20170887 Ver 1_Bethel Branch MP - Draft - 4-2018_20180508

Action History (UTC -05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
Submit by Anonymous User 5/8/2018 11:56:39 AM (Message Start Event)
Approve by Montalvo, Sheri A 5/9/2018 9:53:40 AM (Initial Review- Sheri Montalvo)
The task was assigned to Montalvo, Sheri A 5/8/2018 11:56 AM

D# * 20170887
Version* 1
Select Reviewer:* Mac Haupt
Mitigation Project Submittal - 5/8/2018
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a f Yes r No
New Site? *
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Jeff Keaton
Email Address:* [e-mail]
Project Information
Existing (DWR) ID#:* 20170887
(nun-bers only... no dash)
Existing Version:* 1
(nurrbers only)
Project Name:* Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank -
Bethel Branch Site
County:* Chatham
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plan
File Upload: Bethel Branch MP - Draft - 4-2018.pdf 19.78MB
Bethel Branch 60% Plans - Draft - 4-2018.pdf 6.07MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Greg Turner
Signature:
M!4' r,

MITIGATION PLAN
Draft

April 2018
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Bethel Branch Site
Chatham County, NC

Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03030002

USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365

DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Bethel Branch Site
Chatham County, NC

Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03030002

USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365

PREPARED BY:

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

April 2018

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page i April 2018
Executive Summary
The site described in this mitigation plan is the Bethel Branch Site (Site) which is the third project to be
developed under the Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The Site is located in Chatham County
within the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit 03030002050050 (Cane Creek). The Site was selected
to provide stream and wetland mitigation credits as well as buffer and nutrient credits in the Cape Fear
River Basin 03030002 (Cape Fear 02) service area. The project involves the restoration of 4,663 existing
linear feet of stream on three unnamed tributaries to South Fork Cane Creek. The project will also
include enhancement II activities on two tributaries (1,790 LF). Restoration and enhancement of these
streams will provide 5,228 stream mitigation credits. The project will also include rehabilitation of 0.07
acres of riparian wetlands, re-establishment of 3.03 acres of riparian wetlands, and enhancement of
0.12 acres of riparian wetlands on site that will provide a total of 3.14 riparian wetland mitigation
credits. Restoration of buffers that will yield buffer and nutrient credits from the site is also proposed.
The Cane Creek Mitigation Bank offers a rare opportunity to contribute to extensive on-going
restoration work within the watershed. The Bank will add three new sites to the five existing mitigation
sites in the Cane Creek watershed. Together these sites will provide cumulative ecological benefits that
are greater than a single site could provide. Each of the new sites will offset documented stressors to
the Cane Creek watershed including degraded aquatic habitats, poor riparian buffer conditions, and
livestock access to streams and riparian zones.
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the 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).

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page ii April 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ i
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................1
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection ...................................................................................1
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions ..............................................................................................2
3.1 Watershed .................................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Existing Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 4
3.3 Project Resources ......................................................................................................................... 4
4.0 Watershed and Channel Disturbance and Response .................................................................6
5.0 Functional Uplift Potential .......................................................................................................6
5.1 Hydrology ...................................................................................................................................... 7
5.2 Hydraulics ..................................................................................................................................... 7
5.3 Channel Geomorphology .............................................................................................................. 8
5.4 Physiochemical ............................................................................................................................. 8
5.5 Biology .......................................................................................................................................... 9
5.6 Overall Functional Uplift Potential ............................................................................................... 9
5.7 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift ............................................................................................. 9
6.0 Regulatory Considerations ..................................................................................................... 10
6.1 Waters of the US (401/404) ........................................................................................................ 10
6.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................................................... 10
6.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................. 11
6.4 Cultural Resources / Conservation Lands / Natural Heritage Areas ........................................... 11
7.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................... 11
8.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan ........................................................................... 12
8.1 Design Approach Overview ........................................................................................................ 12
8.2 Reference Streams ...................................................................................................................... 12
8.3 Design Channel Morphological Parameters ............................................................................... 14
8.4 Design Discharge Analysis........................................................................................................... 18
8.5 Sediment Transport Analysis ...................................................................................................... 19
8.6 Project Implementation .............................................................................................................. 20
8.7 Vegetation and Planting Plan ..................................................................................................... 23
8.8 Project Risk and Uncertainties .................................................................................................... 24
9.0 Determination of Credits ....................................................................................................... 24
10.0 Credit Release Schedule ......................................................................................................... 26
10.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits .......................................................................................... 26
10.2 Subsequent Credit Releases ....................................................................................................... 27
11.0 Performance Standards ......................................................................................................... 27
11.1 Streams ....................................................................................................................................... 27
11.2 Vegetation .................................................................................................................................. 28
11.3 Visual Assessments ..................................................................................................................... 28
11.4 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................... 28
12.0 Monitoring Plan .................................................................................................................... 28
12.1 Monitoring Components ............................................................................................................ 30
13.0 Long-Term Management Plan ................................................................................................ 31
13.1 Ownership and Long-Term Manager .......................................................................................... 31
13.2 Long-Term Management Activities ............................................................................................ 31
13.3 Funding Mechanism ................................................................................................................... 32
14.0 Adaptive Management Plan ................................................................................................... 33

