‐42
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Stream Type
Drainage Area DA sq mi
Bankfull Discharge Qbkf cfs
Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area Abkf SF 6.6 8.7 5.4 12.4 10.3 12.3 3.9 6.3
Average Velocity During Bankfull Event vbkf fps 5.0 5.6 2.2 3.5 4.4 5.2 2.4 3.8
Width at Bankfull wbkf ft 6.3 9.3 5.3 10.9 9.3 10.5 6.2 8.6
Maximum Depth at Bankfull dmax ft 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.7 0.64 1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull dbkf ft 0.80 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.6 1.0
Bankfull Width‐to‐Depth Ratio wbkf/dbkf ‐ 7.9 9.3
5.2 9.6 8.1 9.3 6.1 12.6
Depth Ratio dmax/dbkf ‐ 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.4 0.81 1.8
Bank Height Ratio BHR ‐1.0 1.8
Floodprone Area Width wfpa ft 14 130 20 64 15 25
Entrenchment Ratio ER ‐ 1.7 4.3 1.9 6.1 1.9 4.1
Valley Slope Svalley ft/ft 0.022 0.031
Channel Slope Schannel ft/ft 0.019 0.022
Riffle Slope Sriffle ft/ft 0.018 0.034 0.024 0.057 0.016 0.085
Riffle Slope Ratio Sriffle/Schannel ‐ 1.0 1.6 1.4 3.4 0.82 4.3
Pool Slope Spool ft/ft 0.00070 0.014 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.0085
Pool Slope Ratio Spool/Schannel ‐ 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.43
Pool‐to‐Pool Spacing Lp‐p ft 9.0 46 34.0 52.0 7.8 82 17 63
Pool Spacing Ratio Lp‐p/wbkf ‐ 1.4 4.9 0.30 3.20 0.50 5.6 2.3 8.8
Pool Cross‐Sectional Area at Bankfull Apool SF 6.5 9.8 22 23 6.2 9.0
Pool Area Ratio Apool/Abkf ‐ 1.0 1.1 1.8 1.9 1.2 1.7
Maximum Pool Depth at Bankfull dpool ft 1.2 1.8 2.5 2.6
Pool Depth Ratio dpool/dbkf ‐ 1.5 1.8 3.0 3.1
Pool Width at Bankfull wpool ft 6.0 12 15 19 7.1 10
Pool Width Ratio wpool/wbkf ‐ 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.5
Sinuosity K ‐ 1.0 1.3
Belt Width wblt ft 10 50 28.0 15 45 10 35
Meander Width Ratio wblt/wbkf ‐ 1.6 5.4 3.00 5.30 1.0 3.0 1.4 4.9
Linear Wavelength LW ft 55 140 56.0 85.0 16 47 35 70
Linear Wavelength Ratio LW/wbkf ‐8.7 15 6.00 9.00 1.1 3.2 4.9 9.8
Meander Length Lm ft 53 180
Meander Length Ratio Lm/wbkf ‐ 8.4 19
Radius of Curvature Rc ft 12 85 19.0 50.0 8.3 47 2.3 32
Radius of Curvature Ratio Rc/wbkf ‐ 1.9 9.1 2.00 5.30 0.57 3.2 0.32 4.5
d16 mm
d35 mm
d50 mm
d84 mm
d95 mm
Parameter Notation
‐
Units
UT2 Reach 2, UT2A, UT3 Reach 2
Spencer Creek 1 UT to Polecat UT to Varnals Creek UT to Wells Creek
C4/E4 E4 C4/E4 C4
0.37 0.41
1.0 1.0 1.0
Cross Section
0.41 0.13
35 54.0 15
Slope
0.0165 0.020 0.028
 25.0
1.40
0.30
0.0170
0.020
Profile
0.0040
0.0118 0.017
‐
1.64 ‐
8.00
9.30
0.75 1.72
1.2 1.4
0.73
Pattern
1.4
Sediment
d50 Description
‐‐
‐‐‐
‐
Medium Gravel ‐‐‐
Reach Wide
1.9 ‐‐‐
8.9 ‐‐‐
11 ‐-‐
‐‐
130 ‐‐‐
64 ‐
UT2A, UT2 Reach 1
20.3
1.1
65.0
 8.3 3.2
50.0
0.0470
4.00
1.51
1.80
1.80
min max min max min max min max
stream type
drainage area DA sq mi
design discharge Q cfs
bankfull cross-sectional area Abkf SF 5.70 6.20 6.40 8.70 6.40 8.70 8.90 12.2
average velocity during bankfull
event vbkf fps
width at bankfull wbkf feet 7.30 7.80 6.10 8.40 6.10 8.40 11.5 12.3
maximum depth at bankfull dmax feet 1.10 1.40
mean depth at bankfull dbkf feet 0.700 0.800 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.10 0.770 0.990
bankfull width to depth ratio wbkf/dbkf 6.64 9.75 5.81 8.00 5.81 8.00 12.3 14.4
depth ratio dmax/dbkf feet 1.57 1.75 1.30 1.40 1.30 1.40
bank height ratio BHR 1.70 2.60 1.43 2.07 1.43 2.07
floodprone area width wfpa feet 12.2 15.6 26.0 31.0 26.0 31.0
entrenchment ratio ER 1.60 2.10 3.70 4.30 3.70 4.30 2.50 2.70
valley slope Svalley feet/ foot
channel slope Schnl feet/ foot
riffle slope Sriffle feet/ foot 0.00360 0.0420 0.0202 0.0664 0.0202 0.0664
riffle slope ratio Sriffle/Schnl 0.240 2.80 2.23 7.33 2.23 7.33
pool slope Sp feet/ foot 0.0000 0.00700 0.000300 0.00557 0.000300 0.00557
pool slope ratio Sp/Schnl 0.0000 0.467 0.0331 0.615 0.0331 0.615
pool-to-pool spacing Lp-p feet 9.26 54.8 28.0 63.0 28.0 63.0
pool spacing ratio Lp-p/wbkf 1.27 7.02 3.33 10.3 3.86 8.69
pool cross-sectional area Apool SF 5.50 8.70
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf 0.965 1.40 1.10 1.40 1.10 1.40
maximum pool depth dpool feet 1.30 1.50 1.30 3.00 1.30 3.00
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf 1.86 1.88 1.30 2.73 1.30 2.73
pool width at bankfull wpool feet 7.60 9.20
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf 1.04 1.18 1.00 1.30 1.00 1.30
sinuosity K
belt width wblt feet 24.3 59.6
meander width ratio wblt/wbkf 3.33 7.64 9.60 13.3 9.60 13.3
linear wavelength (formerly
meander length)Lm feet 63.0 72.0 45.0 72.0 45.0 72.0
linear wavelength ratio (formerly
meander length ratio)Lm/wbkf 8.63 9.23 7.38 8.57 7.38 8.57
meander length feet
meander length ratio
radius of curvature Rc feet 13.7 29.4 9.00 20.0 9.00 20.0
radius of curvature ratio Rc/ wbkf 1.88 3.77 1.48 2.38 1.48 2.38
d50 Description
d16 mm
d35 mm
d50 mm
d84 mm
d95 mm
d100 mm
Profile
Pattern
Particle Size Distribution from Reach-wide Pebble Count
UT2 Reaches 1 and 2, UT2A, UT3 Reach 2
-180 180 -
150 75.9 75.9 128
76.0 49.5 49.5 74.5
19.0 19.7 19.7 27.8
1.0 12.1 12.1 12.2
0.1 0.8 0.8 0.6
-
-
Coarse Gravel
----
----
81.0 81.0 -
-
-
-
1.64 2.20 2.20 1.4
8.00 8.00 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.20 9.20 -
-
-
-
0.0150 0.00906 0.0091 0.0150
-
0.0200 0.0257 0.0257 -
Slope
-
-
1.40 1.40 -
Cross-Section
3.40 2.9 3.97 3.8
UnitsNotationParameter UT to Sandy Run UT to South Crowders (A) UT to South Crowders (B) Walker Branch (Cane Creek)
20.4 22.0 30.0 40.0
0.150 0.220 0.220 0.290
E4 E4 E4 E4
Appendix 1
Sediment Plots
Type
D16 2 mean 5.3 silt/clay 1%
D35 6.1 dispersion 2.9 sand 15%
D50 7.9 skewness -0.19 gravel 84%
D65 9.7 cobble 0%
D84 14 boulder 0%
D95 18
Size (mm) Size Distribution
silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder
0
5
10
15
20
25
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
nu
m
b
e
r

o
f

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

t
h
a
n
particle size (mm)
Dirty Boots Reach 5 XS1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution cumulative %# of particles
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
D16 ---D65 4.6
D35 ---D84 10
D50 2.4 D95 16
Size (mm)
sand gravel cobble
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.1 1 10 100 1000
we
i
g
h
t

o
f

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

t
h
a
n
particle size (mm)
Dirty Boots Reach 5 XS1
Sub-pavement Particle Distribution cumulative %wt of particles passing sieve
Type
D16 0.062 mean 0.7 silt/clay 28%
D35 0.14 dispersion 16.2 sand 23%
D50 1.7 skewness -0.26 gravel 49%
D65 4.6 cobble 0%
D84 8.3 boulder 0%
D95 14
Size (mm) Size Distribution
silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
nu
m
b
e
r

o
f

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

t
h
a
n
particle size (mm)
UT2 Reach 2 XS3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution cumulative %# of particles
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
D16 ---D65 ---
D35 ---D84 4
D50 ---D95 7
Size (mm)
sand gravel cobble
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.1 1 10 100 1000
we
i
g
h
t

o
f

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

t
h
a
n
particle size (mm)
UT2 Reach 2 XS4
Point Bar Particle Distribution cumulative %wt of particles passing sieve
Type
D16 0.062 mean 0.6 silt/clay 19%
D35 0.094 dispersion 12.4 sand 51%
D50 0.3 skewness 0.22 gravel 30%
D65 1.5 cobble 0%
D84 6 boulder 0%
D95 8.5
Size (mm) Size Distribution
silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
nu
m
b
e
r

o
f

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

t
h
a
n
particle size (mm)
Dirty Boots Reach 6 XS6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution cumulative %# of particles
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
D16 ---D65 3
D35 ---D84 5.9
D50 ---D95 10
Size (mm)
sand gravel cobble
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.1 1 10 100 1000
we
i
g
h
t

o
f

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

t
h
a
n
particle size (mm)
Dirty Boots Reach 6 XS6
Sub-pavement Particle Distribution cumulative %wt of particles passing sieve
Type
D16 0.062 mean 0.6 silt/clay 38%
D35 0.062 dispersion 25.3 sand 36%
D50 0.1 skewness 0.54 gravel 25%
D65 0.3 cobble 0%
D84 4.9 boulder 0%
D95 9.4
Size (mm) Size Distribution
silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
nu
m
b
e
r

o
f

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

t
h
a
n
particle size (mm)
UT3 Reach 2 XS7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution cumulative %# of particles
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
D16 ---D65 2.6
D35 ---D84 7
D50 ---D95 12
Size (mm)
sand gravel cobble
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.1 1 10 100 1000
we
i
g
h
t

o
f

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

t
h
a
n
particle size (mm)
UT3 Reach 2 XS7
Sub-pavement Particle Distribution cumulative %wt of particles passing sieve
Appendix 2
Site Protection Instrument