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page iii April 2018
15.0 Financial Assurances .............................................................................................................. 34
16.0 References ............................................................................................................................ 36

TABLES
Table 1: Project Information ......................................................................................................................... 1
Table 2: Watershed Summary Information .................................................................................................. 2
Table 3: Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions ........................................................................................... 3
Table 4: Project Site Streams ........................................................................................................................ 4
Table 5: Existing Wetland Conditions ........................................................................................................... 6
Table 6: Summary of Stream Functions ........................................................................................................ 7
Table 7: Regulatory Considerations ............................................................................................................ 10
Table 8: Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Chatham County, NC ........................................... 10
Table 9: Mitigation Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................... 11
Table 10: Reference Reaches used for Project Streams ............................................................................. 13
Table 11: Summary of Morphological Parameters for UT1 ........................................................................ 15
Table 12: Summary of Morphological Parameters for UT2 ........................................................................ 16
Table 13: Summary of Morphological Parameters for UT3 ........................................................................ 17
Table 14: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis ......................................................................... 18
Table 15: Results of Competence Analysis ................................................................................................. 19
Table 16: Results of Capacity Analysis ........................................................................................................ 20
Table 17: Functional Impairments and Restoration Approach ................................................................... 20
Table 18: Species for Buffer Planting Zone ................................................................................................. 23
Table 19: Species for Streambank Planting Zone........................................................................................ 24
Table 20: Project Asset Table ...................................................................................................................... 25
Table 21: Credit Release Schedule - Stream Credits ................................................................................... 26
Table 22: Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................................................... 28
Table 23: Monitoring Components ............................................................................................................. 30
Table 24: Long-term Management Plan ..................................................................................................... 32
Table 25: Management Funding ................................................................................................................. 33
Table 26: Financial Assurances Table .......................................................................................................... 35

FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Location Map
Figure 3 Service Area Map
Figure 4 NCDOT Draft STIP FY 2016-2025

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page iv April 2018
Figure 5 Watershed and Topography Map
Figure 6 Soils Map
Figure 7 Existing Conditions Map
Figure 8 FEMA Flood Map
Figure 9 Reference Reach Vicinity Map
Figure 10 Discharge Analysis
Figure 11 Concept Design Map
Figure 12 Monitoring Components Map

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Site Protection Instrument
Appendix 2 DWR Stream Identification Forms
Appendix 3 USACE Wetland Forms
Appendix 4 Existing Conditions Cross Sections
Appendix 5 Agency Correspondence
Appendix 6 Morphological Tables
Appendix 7 Supplementary Design Information
Appendix 8 Groundwater Gauge Data
Appendix 9 Financial Assurance

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 1 April 2018
1.0 Introduction
The Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank sites are located in Chatham and Alamance Counties near the
Town of Snow Camp, NC (Figures 1 and 2). The site described in this mitigation plan is the Bethel Branch
Site (Site) which is located in Chatham County within the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit (HU)
03030002050050 (Cane Creek) and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Subbasin
03-06-04. The Site was selected to provide stream and wetland mitigation credits in the Cape Fear River
Basin 03030002 (Cape Fear 02) service area (Figure 3). Predicted future impacts in and around the
service area are depicted in Figure 4. The project involves the restoration of 4,663 existing linear feet of
stream on three unnamed tributaries (UTs) to South Fork Cane Creek. The project will also include
enhancement II activities on two unnamed tributaries (1,790 LF). Wetlands work on the site will include
rehabilitation of 0.07 acres of riparian wetlands, re-establishment of 3.03 acres of riparian wetlands, and
enhancement of 0.12 acres of riparian wetlands. Restoration and enhancement of the streams will
provide 5,236 stream mitigation credits and the wetlands work will provide 3.14 riparian wetland
mitigation credits.
The project will also include restoration of buffers that will yield buffer and nutrient offset credits.
Wildlands will coordinate the buffer and nutrient offset crediting with NCDWR, so this work is not
discussed further in this document.
The bank sponsor is Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC which is wholly owned by Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
(Wildlands). The project attributes are shown in Table 1. The Site Protection Instrument detailing the
easement is located in Appendix 1.
Table 1: Project Information
Project Name Bethel Branch
County Chatham
Project Area (acres) 16.30
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35° 49' 45.56"N 79° 22' 11.37"W
Planted Acreage (acres of woody stems to be planted) 8.1

2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection
As stated above, this mitigation plan describes the third site proposed for development under the Cane
Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The Cane Creek Mitigation Bank offers a rare opportunity to contribute
to extensive on-going restoration work within the watershed. The Bank will add three new sites to the
five existing mitigation sites in the Cane Creek watershed (Figure 2). The existing sites include
Underwood Upstream, Underwood Downstream, Maney Farm, Holman Mill, and UT to South Fork.
Together with the existing sites, the Cane Creek Mitigation Bank sites will provide cumulative ecological
benefits to the watershed that are greater than a single site could provide. Two of the new sites are
directly upstream of existing mitigation sites. Each of the sites offset documented stressors to the Cane
Creek watershed.
Although there is no Local Watershed Plan that covers the Cane Creek watershed, the watershed is
discussed in the 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities Plan (RBRP). This document discusses
the need to improve aquatic habitats and riparian buffers within the Cane Creek watershed. The
document also notes that there are currently 51 active cattle, dairy, and poultry operations throughout
the watershed that have contributed to degraded stream corridors. This is the largest concentration of

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 2 April 2018
animal operations within a 14-digit HU in Cape Fear 02. All three of this Bank’s sites are currently
maintained as cattle pasture and are included in the 51 animal operations referenced in the RBRP plan.
The 2005 NCDWR Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan states that Jordan Lake is a drinking
water supply, an important area for recreation, and a designated nutrient sensitive water (NSW). The
Cape Fear watershed is also discussed in the 2005 North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission’s
Wildlife Action Plan where sedimentation is noted as a major issue in the basin. Maps within the Wildlife
Action Plan indicate that Priority Species are present along Cane Creek. Restoration at the Site will
directly address non-point source stressors by removing cattle from the streams, creating stable stream
banks, restoring a riparian corridor, and placing 16.30 acres of land under permanent conservation
easement.
Restoration and enhancement of the streams on the Bethel Branch Site (and the other sites in the bank)
will directly address stressors identified in the RBRP. Stream banks will be stabilized and planted,
reducing sediment inputs to the streams. Aquatic habitats will be restored and riparian buffers will be
planted. Cattle, which currently have access to the streams, will be excluded from the easement with
fencing or removed from the site. These activities will reduce nutrient loading to the streams on site and
to downstream nutrient sensitive waters through reductions of sediment and livestock wastes from the
streams. This site also offers the opportunity for re-establishment of riparian wetlands. This will result in
the restoration of wetland hydrology, soils, plant communities, and habitat.
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions
3.1 Watershed
The Bethel Branch Site watershed (Table 2 and Figure 5) is located in northern Chatham County
approximately 5.5 miles southeast of Snow Camp, NC. It is situated in a rural area and the surrounding
land cover is mostly woods and farmland. The following section describes the existing conditions of the
watershed and watershed processes.
Table 2: Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
Ecoregion Slate Belt
River Basin Cape Fear River
USGS HUC (8-digit, 14-digit) 03030002, 03030002050050
NCDWR Sub-basin 03-06-04
Project Drainage Area (acres) 485
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 3%
CGIA Land Use Classification 70% pasture, 26% forested, 1% unmanaged
herbaceous, 3% impervious

3.1.1 Landscape Characteristics
Physiography and Topography
The Bethel Branch Site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina. 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 Site topography and relief are typical for the
region, as illustrated in Figure 5. UT1 has a gently-sloped (0.66%) valley that is unconfined with an
average valley width of approximately 80 feet. UT2 has a low valley slope (1.1%) and is unconfined