Site Protection Instrument
The land required for construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the parcel listed in Table 1. This area totals 13.77 acres. The deed book and page number
listed are for the agreements on an option to purchase a conservation easement. A conservation
easement will be recorded on the parcel and includes streams being restored, wetlands being restored,
and riparian buffers.
Table 1: Site Protection Instrument
Property Owner Parcel ID Number County Site Protection
Instrument
Memorandum of Option Deed
Book (DB) and Page Number
(PG)
Todd Stephen
Moore and
Lu Anne Moore
4683 Chatham Conservation
Easement DB: 612 PG: 567

All site protection instruments require 60-day advance notification to the USACE and or DMS prior to
any action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by
the State.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 1 of 11

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
____________ COUNTY
SPO File Numbers: XX-XX
DMS Project Number: XXXXXX
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
This _____ day of ___________, 2020, by _________________ (“Grantor”), whose mailing
address is __________________________________ to the State of North Carolina, (“Grantee”),
whose mailing address is State of North Carolina, Department of Administration, State Property
Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1321. The designations of Grantor and
Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall
include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.8 et seq., the State of
North Carolina has established the Division of Mitigation Services (formerly known as the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of
Environmental Quality (formerly Department of Environment and Natural Resources), for the
purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and
riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood
prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017

Page 2 of 11

WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between Wildlands
Engineering, Inc. and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, to provide
stream, wetland and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Purchase and Services Contract Number ____.

WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-35; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of Understanding,
(MOU) duly executed by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU recognized that the
Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory mitigation for authorized
impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring, enhancing and preserving
the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Division of Mitigation Services
(formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program) is to provide for compensatory mitigation by
effective protection of the land, water and natural resources of the State by restoring, enhancing
and preserving ecosystem functions; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National Marine Fisheries Service
entered into an agreement to continue the In-Lieu Fee operations of the North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources’ Division of Mitigation Services (formerly Ecosystem Enhancement
Program) with an effective date of 28 July, 2010, which supersedes and replaces the previously
effective MOA and MOU referenced above; and

WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and

WHEREAS, the Division of Mitigation Services in the Department of Environmental
Quality (formerly Department of Environment and Natural Resources), which has been delegated
the authority authorized by the Governor and Council of State to the Department of
Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument; and

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real properties situated, lying, and being
in _________Township, ___________ County, North Carolina (the "Property"), and being
more particularly described as that certain parcels of land containing approximately
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017

Page 3 of 11

____ acres and being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book ______, Page
_____ of the _________ County Registry, North Carolina; and

WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of
the areas of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions
and purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access
Rights. The Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of
unnamed tributaries to ___________.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement and Right of Access together with an access easement to and from the Conservation
Easement Area described below.

The Conservation Easement Area consists of the following:

Total conservation Easement Area containing a total of ______ acres as shown on the plats of
survey entitled “Final Plat, Conservation Easement Survey for the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services, Project Name: _____________, SPO File No. ______, DMS Site ID
No. __________”, Property of ____________, dated ___________prepared by
________________________ PLS Number _____________and recorded in the __________
County, North Carolina Register of Deeds at Plat Book ______, Page________.

See attached “Exhibit A”, Legal Description of area of the Property hereinafter referred to as the
“Conservation Easement Area”

The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and/or riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area that
contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic
habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the Conservation
Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent any use of
the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these purposes. To achieve these
purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:

I. DURATION OF EASEMENT

Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor’s heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017

Page 4 of 11

II. ACCESS EASEMENT
choose one option based on survey and deed, delete other

[SPECIFIC LOCATION OPTION] Grantor hereby grants and conveys unto Grantee, its
employees, agents, successors and assigns, a perpetual, non-exclusive easement for ingress and
egress over and upon the Property at all reasonable times and at the location more particularly
described on Exhibit ___ (“Access Easement”) attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, to access the Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein. This grant
of easement shall not vest any rights in the public and shall not be construed as a public dedication
of the Access Easement. Grantor covenants, represents and warrants that it is the sole owner of
and is seized of the Property in fee simple and has the right to grant and convey this Access
Easement.

[GENERAL LOCATION OPTION] Grantor hereby grants and conveys unto Grantee, its
employees, agents, successors and assigns, a perpetual, non-exclusive easement for ingress and
egress over and upon the Property at all reasonable times and at such location as practically
necessary to access the Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein (“Access
Easement”). This grant of easement shall not vest any rights in the public and shall not be construed
as a public dedication of the Access Easement. Grantor covenants, represents and warrants that it
is the sole owner of and is seized of the Property in fee simple and has the right to grant and convey
this Access Easement.

III. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES

The Conservation Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that
would impair or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly
reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area by
the Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Any
rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee. Any
rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation
credits, including, but not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units, derived
from each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong to the
Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are
prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:

A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational uses,
including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Conservation Easement
Area for the purposes thereof.

B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited except within a Crossing Area(s) or Road or Trail as shown on the recorded survey plat.

C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to engage
in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such purposes including
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017

Page 5 of 11

organized educational activities such as site visits and observations. Educational uses of the
property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.

D. Damage to Vegetation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded survey
plat and as related to the removal of non-native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or vegetation
that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or natural habitat,
all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.

E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and commercial
uses are prohibited in the Conservation Easement Area.

F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Conservation Easement
Area including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.

G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Conservation Easement Area.

H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction or maintenance of new roads, trails,
walkways, or paving in the Conservation Easement except within a Crossing Area as shown on the
recorded survey plat. All existing roads, trails and crossings within the Conservation Easement
Area shall be shown on the recorded survey plat.

I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Conservation Easement Area except interpretive
signs describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the Conservation Easement
Area, signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the Conservation Easement,
signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the use of the Conservation
Easement Area.

J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste, abandoned
vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited.

K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, hydraulic fracturing; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock,
peat, minerals, or other materials.

L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Conservation Easement Area. No altering or
tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, or created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or shortage
of all other water sources, water from within the Conservation Easement Area may temporarily be
withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the Property.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017

Page 6 of 11

M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple (“fee”) that is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee’s right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.

N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non-transferrable.

O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.

P. Crossing Areas. “Grantor reserves the right to the Internal Crossing Areas as shown on
the “Conservation Easement Survey for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services____________________, SPO File No. _________, DMS Site ID No. _______”,
Property of ____________________________, and recorded in the ______________County,
North Carolina Register of Deeds at Plat Book _______ Page________ for the following
purposes:
• Motorized vehicle crossing;
• Utility crossings to include overhead and buried electrical, water lines and sewer lines;
• Cattle crossing so long as fencing across a culvert in the Crossing Area prevents cattle
access to the stream, or a ford crossing is kept gated and cattle are only present in the stream
only under supervision while rotating cattle between pastures; and/or
• Installation, maintenance, or replacement of a culvert or ford crossing.

The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the Division of Mitigation
Services, 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652.

IV. GRANTEE RESERVED USES

A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees, agents,
successors and assigns, shall have a perpetual Right of Access over and upon the Conservation
Easement Area to undertake or engage in any activities necessary to construct, maintain, manage,
enhance, repair, restore, protect, monitor and inspect the stream, wetland and any other riparian
resources in the Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein or any long-term
management plan for the Conservation Easement Area developed pursuant to this Conservation
Easement.

B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017

Page 7 of 11

prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and manmade
materials as needed to direct in-stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.

C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted to
place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe the
project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project boundaries
and the holder of the Conservation Easement.

D. Fences. Conservation Easements are purchased to protect the investments by the State
(Grantee) in natural resources. Livestock within conservations easements damages the investment
and can result in reductions in natural resource value and mitigation credits which would cause
financial harm to the State. Therefore, Landowners (Grantor) with livestock are required to restrict
livestock access to the Conservation Easement area. Repeated failure to do so may result in the
State (Grantee) repairing or installing livestock exclusion devices (fences) within the conservation
area for the purpose of restricting livestock access. In such cases, the landowner (Grantor) must
provide access to the State (Grantee) to make repairs.

E. Crossing Area(s). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.

V. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES

A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Conservation Easement Area that is inconsistent with
the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features
in the Conservation Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthorized activity or
use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the Grantee shall,
except as provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach and the Grantor shall have
ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by such breach. If the
breach and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may enforce this
Conservation Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an action to recover
damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the power and
authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the Conservation
Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation Easement; (b)
to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages from any
appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate
right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief,
if the breach is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from
this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that the damage would be
irreparable and remedies at law inadequate. The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided
hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to
Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017

Page 8 of 11

B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the right,
with reasonable notice, to enter the Conservation Easement Area over the Property at reasonable
times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying with the terms,
conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.

C. Acts Beyond Grantor’s Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall
be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change in the
Conservation Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the Grantor’s
control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from any prudent
action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate
significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.

D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor’s acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.

E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.

VI. MISCELLANEOUS

A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.

B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property are
the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the obligation to
comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to the exercise of
the Reserved Rights.

C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.

D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom the
Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made. Grantor
further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any interest in
the Property is conveyed is subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017

Page 9 of 11

E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.

F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable laws,
and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the Property shall
notify the State Property Office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing sixty (60) days
prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any request to void or
modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification requests shall be
addressed to:

Division of Mitigation Services Program Manager
NC State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321

and

General Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403

G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in gross
and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event
it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will be a
qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code,
and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or assignment will be
such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in perpetuity the conservation
purposes described in this document.

VII. QUIET ENJOYMENT

Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Conservation
Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area, and the right of quiet enjoyment
of the Conservation Easement Area,

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes,

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017

Page 10 of 11

AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of the Property in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the
day and year first above written.

(SEAL)
NAME

NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF GASTON

I,_________________________ , a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that ________________, Grantor, personally appeared before me
this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the ______day
of ________, 2020.