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 3 April 2018
(average valley width = 90 feet). UT3 below the farm pond has a moderate valley slope of 1.6% and is
moderately confined to unconfined with an average valley width of 45 feet.
Geology and Soils
The Site is located in a portion of the Piedmont known as the Carolina Slate Belt. The Carolina Slate Belt
consists of heated and deformed volcanic and sedimentary rocks. Specifically, the proposed project is
located in felsic metavolcanic rock (CZfv) of the Carolina Slate Belt, which corresponds to the Uwharrie
Formation’s felsic volcanoclastic rocks and portions of the Cid Formation’s rhyolitic-rhyodactic units.
These units consist of light gray to greenish gray, felsic metavolcanic rock interbedded with mafic and
intermediate metavolcanic rock and are composed primarily of feldspar, quartz, sericite, chlorite meta-
argillite, and metamudstone (NCGS, 1985). Coarse-grained intrusive granites comprise the rest of the
Slate Belt rocks (Rogers, 2006).
The geology of this area has important effects on site hydrology. The metavolcanics and metaigneous
rocks that comprise much of the Carolina Slate Belt are among the lowest water-yielding rock units in
North Carolina (Daniel, 1989). Consequently, values for low flows are low compared to other areas of
the State (median 7Q10 value in the Carolina Slate Belt is 0.005 ft3/s/mi2). Of all the regions of the State,
the Carolina Slate Belt has among the lowest potential for sustaining base flows in streams (Giese and
Mason, 1993).
Soil mapping units are based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for Chatham County. Soil types within the study area were
mapped with the NRCS Web Soil Survey and are described below in Table 3 and Figure 6. The Bethel
Branch project area is dominated by Cid-Lignum soils (Figure 6). These soils are well drained.
Table 3: Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions
Soil Name Location Description
Cid-Lignum
complex, CmB
Mapped along the majority of UT1,
UT2, and UT3.
Cid and Lignum soils series are gently sloping, moderately
deep, moderately well-drained soils. They are often found
in uplands.
Nanford-Badin
complex, NaC
Mapped in certain locations of the
floodplains of UT1 and UT2.
Nanford-Baldin complex soils, 6 to 10 % slopes are found
on hill slopes and ridges. They are moderately deep to
deep, well-drained soils.
Georgeville silt
clay loam,
GeC2
Mapped in a small area on the left
floodplain of UT1.
Georgeville silty clay loam soils are generally found on
hillslopes and ridges. They are very deep (>80”) and well
drained soils.
Source: Chatham County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, http://efotg.nrcs.usda.gov
3.1.2 Land Use/Land Cover
Land use and land cover were investigated throughout the watershed using historical aerials of the Site
and adjacent parcels from 1993-2016 and a watershed reconnaissance survey. The most common
historical and current land uses in the watershed are forested and agricultural. There has been almost
no change in land use or land cover throughout the watershed since at least 1993. An area of
approximately 14 acres along the northeastern edge of the UT2 watershed was logged around 2006. The
Site itself has been mostly used for livestock grazing with small portions maintained as managed
herbaceous cover since before 1993. The extents of riparian buffers and agricultural land on Site have
remained consistent over that time. There are no signs of impending land use changes or development
pressure that would impact the project throughout the watershed.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 4 April 2018
3.2 Existing Vegetation
The livestock pastures on the site are dominated by fescue grasses (Festuca spp.). Much of the riparian
area on UT3 is wooded; however, livestock have access to the streams throughout. The majority of UT1
and UT3 have little to no riparian vegetation and livestock have access to these systems. Vegetation in
the wooded areas is primarily comprised of deciduous canopy species including willow oak (Quercus
phellos), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and red maple (Acer
rubrum).
3.3 Project Resources
Wildlands investigated on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the proposed project easement
area following the USACE Routine On-Site Determination Method and NCDWR Stream Identification
methodology. All jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were located using GPS with sub-meter accuracy.
NCDWR Stream Identification Forms are included in Appendix 2. Wetlands determination forms
representative of on-site jurisdictional areas as well as non-jurisdictional upland areas have been
included in Appendix 3. Stream and wetland resources are described below.
3.3.1 Project Site Streams
The Site contains two perennial stream reaches: UT1 and UT2. One additional intermittent stream reach
called UT3 is located at the Site. Table 4 provides a summary of stream resources within the project
limits. Existing conditions are illustrated in Figure 7. Existing conditions cross-sectional surveys are
included in Appendix 4.
Table 4: Project Site Streams
Parameter UT1 UT2 UT3
Length of Reach (lf) 2,512 3,480 461
Valley Confinement Unconfined Unconfined Mod. Conf. to Unconf.
Drainage Area (acres) 485 207 49
Perennial, Intermittent,
Ephemeral P P I
NCDWR Water Quality
Classification C, NSW
Stream Classification1 G4c/E5 G4c/C4 E4b
FEMA Classification N/A N/A N/A
Existing Conditions
Impairment
Cattle impacts, erosion,
incision, partially
deforested buffer
Cattle impacts, erosion,
incision
Cattle impacts, erosion,
impoundment, incision,
deforested buffer
1. The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams. These channels have been heavily manipulated and impacted by livestock and,
therefore, may not fit the classification category exactly as described. Results of the classification are provided for illustrative purposes
only.
UT1
UT1 originates upstream of Moon Lindley Road and enters the site through a corrugated metal culvert
and flows northeast through the site. The first 200 feet of stream (Reach 1A) are incised and overly
widened as it flows through a forested area. This section has vertical banks with severe bank erosion.
The substrate consists of gravel and sand.
Downstream of the wooded area (Reaches 1B and 1C), the channel flows through active pasture. There
are indications of channel and floodplain manipulation along this reach including adjacent spoil piles in
the right floodplain. The first 600 feet of this reach flows through open pasture with no trees. This

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 5 April 2018
section is less incised but is horizontally unstable and appears to be changing rapidly over fairly short
periods of time. Reaches 1B and 1C are dominated by sandy substrate but this is likely a result of cattle
trampling the beds and banks of the channel. An area of degraded riparian wetlands exists primarily on
the left floodplain.
For the remaining reaches of this stream to the downstream end of the project, there is a very narrow
band of trees immediately adjacent to the channel on both banks. The stream is incised and bank
erosion from cattle trampling and fluvial erosion is common. The bed material along this section
includes cobble, gravel, and sand. Throughout the entire length of UT1, the channel appears to have
been straightened and impacts due to cattle trampling are evident. There is an existing ford crossing
approximately 600 feet upstream from the end of the project.
UT2
UT2 originates upstream from R.E. Wright Road and, after passing through a roadway culvert, flows
initially west and then north through the site. Although minor incision has occurred in the past, Reach 1
is largely stable now and has appropriate bedform diversity and coarse substrate of cobble, gravel, and
some sand. This reach flows initially along the edge of a wooded area with a forested buffer on the right
bank and pasture and some intermittent trees on the left bank. This stable reach continues through a
wooded area to an existing ford crossing approximately 1,000 feet downstream of R.E. Wright Road.
UT2 Reach 2 begins downstream of the ford crossing and has been straightened and is incised. Though
this reach flows entirely through a wooded area, cattle impacts are evident. The bed material is a mix of
cobble, gravel, and sand but fine sediment deposition from bank erosion and cattle access is common. In
at least two locations, tree roots are serving as temporary knickpoints and preventing headcuts from
progressing. There is another existing ford crossing approximately 1,000 feet upstream from the end of
the project.
UT3
UT3 originates in an open cattle pasture on the eastern side of the property as it flows out of a small
(1.07 ac) farm pond. The pond outlet overflows into a channel at the southwestern edge of the large
embankment. The existing channel below the pond is small, steep, and alternates between being incised
and eroded to being poorly defined due to severe livestock trampling. This channel flows through an
open cattle pasture and the riparian zones are vegetated only with pasture grasses. The substrate is
primarily gravel and sand with some cobble and bed form variability is poor.
3.3.2 Project Site Wetlands
The wetland delineation was confirmed by USACE staff on November 21, 2017. As shown on Figure 7,
there are nine existing jurisdictional wetland features located on site (Wetlands A-J). Note: Based on the
USACE staff assessment, three potential wetland features located by Wildlands (D, K, and L) did not
possess all three wetland criteria. Wetland L was observed to have hydric soils but did not possess the
hydrology necessary to support the wetland.
The jurisdictional wetland features are classified as seeps and headwater forest wetlands using the
North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) classification key and the evaluator’s best
professional judgement. The wetlands occur on the side slopes and the floodplains that drain to the on-
site stream channels. These features exhibit a high water table, pockets of shallow inundation,
saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil profile, and a low chroma matrix. Vegetation within the
wetlands was significantly disturbed due to livestock grazing and common hydrophytic vegetation was
primarily limited to American water pennywort (Hydrocotlye americana). Wetland determination forms
are located in Appendix 3 and wetland features are summarized in Table 5.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 6 April 2018
Wetlands in the area around wetlands H, I, J, F, and G used to be more extensive but have been drained
and trampled by livestock for decades. This area is proposed for wetlands re-establishment. Two
groundwater gauges were installed on site in May 2016 and were located in potential areas of wetlands
re-establishment. Locations of the gauges and the extent of existing wetlands are shown in Figure 7.
Table 5: Existing Wetland Conditions
Parameter A B C E F G H I J
Size of
Wetland (ac) 0.035 0.141 0.019 0.002 0.079 0.002 0.025 0.011 0.030
Wetland Type
(non-riparian,
riparian
riverine or
riparian non-
riverine)
Riparian
Riverine
Riparian
Riverine
Riparian
Riverine
Riparian
Riverine
Riparian
Riverine
Riparian
Riverine
Riparian
Riverine
Riparian
Riverine
Riparian
Riverine
Mapped Soil
Series Cid-Lignum
Drainage Class Somewhat Poorly Drained to Moderately Well Drained
Soil Hydric
Status Yes
Source of
Hydrology Hillside Groundwater Seep & Groundwater/Overbank Flooding
Restoration or
enhancement
method
(hydrologic,
vegetative,
etc)
Vegetation Enhancement

4.0 Watershed and Channel Disturbance and Response
As discussed above in Section 3.1.2, there has been very little change in land use and land cover within
the project watershed for over two decades. The watershed is currently stable and is a mixture of forest
and agricultural land use with very little development. Nearly 75% of the watershed has been
deforested in the past but only small areas have been cut in recent years. However, these minor
disturbances are the not the main driver of the degradation of the Bethel Branch Site. The primary
disturbances to the project streams have been clearing of the natural vegetation on the site, regular
cattle access to the streams and riparian buffers, and runoff from adjacent pastures. These disturbances
have led to lack of vegetation in some riparian zones, enlarged channels, erosion on stream banks and
beds; destruction of aquatic habitat, and water polluted with cattle wastes, sediment, and nutrients.
5.0 Functional Uplift Potential
The potential for functional uplift is described in this section according to the Stream Functions Pyramid
(Harman, et al., 2012). The Stream Functions Pyramid describes a hierarchy of five stream functions,
each of which supports the functions above it on the pyramid (and sometimes reinforces those below
it). The five functions in order from bottom to top are hydrology, hydraulics, geomorphology,
physicochemical, and biology. Each of these functions is described below and rated using the Stream
Functions Pyramid methodology as “Functioning,” “Functioning-at-Risk” or “Not -Functioning.” If no