Notary Public

My commission expires:

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017

Page 11 of 11

EXHIBIT A

Insert Legal Description
Appendix 3
Stream and Wetland Identification and Assessment Forms
NC SAM and NC WAM Forms

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: SAW-2022-02401 NCDWR #: 20221571
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Dirty Boots Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 12/08/2022
3. Applicant/owner name: Wildlands Engineering 4. Assessor name/organization: S. Law/Wildlands
5. County: Chatham 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Bear Creek 7. River basin: Cape Fear
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.636203, -79.422635
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):
Dirty Boots -
Reach 5 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 668
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3.5 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 5 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
i
d
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Dirty Boots – Reach 5 Date of Assessment 12/08/2022
Stream Category Pa2 Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW (2) Baseflow LOW
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW (4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA (2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality LOW (2) Baseflow LOW (2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW (3) Thermoregulation LOW (2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance LOW (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow LOW
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA (4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA (3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA (2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: SAW-2022-02401 NCDWR #: 20221571
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Dirty Boots Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 12/08/2022
3. Applicant/owner name: Wildlands Engineering 4. Assessor name/organization: S. Law/Wildlands
5. County: Chatham 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Bear Creek 7. River basin: Cape Fear
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.633554, -79.421820
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):
Dirty Boots -
Reach 6 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 1,414
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3.5 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 9 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
i
d
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Dirty Boots – Reach 6 Date of Assessment 12/08/2022
Stream Category Pa2 Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW (2) Baseflow LOW
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW (4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA (2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality LOW (2) Baseflow LOW (2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW (3) Thermoregulation LOW (2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance LOW (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow LOW
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA (4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA (3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA (2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: SAW-2022-02401 NCDWR #: 20221571
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Dirty Boots Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 12/08/2022
3. Applicant/owner name: Wildlands Engineering 4. Assessor name/organization: S. Law/Wildlands
5. County: Chatham 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Bear Creek 7. River basin: Cape Fear
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.636205, -77.422811
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT2 - Reach 1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 256
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 10 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
i
d
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name UT2 – Reach 1 Date of Assessment 12/08/2022
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW (2) Baseflow MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW (4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA (2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality LOW (2) Baseflow MEDIUM (2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW (3) Thermoregulation LOW (2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow MEDIUM
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA (4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA (3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA (2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: SAW-2022-02401 NCDWR #: 20221571
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Dirty Boots Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 12/08/2022
3. Applicant/owner name: Wildlands Engineering 4. Assessor name/organization: S. Law/Wildlands
5. County: Chatham 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Bear Creek 7. River basin: Cape Fear
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.636205, -77.422811
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT2 - Reach 2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 970
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 15 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
i
d
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name UT2 – Reach 2 Date of Assessment 12/08/2022
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW (2) Baseflow MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW (4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA (2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality LOW (2) Baseflow MEDIUM (2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW (3) Thermoregulation LOW (2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow MEDIUM
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA (4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA (3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA (2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: SAW-2022-02401 NCDWR #: 20221571
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Dirty Boots Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 12/08/2022
3. Applicant/owner name: Wildlands Engineering 4. Assessor name/organization: S. Law/Wildlands
5. County: Chatham 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Bear Creek 7. River basin: Cape Fear
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.636532, -79.425706
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT2A 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 78
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3.5 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 8 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
i
d
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name UT2A Date of Assessment 12/08/2022
Stream Category Pa1 Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW LOW (2) Baseflow MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow LOW LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW LOW (4) Floodplain Access LOW LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW LOW
(4) Microtopography LOW LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA (2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA (3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1) Water Quality LOW LOW (2) Baseflow MEDIUM MEDIUM (2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW LOW (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW LOW (3) Thermoregulation LOW LOW (2) Indicators of Stressors YES YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance MEDIUM NA (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1) Habitat LOW LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Baseflow MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) Substrate LOW LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW LOW
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA (4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA (3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA (2) Intertidal Zone NA NA
Overall LOW LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: SAW-2022-02401 NCDWR #: 20221571
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Dirty Boots Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 12/08/2022
3. Applicant/owner name: Wildlands Engineering 4. Assessor name/organization: S. Law/Wildlands
5. County: Chatham 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Bear Creek 7. River basin: Cape Fear
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.637068, -79.420809
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT3 - Reach 1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 720
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1.5 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 9 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
i
d
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name UT3 – Reach 1 Date of Assessment 12/08/2022
Stream Category Pa2 Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology MEDIUM (2) Baseflow LOW
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH (4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA (2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality LOW (2) Baseflow LOW (2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH (3) Thermoregulation HIGH (2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance LOW (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow LOW
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(3) In-stream Habitat MEDIUM
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA (4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA (3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA (2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: SAW-2022-02401 NCDWR #: 20221571
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Dirty Boots Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 12/08/2022
3. Applicant/owner name: Wildlands Engineering 4. Assessor name/organization: S. Law/Wildlands
5. County: Chatham 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Bear Creek 7. River basin: Cape Fear
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.636101, -79.422435
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT3 - Reach 2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 341
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 8 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
i
d
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name UT3 – Reach 2 Date of Assessment 12/08/2022
Stream Category Pa1 Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW (2) Baseflow MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW (4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA (2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality LOW (2) Baseflow MEDIUM (2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW (3) Thermoregulation LOW (2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance LOW (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow MEDIUM
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA (4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA (3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA (2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # SAW-2022-02401 NCDWR# 20221571
Project Name Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 12/01/2022
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland A
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Bear Creek
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03030003
County Chatham NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.633728, -79.421804
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
A A A > 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Ca
n
o
p
y

Mi
d
-St
o
r
y

Sh
r
u
b

He
r
b

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland A Date of Assessment 12/01/2022
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) YES
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition LOW
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # SAW-2022-02401 NCDWR# 20221571
Project Name Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 12/01/2022
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland B
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Bear Creek
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03030003
County Chatham NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.634224, -79.422357
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
A A A > 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Ca
n
o
p
y

Mi
d
-St
o
r
y

Sh
r
u
b

He
r
b

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland B Date of Assessment 12/01/2022
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # SAW-2022-02401 NCDWR# 20221571
Project Name Dirty Boots Date of Evaluation 12/01/2022
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland C
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization S. Law - Wildlands
Engineering
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Bear Creek
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03030003
County Chatham NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.635652, 79.422455
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
A A A > 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet

17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Ca
n
o
p
y

Mi
d
-St
o
r
y

Sh
r
u
b

He
r
b

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland C Date of Assessment 12/01/2022
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
S. Law - Wildlands
Engineering

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # SAW-2022-02401 NCDWR# 20221571
Project Name Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 12/01/2022
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland D
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Bear Creek
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03030003
County Chatham NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.636323, -79. 422350
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
A A A > 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Ca
n
o
p
y

Mi
d
-St
o
r
y

Sh
r
u
b

He
r
b

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland D Date of Assessment 12/01/2022
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition LOW
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # SAW-2022-02401 NCDWR# 20221571
Project Name Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 12/01/2022
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland E
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Bear Creek
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03030003
County Chatham NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.637094, -79.422992
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
A A A > 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Ca
n
o
p
y

Mi
d
-St
o
r
y

Sh
r
u
b

He
r
b

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland E Date of Assessment 12/01/2022
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # SAW-2022-02401 NCDWR# 20221571
Project Name Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 12/01/2022
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland F
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Bear Creek
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03030003
County Chatham NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.636871, -79.423176
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
A A A > 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Ca
n
o
p
y

Mi
d
-St
o
r
y

Sh
r
u
b

He
r
b

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland F Date of Assessment 12/01/2022
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # SAW-2022-02401 NCDWR# 20221571
Project Name Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 12/01/2022
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland H
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Bear Creek
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03030003
County Chatham NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.637865, -79.423527
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
A A A > 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Ca
n
o
p
y

Mi
d
-St
o
r
y

Sh
r
u
b

He
r
b

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland H Date of Assessment 12/01/2022
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition LOW
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # SAW-2022-02401 NCDWR# 20221571
Project Name Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 12/01/2022
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland I
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Bear Creek
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03030003
County Chatham NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.636948, -79.420765
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
A A A > 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Ca
n
o
p
y

Mi
d
-St
o
r
y

Sh
r
u
b

He
r
b

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland I Date of Assessment 12/01/2022
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # SAW-2022-02401 NCDWR# 20221571
Project Name Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 12/01/2022
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland J
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Bear Creek
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03030003
County Chatham NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.637376, -79.420461
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
A A A > 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Ca
n
o
p
y

Mi
d
-St
o
r
y

Sh
r
u
b

He
r
b

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland J Date of Assessment 12/01/2022
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW

Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # SAW-2022-02401 NCDWR# 20221571
Project Name Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 12/01/2022
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland K
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Bear Creek
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03030003
County Chatham NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.637547, -79.419855
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
A A A > 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Ca
n
o
p
y

Mi
d
-St
o
r
y

Sh
r
u
b

He
r
b

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland K Date of Assessment 12/01/2022
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization S. Law/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition MEDIUM

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Particulate Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Physical Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition HIGH

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition HIGH
Water Quality Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Habitat Condition MEDIUM

Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
Appendix 3
NC DWQ
Stream Identification Forms
UT2A
Appendix 4
Jurisdictional Determination and Wetland Data Forms

1
Sydni Law
From:Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, June 30, 2023 2:25 PM
To:Sydni Law
Subject:SAW-2022-02401 Dirty Boots
Attachments:dc map Figure 3 Site Map_20230630.pdf
On January 4, 2023, we received information from you requesting the Wilmington District, Regulatory Division review 
and concur with the boundaries of an aquatic resource delineation. 

We have reviewed the information provided by you concerning the aquatic resources, and by copy of this e‐mail, are 
confirming that the aquatic resources delineation has been verified by the Corps to be a sufficiently accurate and 
reliable representation of the location and extent of aquatic resources within the identified review area. The location 
and extent of these aquatic resources are shown on the delineation map, labeled Figure 3 Dirty Boots Mitigation Site 
and dated 6/30/2023 (with revisions from original submission). 

Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 16‐01 

https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll9/id/1256 provides guidance for Jurisdictional 
Determinations (JD) and states “The Corps generally does not issue a JD of any type where no JD has been requested”. 
At this time we are only verifying the delineation. This delineation may be relied upon for use in the permit evaluation 
process, including determining compensatory mitigation. “This verification does not address nor include any 
consideration for geographic jurisdiction on aquatic resources and shall not be interpreted as such. This delineation 
verification is not an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) and is not an appealable action under the Regulatory 
Program Administrative Appeal Process (33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an AJD, which is an appealable 
action. 

If you wish to receive a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD), or an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) 
please respond accordingly, otherwise nothing further is required and we will not provide any additional 
documentation. 

The delineation included herein has been conducted to identify the location and extent of the aquatic resource 
boundaries and/or the jurisdictional status of aquatic resources for purposes of the Clean Water Act for the particular 
site identified in this request. This delineation may not be valid for the Wetland Conservation Provisions of the Food 
Security Act of 1985, as amended. If you or your tenant are USDA program participants, or anticipate participation in 
USDA programs, you should discuss the applicability of a certified wetland determination with the local USDA service 
center, prior to starting work. 

Please let me know if you have any additional questions. 

Thanks, 
Rachel 

Rachel Capito 
Regulatory Project Manager 
Wilmington District 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 
Wake Forest, NC 27587  
2
919.440.1823 

Figure 3. Site Map
Dirty Boots Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Basin (03030003)
Chatham County, NC
2021 Aerial Photography
0 300 Feet
Wetland A
Wetland B
Wetland C
Wetland K
Wetland J
Wetland E
Wetland G
Wetland F
Wetland D
Wetland H
Wetland I
DP3
DP9
DP8
DP7
DP5
DP2
DP6
DP1
DP4
Pond 1
UT2
A
UT t
o

D
i
r
t
y

B
o
o
t
s
UT3
UT
3
UT2
Dirty

B
o
o
t
s
PJD Assessment Area
Wetlands
Open Water
Streams
Intermittent
Perennial
Functional Culvert
2' Contours
Data Point
Feature Length (LF) Area (ac.)
Dirty Boots 2,082 -
UT to Dirty Boots 238 -
UT2 1,226 -
UT2A 78 -
UT3 1,026 -
Wetland A - 0.415
Wetland B - 0.007
Wetland C - 0.039
Wetland D - 0.269
Wetland E - 0.359
Wetland F - 0.050
Wetland G - 0.005
Wetland H - 0.423
Wetland I - 0.184
Wetland J - 0.125
Wetland K - 0.031
Pond 1 - 0.637
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
XNo
XNo X
XNo
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
14
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
City/County:Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Siler City/Chatham
DP1
12/08/2022
Wildlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range: n/aS. Law
1-2%ConcaveSwale
Datum: NAD83-79.42062235.637066LRR P, MLRA 136
UplandNWI classification:CkC: Cid silt loam, 6-10% slopes
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
The sampling point was taken in a backwater wetland that drains to an emergent wetland above a manmade pond. The wetland area extends along the
toe slope in the floodplain of a stream and receives overbank flooding during precipitation events, allowing water to bypass the streambend.According to
the Antecendent Precipitation Tool, conditions onsite were normal with a moderate PDSI drought index. According to NOAA precipitation data from local
weather stations, approximately 0.1" of rainfall were received 48 hours prior to sampling.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-12-9; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp:11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP1
6
7
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
FACNo
FAC
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
85.7%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
48
Acer rubrum
Carpinus caroliniana
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Quercus phellos
Acer rubrum
Ulmus rubra
Ulmus americana
30ft )
65
Indicator
Status
20
15
Yes
Dominant
Species?
Yes
15
10
Hydrocotyle sibthorpioides
No
No
No
15
Juniperus virginiana 8
15
Ulmus rubra
Stellaria media
15Lamium purpureum UPL
Poa annua 50
15ft
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
FACU
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30ft )
Vitis rotundifolia
98
FACWNo
20
1024
49
Schedonorus arundinaceus
10
8
Prevalence Index worksheet:
FAC
Total % Cover of:
(A)
(B)
(A)
Yes
No
Multiply by:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
FACU
FAC
Yes FAC
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
33 13
Liquidambar styraciflua
15
10 No FACW
Yes
Yes
FAC
FAC
5
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5ft
=Total Cover
FACU
UPL
Yes
11
=Total Cover2
2NoFAC
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
PL10
Distinct redox concentrations
Texture
Distinct redox concentrations
5PL
C15
DP1SOIL
14-24 2.5Y 7/1
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
85
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
10YR 6/6
%
Matrix
C2.5Y 6/2
10YR 4/2 10YR 3/4
10YR 4/38-14
0-8
Loc2
M
90
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
95 C
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
The sampled area is not located in an isolated depression and therefore, does not meet the requirements of hydric soil indicator F8.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-12-9; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp:11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
The sampling point was taken on a floodplain terrace between a stream and a backwater wetland. According to the Antecendent Precipitation Tool,
conditions onsite were normal with a moderate PDSI drought index. According to NOAA precipitation data from local weather stations, approximately
0.1" of rainfall were received 48 hours prior to sampling.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Siler City/Chatham
DP2
12/08/2022
Wildlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range: n/aS. Law
0-1%ConcaveTerrace
Datum: NAD83LRR P, MLRA 136
UplandNWI classification:CkC: Cid silt loam, 6-10% slopes
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
High water table was not observed despite recent rainfall.
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
15
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5ft
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
12 5
5
0
Yes
Yes
FAC
FACW
69
0
300
Multiply by:
20
4.01Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
Prevalence Index worksheet:
FAC
Total % Cover of:
23
75
(A)
(B)
(A)
UPLNo
2665
Allium vineale
Rubus pensilvanicus
20
15
15ft
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
FACU
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30ft )
130
Lamium purpureum
No
No
Yes
Yes
30
FAC10
Cynodon dactylon
25Stellaria media UPL
Schedonorus arundinaceus 30
N/A
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Ulmus americana
Ulmus rubra
Acer negundo
30ft )
23
Indicator
Status
10
8
Yes
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
50.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP2
3
6
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
225
614
45
153
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
10YR 5/8
Loc2
PL/M
98
75 Prominent redox concentrations
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
10YR 4/6 Loamy/ClayeyC
100
Color (moist)
2.5Y 7/1
PL
Matrix
10YR 3/2
C
22-24
10YR 4/3
10YR 3/2
7510YR 6/3 20
10YR 3/42-10
0-2
15-22
C5
25
DP2SOIL
10-15 10YR 5/4
M
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
90
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
C
10YR 4/6
%
Distinct redox concentrations
Prominent redox concentrations
Distinct redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
M
%
M2
Texture
Loamy/Clayey
Faint redox concentrations
C10
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
XNo
XNo X
XNo
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Saturation visible on multiple aerial images available from Google Earth from 2022 back to 1993.
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
22
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
City/County:Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Bonlee/Chatham
DP3
12/01/2022
Wildlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range: n/aS. Law
1-2%ConcaveSwale
Datum: NAD83-79.42326335.637747LRR P, MLRA 136
UplandNWI classification:CmB: Cid-Lignum complex, 2-6% slopes
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
The sampling point was taken in a swale adjacent to a stream in an active cattle pasture. According to the Antecendent Precipitation Tool, conditions
onsite were normal with a moderate PDSI drought index. According to NOAA precipitation data from local weather stations, approximately 0.8" of rainfall
were received 24 hours prior to sampling.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-12-9; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp:11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP3
1
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
260
0
100
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
N/A
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
N/A
30ft )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Juncus effusus
No
No
15Allium vineale
15Schedonorus arundinaceus FACU
Hydrocotyle sibthorpioides 65
15ft
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30ft )
N/A
100
FACWNo
2050
5
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
30
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
120
Multiply by:
140
2.60Prevalence Index = B/A =
70
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
The prevalence index was calculated since there is only one stratum dominated by one species. Dead pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), dogfennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium), and rough cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) were noted in approximately 25% of the sampling area, as well as a dead
Persicaria spp. in approximately 5% of the sampling area.
)5ft
=Total Cover
FACW
FACU
Yes
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Prominent redox concentrations
Concretions
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
M
%
PL20
Texture
Distinct redox concentrations
C
25
35
DP3SOIL
4-14 2.5Y 6/1
PL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
60
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
7.5YR 4/6
2.5Y 6/1 75
%
Matrix
7.5YR 4/6
C10YR 5/2
10YR 3/2
5
7.5YR 3/41-4
14-22
22-24
0-1
C25
C
5
Loc2
PL
80
2.5Y 6/1 70
Concretions
Prominent redox concentrations
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
7.5YR 4/6
Loamy/Clayey
PL Loamy/Clayey
100
7.5YR 4/6
Color (moist)
M
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
The sampled area is not located within an isolated and therefore, does not meet the requirements of hydric soil indicator F8.
The sampled area is located in an abandoned floodplain and therefore, does not meet the requirements of hydric soil indicator F19.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
7.5YR 3/4
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-12-9; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp:11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
The sampling point was taken on a sideslope above a palustrine emergent wetland and in an active cattle pasture. According to the Antecendent
Precipitation Tool, conditions onsite were normal with a moderate PDSI drought index. According to NOAA precipitation data from local weather
stations, approximately 0.1" of rainfall were received 48 hours prior to sampling.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Siler City/Chatham
DP4
12/08/2022
Wildlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range: n/aS. Law
6-8%ConcaveSideslope
Datum: NAD83-79.42310835.637772LRR P, MLRA 136
UplandNWI classification:CmB: Cid-Lignum complex, 2-6% slopes
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5ft
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
0
0
320
Multiply by:
36
3.63Prevalence Index = B/A =
18
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
80
(A)
(B)
(A)
FACWNo
2049
Juncus effusus
10
8
15ft
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
FACW
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30ft )
N/A
98
Hydrocotyle sibthorpioides
No
Yes
No
25Trifolium repens
15Poa annua FACU
Schedonorus arundinaceus 40
N/A
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
N/A
30ft )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP4
0
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
356
0
98
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
The sampled area is not located within an isolated depression and therefore, does not meet the requirements of hydric soil indicator F8.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
7.5YR 4/6
Loc2
M
65
2.5Y 7/3 70
Prominent redox concentrations
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
10YR 3/2
Loamy/Clayey
C
100
Color (moist)
M
Matrix
7.5YR 4/6
C2.5Y 7/3
10YR 4/3
602.5Y 6/3 40
10YR 5/82-8
20-24
0-2
8-20
20
10
DP4SOIL
M
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
10YR 3/2
%
Prominent redox concentrations
Secondary matrix color
Secondary matrix color
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
M
%
M30
Texture
Loamy/Clayey
Prominent redox concentrations
C5
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
City/County:Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Siler City/Chatham
DP5
12/08/2022
Wildlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range: n/aS. Law
3-5%ConcaveDepression
Datum: NAD83-79.92393535.636214LRR P, MLRA 136
UplandNWI classification:CkC: Cid silt loam, 6-10% slopes
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
The sampling point was taken at the bottom of a swale in a depression within an abandoned floodplain. Drainage areas from the sampling area to the
adjacent stream were observed. According to the Antecendent Precipitation Tool, conditions onsite were normal with a moderate PDSI drought index.
According to NOAA precipitation data from local weather stations, approximately 0.1" of rainfall were received 48 hours prior to sampling.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-12-9; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp:11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP5
1
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
356
0
108
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
33.3%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
N/A
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
N/A
30ft )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Juncus effusus
No
Yes
Yes
30Hydrocotyle sibthorpioides
25Trifolium repens FACU
Schedonorus arundinaceus 40
15ft
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
FACU
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30ft )
N/A
108
FACWNo
2254
Poa annua
8
5
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
70
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
280
Multiply by:
76
3.30Prevalence Index = B/A =
38
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5ft
=Total Cover
FACU
FACW
Yes
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Prominent redox concentrations
Distinct redox concentrations
Faint redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
M
%
PL2
Texture
Distinct redox concentrations
C5
DP5SOIL
6-18 2.5Y 6/3
PL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
93
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
C
10YR 5/8
%
Matrix
10YR 6/3
C10YR 5/3
10YR 4/2
2
10YR 4/62-6
18-24
0-2
C15
8
Loc2
PL
98
10YR 6/3 77
Prominent redox concentrations
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
2.5Y 3/3
Loamy/Clayey
C
100
Color (moist)
M
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2.5Y 3/3
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
XNo
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-12-9; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp:11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
The sampling point was taken in a swale within an abandoned floodplain at the bottom of a crenulation. The sampled area has been impacted by cattle
and is within an active cattle pasture. According to the Antecendent Precipitation Tool, conditions onsite were normal with a moderate PDSI drought
index. According to NOAA precipitation data from local weather stations, approximately 0.8" of rainfall were received 24 hours prior to sampling.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Bonlee/Chatham
DP6
12/01/2022
Wildlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range: n/aS. Law
1-2%ConcaveSwale
Datum: NAD83-79.42205135.634230LRR P, MLRA 136
UplandNWI classification:CmB: Cid-Lignum complex, 2-6% slopes
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
Saturation visible on aerial imagery corresponds to drainage patterms and geomorphic position associated with a valley and crenulation, as well as
cattle activity.
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
15
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5ft
=Total Cover
FACU
FACW
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
24
0
172
Multiply by:
50
3.24Prevalence Index = B/A =
25
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
8
43
(A)
(B)
(A)
FACWNo
1638
Trifolium repens
5
3
15ft
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
FACU
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30ft )
N/A
76
Juncus effusus
No
Yes
No
20Hydrocotyle sibthorpioides
8Carex blanda FAC
Schedonorus arundinaceus 40
N/A
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
N/A
30ft )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
50.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP6
1
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
246
0
76
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
10YR 4/6
Loc2
M
88
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
98 C
Color (moist)
PL/M
Matrix
C10YR 7/4
10YR 5/3
85
10YR 4/6
10YR 7/1 15
10YR 4/65-15
0-5
15-24
DP6SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
C
10YR 6/1
%
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
PL10
Distinct redox concentrations
Texture
Loamy/Clayey
Distinct redox concentrations
2PL
D2
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
XNo
XNo X
XNo
X
XX
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Saturation and inundation are visible on aerial imagery in the areas adjacent to the sampling area, which is blocked by trees on aerial imagery.
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
10
6
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
City/County:Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Bonlee/Chatham
DP7
12/01/2022
Wildlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range: n/aS. Law
0-1%ConcaveSwale
Datum: NAD83-79.42226935.633988LRR P, MLRA 136
UplandNWI classification:CmB: Cid-Lignum complex, 2-6% slopes
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
The sampling point was taken at the toe slope of a backwater swale within an abandoned floodplain, and at the top of a riverine swamp/bottomland
hardwood forest complex that continues offsite. The sampled area has been impacted by cattle and is located in an active pasture. According to the
Antecendent Precipitation Tool, conditions onsite were normal with a moderate PDSI drought index. According to NOAA precipitation data from local
weather stations, approximately 0.8" of rainfall were received 24 hours prior to sampling.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-12-9; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp:11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:X
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP7
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
370
0
95
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
N/A
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
N/A
30ft )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
No
No
10Cynodon dactylon
5Juncus effusus FACW
Schedonorus arundinaceus 80
15ft
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30ft )
N/A
95
1948
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
90
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
360
Multiply by:
10
3.89Prevalence Index = B/A =
5
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Problematic vegetation is considered to apply based on the presence of wetland hydrology and hydric soil indicators within the sampling area in
combination with the current usage of the area as an active cattle pasture. Dead Persicaria spp. Is also present throughout the sampling area.
)5ft
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Faint redox concentrations
Distinct redox concentrations
Distinct redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
PL
%
PL2
Texture
Distinct redox concentrations
C
20
10
DP7SOIL
3-8 2.5Y 6/2
M
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
85
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
C
10YR 5/2
2.5Y 7/1 80
%
Matrix
10YR 5/2
C10YR 5/2
10YR 3/2
5
10YR 4/41-3
8-22
22-24
0-1
C20
C
10
Loc2
M
98
2.5Y 7/1 70
Prominent redox concentrations
Prominent redox concentrations
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
2.5Y 6/6
Loamy/Clayey
M Loamy/Clayey
C
100
2.5Y 6/6
Color (moist)
PL
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
The sampling area is not located within an isolated depression and therefore, does not meet the requirements of hydric soil indicator F8.