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 7 April 2018
data are available to rate a particular function, then that function is classified as “Not-Rated.” The
Performance Standards Tables in Appendix A of the Harman, et al. (2012) publication were the main
source of functional ratings described in this section. Table 6 summarizes existing and proposed stream
functions for all project reaches.
5.1 Hydrology
The major hydrologic disturbance has been deforestation of 75% of the watershed. Alterations in land
cover typically result in reductions in rainfall interception and evapotranspiration which lead to
increases in runoff and water yield (Dunne and Leopold, 1978). Over large areas, these types of changes
result in an increase in both peak flows and base flows. However, initial increases in water yield usually
change over time as vegetation regrows and crops are planted. There are no stream gauges within this
watershed and, thus, no way to know the degree to which clearing of 75% of the land affected this
particular stream system. In a small watershed such as this, the effects are likely minimal. Future
alteration to the land cover and associated effects on hydrology are not expected in the foreseeable
future. No measurements of existing conditions hydrology have been made to date for this project;
therefore, the hydrology function is Not-Rated.
A stream restoration project performed at a specific site does not often result in uplift to hydrology
(Harman et al., 2012). Even though trees will be planted within the conservation easement, this will not
significantly improve the rainfall-runoff relationship for most of the watershed. Therefore, there is no
opportunity for this project to improve the hydrology function in most of the project reaches.
Hydrology will be improved for UT3 by removing the pond that currently impounds water at the
upstream end of the reach. Even though eliminating the impoundment will create hydrologic uplift, it is
difficult to say to what level removing the pond will restore hydrology to UT3. Therefore, for UT3 as well
as the other reaches evaluated, the proposed condition for hydrology is Not-Rated.
5.2 Hydraulics
Many streams on the site are enlarged and incised and, therefore, flows larger in magnitude than the
bankfull discharge are contained within the channel. This has resulted in reduced hydraulic functioning
of the channels according to Harman, et al. (2012). The bank height ratios on the site range from 1.0 (for
a short portion of UT1 where cattle trampling is severe, but banks are low) to 2.8. Most cross sections
show moderate to severe incision (not-functioning). The bank height ratios on the individual tributaries
are as follows: UT1 – 1.0 to 2.8 (functioning to not-functioning), UT2 – 1.5 to 2.5 (not-functioning), and
UT3 – 1.4 or greater (not-functioning). Because most of the streams on the site are moderately to
severely incised, the overall rating for hydraulics for the project streams is not-functioning.
The restoration stream channels will be reconstructed and will be connected to adjacent floodplains so
that stream flows above bankfull stage will access the floodplains. The bank height ratios for all
restoration reaches where new channels are constructed will be 1.0 (functioning). Bank height ratios will
not be changed on EII reaches.
Table 6: Summary of Stream Functions
Resource UT1 R1 UT1 R2 UT2 R1 UT2 R2 UT2 R3 UT2 R4 UT3
Functional
Category Exist. Prop. Exist. Prop. Exist. Prop. Exist. Prop. Exist. Prop. Exist. Prop. Exist. Prop.
Hydrology NR NR NR NR NR F F NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
Hydraulics NF F NF NF NF NF NF F NF F NF NF NF F
Geomorphology NF F FAR F FAR F NF F NF F FAR F NF F
Physiochemical NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 8 April 2018
Resource UT1 R1 UT1 R2 UT2 R1 UT2 R2 UT2 R3 UT2 R4 UT3
Functional
Category Exist. Prop. Exist. Prop. Exist. Prop. Exist. Prop. Exist. Prop. Exist. Prop. Exist. Prop.
Biology NR NR NR NR NR FAR F NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
Overall NF F NF FAR NF FAR NF F NF F NF FAR NF F

5.3 Channel Geomorphology
The cattle trampling, incision, fluvial erosion, and over-widening of the project streams places many of
the stream reaches on the site at Stage IV: Degradation and Widening of the Simon (1989) Channel
Evolution Model, which is classified as not-functioning (Harman, et al., 2012). The unincised portion of
UT1 Reach 1 does not fit into Stage IV but it is difficult to determine the stage due to the severe
trampling from livestock. Reach 2 of UT1 is not incised and is most similar to Stage II: Constructed, which
is also classified as not-functioning. All the length of UT1 is impacted due to cattle access and, except for
the two sections mentioned above, the stream is incised. All of UT2 is incised and over-widened to some
degree and all of the stream is affected by livestock. UT3 is also incised and impacted by livestock along
it’s entire length. There is little to no large woody debris (LWD) in any of the streams on site, which is
considered not-functioning. The riparian vegetation, a geomorphology parameter according to Harman,
et al., along UT1 is not functioning (<30 feet wide). The riparian vegetation along UT2 is functioning-at-
risk, and the riparian vegetation along UT3 is not functioning. No other geomorphology parameters
could be evaluated for the project streams because of existing stream condition and lack of sufficient
data. Other than UT1 Reach 2 and UT2 Reach 1, the existing geomorphology function on the site is very
poor. Therefore, geomorphology is classified as functioning-at-risk or not-functioning for each of the
project streams (Table 6).
There is a significant opportunity to improve the geomorphology function of the streams on the site. For
restoration reaches, the channels will be completely reconstructed, livestock will be fenced out or
removed from the site, and LWD will be added to the system through construction of instream log
structures and bank revetments. Riparian buffers will be planted or supplemented along all of the
restoration reaches. The geomorphology function for restoration reaches will be restored to functioning
(Table 6). For the EII reaches, the channels will not be reconstructed. However, cattle will be fenced out
or removed from the site, buffers will be restored or improved, and, where bank erosion is a problem on
these reaches, banks will be stabilized or channels will be restored, resulting in significantly improved
geomorphology and a change from functioning-at-risk to functioning.
5.4 Physiochemical
No water quality sampling has been conducted on the Bethel Branch Site and there are no water quality
monitoring stations within the watershed. The 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP)
plan indicates that water quality is likely impacted by the large amount of animal operations
within the 14-digit HU. In addition, the Haw River downstream of Cane Creek was on the State 303(d) list
of impaired waters as of 2010 for turbidity. Stream erosion is a primary source of sediment and
turbidity. The project streams drain to the Haw River which flows into Jordan Lake which is classified as
Nutrient Sensitive Waters. Animal operations are a source of nutrients in surface waters. Fecal coliform
is another likely source of pollution within the watershed due to livestock operations. However, because
no water quality data are available to evaluate the current level of physicochemical functioning, this
function is not-rated (Table 6).
There is potential to improve the physicochemical functioning of the project streams. Water will flow
over instream structures that will provide reaeration, buffers will be improved in riparian zones to