The sampling area is located within an abandoned floodplain and therefore, does not meet the requirements of hydric soil indicator F19.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
10YR 4/4
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
A water table was not observed below the level of saturation despite recent rainfall within the area.
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
15
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
City/County:Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Siler City/Chatham
DP8
12/01/2022
Wildlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range: n/aS. Law
1-2%ConcaveSideslope
Datum: NAD83-79.42234635.634105LRR P, MLRA 136
UplandNWI classification:CmB: Cid-Lignum complex, 2-6% slopes
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
The sampling point was taken on a sideslope between a small wetland seep and wetland swale in the abandoned floodplain of an adjacent stream. The
area is in an active cattle pasture.According to the Antecendent Precipitation Tool, conditions onsite were normal with a moderate PDSI drought index.
According to NOAA precipitation data from local weather stations, approximately 0.8" of rainfall were received 24 hours prior to sampling.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-12-9; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp:11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP8
2
4
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
555
0
145
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
50.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
N/A
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Liquidambar styraciflua
Celtis occidentalis
Acer rubrum
Ligustrum sinense
30ft )
43
Indicator
Status
15
10
Yes
Dominant
Species?
No
No
5Eupatorium capillifolium
2Trifolium repens FACU
Schedonorus arundinaceus 95
15ft
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30ft )
N/A
102
2151
Prevalence Index worksheet:
FAC
Total % Cover of:
25
120
(A)
(B)
(A)
75
0
480
Multiply by:
0
3.83Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
22 9
10
0
8NoFACU
Yes
Yes
FACU
FAC
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5ft
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M2
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
DP8SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
C2.5Y 7/3
10YR 3/2
10YR 5/815-24
0-15
Loc2
98
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
City/County:Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Bonlee/Chatham
DP9
12/01/2022
Wildlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range: n/aS. Law
1-2%ConcaveSwale
Datum: NAD83-79.42257935.634661LRR P, MLRA 136
UplandNWI classification:CmB: Cid-Lignum complex, 2-6% slopes
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
The sampling point was taken in a swale parallel to a stream and at the bottom of a crenulation, and is within an active cattle pasture. The adjacent
stream's floodplain has been abandoned due to stream incision. According to the Antecendent Precipitation Tool, conditions onsite were normal with a
moderate PDSI drought index. According to NOAA precipitation data from local weather stations, approximately 0.8" of rainfall were received 24 hours
prior to sampling.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-12-9; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp:11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP9
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
370
0
100
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
N/A
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
N/A
30ft )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
No
No
15Hydrocotyle sibthorpioides
5Trifolium repens FACU
Schedonorus arundinaceus 80
15ft
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30ft )
N/A
100
2050
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
85
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
340
Multiply by:
30
3.70Prevalence Index = B/A =
15
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5ft
=Total Cover
FACU
FACW
Yes
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Concretions
Prominent redox concentrations
Concretions
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
PL10
Texture
Loamy/Clayey
Prominent redox concentrations
5
DP9SOIL
M
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
C
10YR 3/4
%
Matrix
10YR 4/6
C10YR 6/3
10YR 5/3
802.5Y 7/3 15
7.5YR 3/41-8
0-1
8-24
5
Loc2
M
85
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
PL
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
All redoximorphic features observed within the soil profile have hard edges, which are indicative of relict hydric soils. This is supported by the lack of
wetland hydrology indicators observed within the sampling area.
The sampling area is not located within an isolated depression and therefore, does not meet the requirements of hydric soil indicator F8.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
10YR 5/6
ENG FORM 6116-4, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Appendix 5
Categorical Exclusion Documentation and
Agency Correspondence
Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Division of Mitigation Services Projects
Version 2
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the environmental
document.
Part 1: General Project Information Project Name: County Name: DMS Number: Project Sponsor: Project Contact Name: Project Contact Address: Project Contact E-mail: DMS Project Manager: Project Description
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
Date DMS Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Kirsten Gimbert
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203
[e-mail]
Dirty Boots Mitigation Site
Chatham
Jeremiah Dow
Dirty Boots is being developed to provide stream and wetland mitigation within the Cape Fear River Basin. The proposed mitigation
will include stream restoration and enhancement II as well as wetland rehabilitation and enhancement. Current land use within and
adjacent to the project area is predominantly agriculture and woodland. The project area is comprised of two active livestock
operations. Site stressors include stream incision, active stream erosion, livestock access, absent or poor-quality buffers, some
dominated by Chinese privet, and other invasive species, and areas of limited to absent bedform diversity. The project design will
restore and enhance native floodplain vegetation, create stable stream banks, improve stream habitat, reduce soil compaction and
concentrated flow paths, exclude livestock, and protect the site in perpetuity through establishing a conservation easement.
100638
1/6/2023
Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? Yes
No
2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
Program?
Yes
No
N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
designated as commercial or industrial?
Yes
No
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? Yes
No
N/A
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
Historic Places in the project area?
Yes
No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? Yes
No
N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? Yes
No
N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
1.Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? Yes
No
N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 7
Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as “territory” by the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians?
Yes
No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
No
N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
Places?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes
No
N/A
Antiquities Act (AA)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
of antiquity?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes
No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
listed for the county?
Yes
No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes
No
N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Is the project “likely to adversely affect” the species and/or “likely to adversely modify”
Designated Critical Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
No
N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a “jeopardy” determination? Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 8
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as “territory”
by the EBCI?
Yes
No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
project?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
sites?
Yes
No
N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
1. Will real estate be acquired? Yes
No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
important farmland?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? Yes
No
N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
water body?
Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? Yes
No
N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f))
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
outdoor recreation?
Yes
No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes
No
N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat)
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? Yes
No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species? Yes
No
N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
project on EFH?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes
No
N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes
No
N/A
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? Yes
No
N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? Yes
No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
federal agency?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 9