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 9 April 2018
eventually shade and cool stream flow and help filter runoff, streams will be reconnected to floodplains
to provide storage and treatment of overbank flows, and streambank erosion will be greatly reduced to
nearly eliminate a major source of sediment and nutrients. However, improvements to physicochemical
functioning will not happen immediately and some aspects on some reaches will not occur until a
mature canopy is established. Therefore, physicochemical improvements will not be included in the
project success criteria for the seven-year monitoring period and the functional uplift potential is not-
rated (Table 6).
5.5 Biology
There are no available biological data for the site; however, the habitat conditions on the site are poor.
While the riffle material is well-mixed small gravel and the pools contain fine to coarse sand, the stream
contains very little woody debris or organic material necessary to support diverse macroinvertebrate
and fish communities. There are no LWD features that would create habitat features. Frequent cattle
access has destroyed much of the bed habitat. However, because no data on the existing communities
are available to evaluate the current level of biologic functioning, this function is not-rated (Table 6).
There is opportunity to improve the instream and riparian habitat in addition to the physicochemical
function described in Section 5.4. Habitat will be improved by adding instream structures with a variety
of rock and woody materials, adding woody bank revetments, restoring or improving riparian buffers to
shade the streams and improve terrestrial habitat, creating pools of variable depths, reducing sources of
fine sediments, and excluding cattle from the project area. However, until the physicochemical function
is significantly improved, the response in the biology function may be slow. The ultimate level of
improvement in biology may not occur until after the completion of the seven-year monitoring period
and, therefore, the functional uplift potential will be not-rated (Table 6).
5.6 Overall Functional Uplift Potential
Overall, all of the reaches can be considered not-functioning in their current state. The functional uplift
potential is a reclassification as functioning-at-risk or functioning due to an improvement in the
geomorphology function only for EII reaches and an improvement in both the geomorphology and
hydraulic function for restoration reaches (Table 6).
The hydrology function will not be significantly improved by the project because watershed-scale
reforestation would be required to drive improvement in this function. Physicochemical and biological
improvements are a likely result of the project. However, there is no existing basis for classifying the
existing condition of these functions and the likely improvements will occur gradually after construction.
Therefore, these functions are not-rated and are not considered in the overall functional rating. No
project goals are tied to these functions.
5.7 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift
The site is currently an active livestock operation. There are three existing ford crossings on the project
site streams – one on UT1 and two on UT2. In addition, UT1 flows onto the site through a Department of
Transportation (DOT) culvert under Moon Lindley Road and UT2 flows onto the site through a DOT
culvert under R.E. Wright Road. The crossings will remain in their current locations. Two of the three
will be converted to culvert crossings. The crossings will be designed to reduce barriers to sediment
transport and aquatic organism passage. The existing DOT culverts will not affect the project and the
conservation easements will terminate at the DOT right-of-ways or utility right-of-ways along the road.
There are no utility easements on the sites that will be within the conservation easement areas. There is
an NRCS farmland preservation easement adjacent to the mitigation conservation easement which will
slightly restrict the buffer width and result in somewhat reduced mitigation credits. Beaver activity has
not been observed on site. If beaver activity begins on the Bethel Branch Site, Wildlands will contract
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to remove them. The valley widths where restoration is

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 10 April 2018
proposed on the site will allow for the development of pattern and channel dimensions to restore
stable, functioning streams. There are no other known constraints to the functional uplift.
6.0 Regulatory Considerations
Table 7, below, is a summary of regulatory considerations for the site. These considerations are
discussed in this Section. All agency correspondence discussed below is included in Appendix 5.
Table 7: Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes No PCN
Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes No PCN
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix 5
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix 5
Coastal Zone Management Act No N/A N/A
Floodplain Compliance Yes No Appendix 5
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A

6.1 Waters of the US (401/404)
There are three non-wetland waters (UT1, UT2, and UT3) totaling 6,351 linear feet within the proposed
project area (Figure 7). Nine wetland areas (Wetlands A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I, and J) totaling 0.344 acres and
one open water feature totaling 1.073 acres are in the proposed project area (Figure 7). During the
USACE site visit, three wetland areas (Wetlands D, K, and L) delineated by Wildlands were determined to
be non-jurisdictional. Currently livestock grazing impacts all existing wetlands. The jurisdictional
determination request has been submitted to the USACE.
6.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
Wildlands utilized the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
databases to search for federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species in Chatham
County, NC. Three animal and one plant species identified as threatened or endangered are currently
listed in Chatham County (Table 8). The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program also lists over 30 rare
and watch list plant and animal species within Chatham County.
Table 8: Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Chatham County, NC
Species Federal Status Common Name Scientific Name
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGPA
Cape Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas Endangered
Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum Endangered

A letter was sent to the USFWS on April 1, 2016, requesting a review of the project and comment on
potential effects on endangered species or other resources. The USFWS responded on July 22, 2016, and
stated the “proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed endangered or
threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat or species currently proposed for listing
under the Act...” All correspondence with USFWS is included in Appendix 5. A pedestrian survey of the