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site 
Categorical Exclusion 
SUMMARY 

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion 
DMS #100638 2 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides a 
Federal “Superfund” to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous‐waste sites as well as 
accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the 
environment.  
As the Dirty Boots Mitigation Site is a full‐delivery project, an EDR Radius Map Report with 
Geocheck was ordered for the site through Environmental Data Resources, Inc on February 22, 
2022. Neither the target property nor the adjacent properties were listed in any of the Federal, 
State, or Tribal environmental databases searched by the EDR. The Executive Summary of the EDR 
report is included in the Appendix. The full report is available upon request. 
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) 
The National Historic Preservation Act declares a national policy of historic preservation to protect, 
rehabilitate, restore, and reuse districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in 
American architecture, history, archaeology, and culture, and Section 106 mandates that federal 
agencies take into account the effect of an undertaking on a property that is included in, or is 
eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. 
A scoping letter was submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requesting 
comment on the Dirty Boots Mitigation Site on October 7, 2022. SHPO responded on November 10, 
2022 and said they were “aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project” 
and would have no further comment. All correspondence related to Section 106 is included in the 
Appendix. 
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act) 
These acts, collectively known as the Uniform Act, provide for uniform and equitable treatment of 
persons displaced from their homes, businesses, non‐profit associations, or farms by federal and 
federally‐assisted programs, and establish uniform and equitable land acquisition policies. 
The Dirty Boots Mitigation Site is a full‐delivery project that includes land acquisition. Notification of 
the fair market value of the project property and the lack of condemnation authority by Wildlands 
was included in the signed Mitigation Use Rights (MUR) Agreement for the project property. A copy 
of the relevant section of the MUR Agreement is included in the Appendix. 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with and with the assistance of the 
Secretary of the Interior or of Commerce, as appropriate, to ensure that actions they authorize, 
fund or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered 
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species. 
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation 
database (IPaC) list of threatened and endangered species for the site includes the following 
species: red‐cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), 
Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum), and the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni). The USFWS does not 
currently list any Critical Habitat Designations for the Federally listed species within the project site. 
Results from pedestrian surveys conducted on April 6, 2022, indicated that the project area 
provides no suitable habitat for the red‐cockaded woodpecker, Cape Fear shiner, Harperella, and 
the Atlantic pigtoe. No suitable habitat was found due to poor water quality and stream size, as well 
Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion 
DMS #100638 3 

as the lack of old pine cavity trees, open pine woodlands with little to no hardwoods or pine 
savannahs. No individuals of the federally listed species were identified.  
To meet regulatory requirements, a scoping letter requesting comment from the USFWS was sent 
on October 7, 2022. USFWS responded on October 10, 2022 and does not have any concerns with 
the project “adversely affecting any other federally‐listed endangered or threatened species”, and 
would have no further comment unless circumstances changed. Please refer to the Appendix for 
USFWS correspondence. 
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) 
The FPPA requires that, before taking or approving any federal action that would result in 
conversion of farmland, the agency must examine the effects of the action using the criteria set 
forth in the FPPA, and, if there are adverse effects, must consider alternatives to lessen them. 
Dirty Boots Mitigation Site includes the conversion of prime farmland. As such, Form AD‐1006 was 
completed and submitted to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) on October 7, 
2022. The completed form and correspondence documenting its submittal is included in the 
Appendix. 
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) 
The FWCA requires consultation with the USFWS and the appropriate state wildlife agency on 
projects that alter or modify a water body. Reports and recommendations prepared by these 
agencies document project effects on wildlife and identify measures that may be adopted to 
prevent loss or damage to wildlife resources. 
Wildlands requested comment on the project from both the USFWS and the North Carolina Wildlife 
Resources Commission (NCWRC) on November 17, 2022. The NCWRC and USFWS responded on 
October 7 and 20, 2022, respectively, and do not have any concerns with this project. All 
correspondence with the two agencies is included in the Appendix. 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 
The MBTA makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship, 
import, or export any migratory bird. The indirect killing of birds by destroying their nests and eggs 
is covered by the MBTA, so construction in nesting areas during nesting seasons can constitute a 
taking. 
Wildlands requested comment on the Dirty Boots Mitigation Site from the USFWS in regard to 
migratory birds on October 7, 2022. USFWS responded on October 10, 2022 do not have any 
concerns with this project. All correspondence with USFWS is included in the Appendix.

Species Conclusions Table
Project Name: Dirty Boots Mitigation Site
Date: 10/6/2022

Species / Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7 / Eagle Act
Determination
Notes / Documentation
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
(Picoides borealis)
No suitable habitat No effect Field survey conducted on April 6, 2022 determined no suitable habitat were
found to exist due to lack of mature, open pine forest. No critical habitat has
been designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP data explorer, no
known element occurrences exist within the proposed project area. This site
is not within the required Section 7 consultation zone and is not subject to
Section 7 of the ESA.
Cape Fear Shiner
(Notropis mekistocholas)
No suitable habitat No effect A Field Survey was conducted on April 6, 2022 and no suitable habitat was
found due to predominantly silty substrate and lack of cobble, gravel, and
bounders. The proposed project is not in the proposed critical habitat area
designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP data explorer, no known
element occurrences exist within the proposed project area.
Atlantic Pigtoe
(Fusconaia masoni)
No suitable habitat No effect A Field Survey was conducted on April 6, 2022 and no suitable habitat was
found due to poor water quality, stream size, and lack of clean gravel and
sand substrate. The proposed project is not in the proposed critical habitat
area designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP data explorer, no
known element occurrences exist within the proposed project area.
Harperella
(Ptilimnium nodosum)
No suitable habitat No effect Field survey conducted on April 6, 2022. No suitable habitat were found to
exist due to lack of rocky and gravelly sandbars within and along the streams.
No critical habitat has been designated by USFWS for this species. Per
NCNHP data explorer, no known element occurrences exist within the
proposed project area.
Bald Eagle Unlikely to disturb nesting
bald eagles
No Eagle Act Permit Required Not within 660 feet of large bodies of water
Critical Habitat No critical habitat present
Acknowledgement: I agree that the above information about my proposed project is true. I used all of the provided resources to make an informed decision about
impacts in the immediate and surrounding areas.

10/6/2022
_______________________________________________________________ ___________________________
Charlie Neaves/Environmental Scientist Date

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary D. Reid Wilson Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.

Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898
November 10, 2022

Kirsten Gimbert [e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203

Re: Dirty Boots mitigation site, Edwards Hill Church Road, Siler City, Chatham County, ER 22-2486

Dear Ms. Gimbert:

Thank you for your letter of October 7, 2022, concerning the above-referenced undertaking. We have
reviewed the submittal and offer the following comments.

We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or [e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.

Sincerely,

Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer

October 20, 2022

Kirsten Gimbert, Senior Env. Scientist
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203

Re: Dirty Boots Mitigation Site – Chatham County, NC

Dear Ms. Gimbert:

This is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
(Service) concerning whether a federally-listed species or designated critical habitat may be
affected by your proposed compensatory mitigation project. Our comments are submitted
pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Comments
under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act (as appropriate)
will be provided at a future date, as more information is made available to us during the North
Carolina Interagency Review Team (NC IRT) review process.

Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any other federally-listed endangered or threatened
species, their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under
the Act at these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been
satisfied for your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.

We look forward to further coordination on this project as it moves through the NC IRT review
process. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Kathy Matthews of this office at
[phone] ext. 27 or [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
From:Garrison, Gabriela
To:Kirsten Gimbert
Subject:RE: [External] Dirty Boots Mitigation Site - Scoping Letter
Date:Thursday, November 17, 2022 12:37:54 PM
Hi Kirsten,
NCWRC has no issues with this project.
Thank you,
Gabriela

Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator

NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Sandhills Depot, P.O. Box 149
Hoffman, NC 28347
Office and Cell: 910-409-7350
[e-mail]

www.ncwildlife.org

From: Kirsten Gimbert <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, October 7, 2022 1:59 PM
To: Garrison, Gabriela <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Dirty Boots Mitigation Site - Scoping Letter

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.

Hello Ms. Garrison,

Please find attached to this email, the Dirty Boots Mitigation Site scoping letter for your review
regarding a proposed stream mitigation site located in Chatham County, NC. Please let me know if
you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Kirsten Gimbert | Senior Environmental Scientist
M: 704.941.9093

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203

             Wildlands Engineering, Inc.   (P) 704.332.7754  •  1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104, Suite 104  •  Charlotte, NC 28203

October 7, 2022 
US Fish and Wildlife Service 
Raleigh ES Field Office 
551‐F Pylon Drive 
Raleigh, NC 27606 
Submitted via email: [e-mail] 
Subject: Dirty Boots Mitigation Site  
Chatham County, North Carolina     
Dear Sir or Madam, 
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any issues that might emerge with respect to 
endangered species, migratory birds, or other trust resources associated with a potential North Carolina Division of 
Mitigation Services (NCDMS) stream and wetland mitigation project on the Dirty Boots Mitigation Site located in 
Chatham County, NC. The Site is located approximately seven miles southeast of Siler City, NC, latitude 35.635988, 
longitude ‐79.422499. A Site Map and a USGS Topographic Map showing the approximate project area are 
enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the Siler City USGS 7.5‐minute topographic triangle. 
The Dirty Boots Mitigation Site is being developed to provide stream and wetland mitigation within the Cape Fear 
River Basin. The proposed mitigation project is located downstream from the Randleman Reservoir where the 
project streams drain to Bear Creek, which is classified as a Class C water, and ultimately flow to the lower Rocky 
River, just south of Pittsboro, NC. The proposed mitigation will include stream restoration and enhancement II as 
well as wetland rehabilitation and enhancement. Current land use within and adjacent to the project area is 
predominantly agriculture and woodland. The project area is comprised of two active livestock operations which 
are characterized by a mix of open pasture and grazed woodland to extensively grazed pasture with minimal 
woody riparian vegetation. Project site stressors include stream incision, active stream erosion, livestock access, 
absent or poor‐quality buffers, some dominated by Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinese), and other invasive species, 
and areas of limited to absent bedform diversity. 
The major goals of the proposed stream and wetland mitigation project are to provide ecological and water quality 
enhancements to the Cape Fear River Basin while creating a functional riparian corridor at the site level. The 
project design will be developed to avoid adverse impacts to existing streams, wetland resources, and mature 
wooded vegetation where possible. This will be accomplished by restoring and enhancing native floodplain 
vegetation, creating stable stream banks, improving stream habitat, reducing soil compaction and concentrated 
flow paths, exclusion of livestock, and protecting the site in perpetuity through establishing a conservation 
easement.  Construction of this project will affect Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and require Section 404/401 
permitting. 
Please refer to the enclosed Information for Planning and Consultation database (IPaC) package for the official 
USFWS threatened or endangered species list as well as Wildlands biological determinations and conclusions. We 
thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any questions 
that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project. 
Sincerely, 

Kirsten Gimbert, Senior Environmental Scientist 
[e-mail] 
704.941.9093 

Attachments: Figure 1 Site Map, Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map, IPaC package (self certification letter, species conclusion table and 
USFWS official species list) 
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726

Date:__________________________

Self-Certification Letter

Project Name______________________________

Dear Applicant:

Thank you for using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Raleigh Ecological
Services online project review process. By printing this letter in conjunction with your
project review package, you are certifying that you have completed the online project
review process for the project named above in accordance with all instructions
provided, using the best available information to reach your conclusions. This letter,
and the enclosed project review package, completes the review of your project in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat.
884), as amended (ESA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C.
668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended (Eagle Act). This letter also provides
information for your project review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), as amended. A copy of this
letter and the project review package must be submitted to this office for this
certification to be valid. This letter and the project review package will be maintained
in our records.

The species conclusions table in the enclosed project review package summarizes
your ESA and Eagle Act conclusions. Based on your analysis, mark all the
determinations that apply:

“no effect” determinations for proposed/listed species and/or
proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or

“may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determinations for proposed/listed
species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or

“may affect, likely to adversely affect” determination for the Northern long-
eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and relying on the findings of the January 5,
2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule on the
Northern long-eared bat;

“no Eagle Act permit required” determinations for eagles.

Applicant Page 2

We certify that use of the online project review process in strict accordance with the
instructions provided as documented in the enclosed project review package results in
reaching the appropriate determinations. Therefore, we concur with the “no effect” or
“not likely to adversely affect” determinations for proposed and listed species and
proposed and designated critical habitat; the “may affect” determination for Northern
long-eared bat; and/or the “no Eagle Act permit required” determinations for eagles.
Additional coordination with this office is not needed. Candidate species are not
legally protected pursuant to the ESA. However, the Service encourages consideration
of these species by avoiding adverse impacts to them. Please contact this office for
additional coordination if your project action area contains candidate species.
Should project plans change or if additional information on the distribution of
proposed or listed species, proposed or designated critical habitat, or bald eagles
becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. This certification letter is
valid for 1 year. Information about the online project review process including
instructions, species information, and other information regarding project reviews
within North Carolina is available at our website http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/pp.html.
If you have any questions, you can write to us at [e-mail] or please contact
Leigh Mann of this office at 919-856-4520, ext. 10.

Sincerely,

/s/Pete Benjamin

Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Raleigh Ecological Services

Enclosures - project review package
September 14, 2022
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2022-0085225
Project Name: Dirty Boots

Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the
requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If your project area 
contains suitable habitat for any of the federally-listed species on this species list, the proposed
action has the potential to adversely affect those species.  If suitable habitat is present, surveys 
should be conducted to determine the species’ presence or absence within the project area.  The 
use of this species list and/or North Carolina Natural Heritage program data should not be
substituted for actual field surveys.  
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered
09/14/2022   2

species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that
listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the
agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service
recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed
within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7
consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to
protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional,
resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more
information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally
killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to
comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within
applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan
(when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid
or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and
their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and
recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-
birds.php.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies
to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities
that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures
that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both
migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of
Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/
executive-orders/e0-13186.php.
09/14/2022   3

▪
▪
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of
this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit
to our office.
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
Migratory Birds
09/14/2022   1

Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]
09/14/2022   2

Project Summary
Project Code:2022-0085225
Project Name:Dirty Boots
Project Type:Mitigation Development/Review - Mitigation or Conservation Bank
Project Description:Mitigation Site
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@35.636313200000004,-79.42408802584103,14z
Counties:Chatham County, North Carolina
09/14/2022   3

1.
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 5 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Birds
NAME STATUS
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614
Endangered
Fishes
NAME STATUS
Cape Fear Shiner Notropis mekistocholas
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6063
Endangered
Clams
NAME STATUS
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164
Threatened
Insects
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
1
09/14/2022   4

Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3739
Endangered
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
09/14/2022   1

1.
2.
3.
Migratory Birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act .
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the
USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your
project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this
list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location,
nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact
locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project
area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species
on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing
the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to
additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your
migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be
found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug
25
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds May 1 to Jul 31
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
1
2
09/14/2022   2

1.
2.
3.
NAME BREEDING SEASON
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds May 10 to Sep
10
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds May 10 to Aug
31
Probability Of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the
FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting
to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ()
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week
months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see
below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher
confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for
that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee
was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is
0.25.
To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12
(0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
Breeding Season ()
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across
its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project
area.
Survey Effort ()
09/14/2022   3

▪
▪
▪
 no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on
all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Chimney Swift
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Prairie Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Prothonotary
Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Red-headed
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Wood Thrush
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/
collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds
Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf
Migratory Birds FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
09/14/2022   4

Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits
may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of
infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my
specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding,
and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as
occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as
warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act
requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your
project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list
of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information
Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data
provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing
collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information
becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and
how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,
wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look
at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each
bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated
with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point
within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not
breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
09/14/2022   5

1.
2.
3.
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
"BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern
throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
"BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
"Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on
your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles)
potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities
(e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made,
in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC
species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can
implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles,
please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides
birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird
model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical
Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use
throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this
information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study
and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid
violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of
birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for
identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC
use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be
aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no
data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey
effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
09/14/2022   6

certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you
know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell
me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
09/14/2022   7

IPaC User Contact Information
Agency:North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resouces - Division of
Water Quality
Name:Kirsten Gimbert
Address:1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
City:Charlotte
State:NC
Zip:28203
Email [e-mail]
Phone:[phone]
Lead Agency Contact Information
Lead Agency:Federal Highway Administration

Species Conclusions Table
Project Name: Dirty Boots Mitigation Site
Date: 10/6/2022

Species / Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7 / Eagle Act
Determination
Notes / Documentation
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
(Picoides borealis)
No suitable habitat No effect Field survey conducted on April 6, 2022 determined no suitable habitat were
found to exist due to lack of mature, open pine forest. No critical habitat has
been designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP data explorer, no
known element occurrences exist within the proposed project area. This site
is not within the required Section 7 consultation zone and is not subject to
Section 7 of the ESA.
Cape Fear Shiner
(Notropis mekistocholas)
No suitable habitat No effect A Field Survey was conducted on April 6, 2022 and no suitable habitat was
found due to predominantly silty substrate and lack of cobble, gravel, and
bounders. The proposed project is not in the proposed critical habitat area
designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP data explorer, no known
element occurrences exist within the proposed project area.
Atlantic Pigtoe
(Fusconaia masoni)
No suitable habitat No effect A Field Survey was conducted on April 6, 2022 and no suitable habitat was
found due to poor water quality, stream size, and lack of clean gravel and
sand substrate. The proposed project is not in the proposed critical habitat
area designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP data explorer, no
known element occurrences exist within the proposed project area.
Harperella
(Ptilimnium nodosum)
No suitable habitat No effect Field survey conducted on April 6, 2022. No suitable habitat were found to
exist due to lack of rocky and gravelly sandbars within and along the streams.
No critical habitat has been designated by USFWS for this species. Per
NCNHP data explorer, no known element occurrences exist within the
proposed project area.
Bald Eagle Unlikely to disturb nesting
bald eagles
No Eagle Act Permit Required Not within 660 feet of large bodies of water
Critical Habitat No critical habitat present
Acknowledgement: I agree that the above information about my proposed project is true. I used all of the provided resources to make an informed decision about
impacts in the immediate and surrounding areas.

10/6/2022
_______________________________________________________________ ___________________________
Charlie Neaves/Environmental Scientist Date

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 1
HATCH’S HILL MITIGATION SITE
March 28, 2022 IRT Site Walk Meeting Summary

MEETING SUMMARY

MEETING: IRT Site Walk
Dirty Boots Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Basin 03030003, Chatham County, NC
USACE Project ID: SAW-2022-02401
DWR# 20221571

DATE: Wednesday, November 11th, 2022

LOCATION: Edwards Hill Church Road
Bonlee, NC
Attendees

Erin Davis, NC DWR
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Travis Wilson, NC WRC
Lindsay Crocker, NC DMS
Jeremiah Dow, NC DMS
Tim Morris, Wildlands Engineering
Angela Allen, Wildlands Engineering
John Hutton, Wildlands Engineering

Materials

• Wildlands Engineering, Dirty Boots Mitigation Site - Technical Proposal, July 12 2022

Meeting Notes

Representatives of Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands) met with representatives of the North
Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT) and the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services to walk
the Dirty Boots Mitigation Site. The purpose of the field meeting was to present the site to the group of
IRT members and get their input into the management/mitigation options proposed for the site and
determine next steps in the process. During the tour, the group discussed the stream and wetland
approaches proposed by Wildlands and the manner that they felt would be most appropriate to
enhance and restore onsite streams and wetlands. The following notes provide a summary of these
discussions.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
HATCH’S HILL MITIGATION SITE
March 28, 2022 IRT Site Walk Meeting Summary
No changes to the crediting proposed in the Technical Proposal were requested as a result of the site
walk. The bulleted notes below generally follow the timeline of the site walk. The following concerns
were noted:

• In the area of the enhancement wetland at the top of Dirty Boots (Reach 5), Todd Tugwell
cautioned that the dense wetland vegetation could crowd and overtake the channel when the
bed was raised. This will be monitored, and adaptive management will address issues when/if
they arise.
• Wildlands recognizes that creating a new planform and profile through the existing
enhancement wetland on Dirty Boots, Reach 5 needs to be completed in such a way to minimize
temporary impacts to the functional wetland. This need for minimizing impact will be addressed
in the project plans.
• On UT3 - Reach 1, IRT requested targeted structures be placed within the enhancement reach to
encourage habitat diversity. These could be in the form of log drops, sills, riffle enhancements,
etc.
• On UT3 Reach 2, the IRT requested that the pond be dewatered through a silt bag to ensure that
invasive pond edge species do not get transported downstream.
• Pre-construction wetland gauges will be installed in the rehabilitation wetlands throughout the
project to document baseline hydrology conditions and justify future hydrologic uplift.
• At the property line at the downstream extend of Dirty Boots the IRT noted a backwater
condition, likely attributed to beavers. Wildlands confirmed that historic beaver activity was
noted in the area. The fact that beaver activity is located on an adjacent property created
conversation about the appropriateness of managing beaver and potentially modifying the
existing hydrology of a downstream resource because of the project. The IRT requested that
adaptive management techniques will need to be clearly defined in the mitigation plan for
addressing this issue.
• IRT requested hydrology monitoring of all tributaries (UT2, UT2A and UT3) for flow.
• The IRT recommended that BMP features be installed that do not require future maintenance
and that the features be incorporated inside the easement. The area taken up by these features
will need to be deducted from wetland crediting. The IRT would prefer shallow, natural features
that minimize the use of rock where possible.
• The IRT recommended considering some channel planform work for UT2-Reach 1 since the
stream is currently channelized and lacks any bedform diversity. If appropriately justified in the
mitigation plan, this area could be upgraded to a better ratio (assuming the JD confirms a
stream call).

This documents the main discussion points during the site walk. If there are any changes or additions to
these notes please contact [e-mail].

Enclosure – Map Markup
Figure 6A Concept Map Option 1
Dirty Boots Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Basin 03030003
Chatham County, NC
Edw
a
r
d
s

H
ill Chu
r
ch

R
d
Edw
a
r
d
s

H
ill Chu
r
ch

R
d
!P
!P
!P
!P
^_
^_
^_
UT3 Reach 2
Dirty Boots Reach 5
UT2 Reach 2
UT2 Reach 1
Dirty Boots Reach 6
UT3 Reach 1
¬«4
¬«3
¬«5
W-2W-2
UT2
UT3
UT2A
D
i
r
t
y

B
o
o
t
s
0 100 200 Feet ¹
Parcels
Project Location
Proposed Conservation
Easement
Internal Crossing
Proposed Wetland
Enhancement
Proposed Wetland
Rehabilitation
Proposed Restoration
Proposed Enhancement II
No Credit
^_Proposed BMP
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contours (2')
!P Reach Breaks
#
2021 Aerial Photography
Appendix 6
Maintenance Plan

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Appendix 6
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 1

Appendix 6 Maintenance Plan
The site shall be visited quarterly and a physical inspection of the site shall be conducted quarterly
throughout the post-construction monitoring period until performance standards are met. These site
inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Routine
maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction and may
include the following:

Table 1. Maintenance Plan
Component/
Feature Maintenance through project close-out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in-stream
structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and supplemental installations
of live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel – these shall be conducted
where success criteria are threatened or at the discretion of the Designer. Areas where
storm water and floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance to
prevent bank failures and head-cutting. Beaver activity will be monitored and beaver dams
on project streams will typically be removed, at the discretion of the Designer, during the
monitoring period to allow for bank stabilization and stream development outside of this
type of influence.
Vegetation
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted community.
Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting,
pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species requiring treatment per the
Invasive Species Treatment Plan (Appendix 7) shall be treated in accordance with that plan
and with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.

Prevent formation of preferred flow paths during preliminary establishment of vegetation.
Complete vegetation maintenance as indicated above.
Site boundary
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
bollard, post, tree-blazing, 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.

Appendix 7
Invasive Species Treatment Plan

Appendix 7 Invasive Species Plan
The presence and extents of invasive species will be monitored, and treatment of invasive species will
continue as necessary throughout the life of the project to ensure project stability and success of the
riparian and streambank vegetation. Regular site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the
finished project. Invasive species currently present on the Site include multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)
and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). These invasive plant populations primarily occur directly along
the banks of existing streams.

Generally, the treatment plan shall follow the below guidelines in Table 1 for invasive plant species
found on the site; however, the treatment may be changed based on the professional judgement of the
project engineer and biologist. The planned timeline of invasive plant control will likely involve heavier
efforts during construction and in monitoring years 1-3. Additional invasive plant control will likely occur
after monitoring year 3 but at a smaller scale. The planned timeline of invasive plant control on the Site
may change due to unforeseen circumstances and potential new introductions. Significant invasive
species control efforts will be reported in each year’s monitoring report.

Table 1. Invasive Species Treatment
Invasive Species Recommended Treatment Technique
Chinese Privet
(Ligustrum sinense)
Use a foliar treatment on seedlings (under 2’ tall) using a 3% triclopyr, as the triethylamine
salt, or 3% glyphosate plus 0.5% non-ionic surfactant solution.
For stems too tall for foliar application and/or when safety to surrounding vegetation is
desired, cut stems low to the ground and immediately treat cut surfaces with a 25-50%
glyphosate or triclopyr, as the triethylamine salt, solution.
For large diameter stems, apply stem injections or hack-and-squirt techniques using a 25-50%
triclopyr, as the triethylamine salt, or glyphosate solution year-round, though early spring
(March and April) may be less effective. An EZ-Ject tree injector can help reach the lower part
of the main stem; otherwise, every branching trunk can be treated using the hack-and-squirt
method.
Basal bark applications are suitable for large diameter stems in upland areas and can be
applied in the winter when the bark is dry and above freezing and below 85°F. Basal bark
applications are not aquatic-safe and somewhat less effective on stems greater that 6” DBH.
Apply full coverage of a chemical solution to the bottom 10”-18" of a stem using a 20-30%
triclopyr ester solution or a 6-8% imazapyr solution in a carrier oil, such as basal oil or
kerosene.
Multiflora Rose
(Rosa multiflora)

Use a foliar application of 3% glyphosate or triclopyr, as the triethylamine salt, solution plus
0.5% non-ionic surfactant.
For large diameter stems or those climbing up into trees, cut stems low to the ground and
immediately treat stems and stump tops using a 25% glyphosate or 50% triclopyr. As the
triethylamine salt, solution. Cut stump may be conducted year-round at temperatures above
45°F.
Invasive Species Recommended Treatment Technique
Mechanical removal is also feasible using heavy equipment. All the root mass must be
removed.
Tall Fescue
(Festuca
arundinacea)
Fescue and undesirable pasture grasses can be mechanically removed during construction on
portions of the site. Following construction, these grasses will be treated where they are
impacting planted stems using a variety of methods including herbicide ring sprays, herbicide
treatment and reseeding, and mechanical tree release. Foliar applications will use a 2.5-4%
glyphosate plus 0.5% non-ionic surfactant solution.

Appendix 8
Financial Assurances

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Appendix 8
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 1
Appendix 8 Financial Assurance
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Division of Mitigation Service’s In-Lieu Fee Instrument
dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has provided
the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to
satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by DMS. This commitment provides financial assurance for all
mitigation projects implemented by the program.

Appendix 9
Credit Release Schedule

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Appendix 9
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 1
Appendix 9 - Credit Release Schedule

All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported in the approved final
mitigation plan, unless there are significant discrepancies, in which case an addendum will be proposed
to the Interagency Review Team (IRT). Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited
until the necessary Department of the 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 following conditions apply to the credit release schedules:
A. A reserve of 10% of a site’s total stream credits will 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 is at the discretion of the NC IRT.
B. For mitigation banks, implementation of the approved Mitigation Plan must be initiated no later
than the first full growing season after the date of the first credit transaction (credit sale).
C. After the second milestone, the credit releases are scheduled to occur on an annual basis,
assuming that the annual monitoring report has been provided to the USACE in accordance with
the General Monitoring Requirements, and that the monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards are being met and that no other concerns have been identified
on-site during the visual monitoring. All credit releases require written approval from the
USACE.
D. The credits associated with the final credit release milestone will be released only upon a
determination by the USACE, in consultation with the NCIRT, of functional success as defined in
the Mitigation Plan.
The schedule below lists the updated credit release schedule for stream mitigation projects developed
by bank and ILF sites in North Carolina:

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Appendix 9
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 2

Table A: Stream Credit Release Schedule
Credit Release Schedule and Milestones for Streams
Credit
Release
Milestone
Release Activity
ILF/NCDMS
Interim
Release Total Released
1 Site establishment 0% 0%

2*
Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan 30% 30%

3
Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
interim performance standards have been met 10% 40%

4
Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
interim performance standards have been met 10% 50%

5
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
interim performance standards have been met 10% 60%

6**
Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
interim performance standards have been met 5% 65%
(75%***)

7
Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
interim performance standards have been met 10% 75%
(85%***)

8**
Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
interim performance standards have been met 5% 80%
(90%***)

9
Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable,
performance standards have been met, completion of benthic
monitoring for 2% additional credit on monitored reaches
10%,
+2%
90% + 2% benthic
credit
(100%***+ 2%
benthic credit****)
*For ILF sites (including all NCDMS projects), no initial release of credits (Milestone 1) is provided because ILF
programs utilized advance credits, so no initial release is necessary to help fund site construction. To account for
this, the 15% credit release associated with the first milestone (bank establishment) is held until the second
milestone, so that the total credits release at the second milestone is 30%. In order for NCDMS to receive the
30% release (shown in the schedules as Milestone 2), they must comply with the credit release requirements
stated in Section IV(I)(3) of the approved NCDMS Instrument.
**Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these
monitoring years unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.
***10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
****2% additional credits to be released on streams monitored as proposed in monitoring plan (see Table 41). No
credits will be tied to success criteria.

Dirty Boots Mitigation Site Appendix 9
DMS ID No. 100638 Page 3
Table B: Credit Release Schedule – Wetlands Credits
Credit
Release
Milestone
Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Released
1 Site establishment 0% 0%
2 Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan 30% 30%
3 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 40%
4 Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 50%
5 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met 15% 65%
6 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met 5% 70%
7
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met; Provided that all performance standards are met, the IRT may
allow the DMS to discontinue hydrologic monitoring after the fifth year,
but vegetation monitoring must continue for an additional two years
after the fifth year for a total of seven years
15% 85%
8 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met 5% 90%
9
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met, and project has received close-out
approval
10% 100%

1.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by DMS
without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a. Approval of the final Mitigation Plan.
b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property.
c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; per the DMS Instrument, construction means
that a mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as-built
report has been produced. As-built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project
closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
d. Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA
permit issuance is not required.
1.2 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 two 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 two bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits
shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the
DMS 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.
Appendix 10
Plan Sheets