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 11 April 2018
project area was performed on November 7, 2016. No suitable habitat and/or individually federally
listed species were identified in the project area.
A letter requesting review and comment was also sent to the NC Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) on April 1, 2016. The NCWRC responded on June 28, 2016 indicating the project would benefit
water quality and aquatic and terrestrial habitats.
6.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
There are no FEMA mapped streams within the Site. This is illustrated on the Chatham County Flood
Insurance Rate Map Panel 8784 and in Figure 8. Wildlands will coordinate with the local Floodplain
Administrator and the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping program to make sure that all regulatory
requirements are met. It is likely that a floodplain development permit and a technical memo describing
the proposed project will be required but that no modeling will be required for this project.
Coordination with the Chatham County floodplain administrator is included in Appendix 5.
6.4 Cultural Resources / Conservation Lands / Natural Heritage Areas
The site is not located near any sites listed on the National Register with the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO). A letter was sent to the SHPO on April 1, 2016, requesting a review of the project and
comment on potential effects on archeological and cultural resources. SHPO responded on July 1st, 2016
stating that they are not aware of any historic resources that would be affected by the project.
There are no natural heritage areas listed in the immediate vicinity of the bank site, however there are
multiple areas within a five-mile radius. The site is near existing conservation easements for other
stream and wetland mitigation projects. See Figure 2 for locations of existing mitigation sites in the area.
7.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives
The Project will improve stream functions as described in Section 5 through stream restoration and
enhancement, cattle exclusion, and riparian buffer re-vegetation. Project goals are desired project
outcomes and are verifiable through measurement and/or visual assessment. Objectives are activities
that will result in the accomplishment of goals. The project will be monitored after construction to
evaluate performance as described in Section 12 of this report. The project goals and related objectives
are described in Table 9.
Table 9: Mitigation Goals and Objectives
Goals Objectives
Reduce pollutant inputs to streams including fecal
coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorous.
Exclude cattle from streams and buffers by installing
fencing around conservation easements adjacent to
cattle pastures and providing alternative water
sources or removing cattle from sites.
Reduce inputs of sediment into streams from eroding
stream banks.
Reconstruct stream channels with stable dimensions.
Add bank revetments and in-stream structures to
protect restored/enhanced streams.
Return networks of streams to a stable form that is
capable of supporting hydrologic, biologic, and water
quality functions.
Construct stream channels that will maintain a stable
pattern and profile considering the hydrologic and
sediment inputs to the system, the landscape setting,
and the watershed conditions.
Improve aquatic habitat in project streams.
Install habitat features such as constructed riffles,
cover logs, and brush toes into restored/enhanced
streams. Add woody materials to channel beds.
Construct pools of varying depth.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 12 April 2018
Goals Objectives
Raise stream bed elevations and allow for more
frequent overbank flows to provide a source of
hydration for floodplain wetlands. Reduce shear stress
on channels during larger flow events.
Reconstruct stream channels with appropriate
bankfull dimensions and depth relative to the existing
floodplain.
Create and improve riparian and wetland habitats by
planting native vegetation. Provide a canopy to shade
streams and reduce thermal loadings. Create a source
of woody inputs for streams. Reduce flood flow
velocities on floodplain and improve long-term lateral
stability of streams.
Plant native tree and shrub species in riparian zone
and wetland areas.
Restore wetland hydrology, soils, and plant
communities.
Restore riparian wetlands by raising stream beds,
plugging existing ditches, removing fill material over
relict hydric soils, and planting native wetland
species.
Ensure that development and agricultural uses that
would damage the site or reduce the benefits of project
are prevented.
Establish conservation easements on the sites.

8.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan
8.1 Design Approach Overview
The design approach for this Site was developed to meet the goals and objectives described in Section 7
which were formulated based on the potential for uplift described in Section 5. The design is also
intended to achieve the objectives in Table 9. Multiple project reaches 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. The adjacent floodplains will be planted
with native tree species. Instream structures will be constructed in the restored channels to help
maintain stable channel morphology and improve aquatic habitat. Reaches that are not in need of full
restoration will be fenced to exclude livestock (or livestock will be removed) and riparian zones will be
planted as needed. Bank repairs will also be made on some enhancement reaches. The entire project
area will be protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement.
The design approach for this site utilized a combination of analog and analytical approaches for stream
restoration. Reference reaches were identified to serve as the basis for design parameters. Channels
were sized based on design discharge and sediment transport analyses.
8.2 Reference Streams
Reference streams provide geomorphic parameters of a stable system, which can be used to inform
design of stable channels of similar stream types in similar landscapes and watersheds. Eight reference
reaches were identified for this Site and used to support the design of the three project streams (Figure
9). These reference reaches were chosen because of their similarities to the Site streams including
drainage area, valley slope, channel slope, and bed material. The reference reaches are all located
within the Carolina Slate Belt region of the Piedmont except for UT to Sandy Run and Box Creek, which
are located in the western Piedmont. Geomorphic parameters for these reference reaches are
summarized in Appendix 6. The references to be used for the specific streams are shown in Table 10. A
description of each reference reach is included below.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 13 April 2018
Table 10: Reference Reaches used for Project Streams
Long
Branch
UT to Cane
Creek
Spencer
Creek 1
Spencer
Creek 2
Foust
Upstream
UT to Polecat
Creek
UT to Sandy
Run
Stream Type: C4/E4 C4/E4 E4/C4 E4 C4 E4 E4
UT1 R1 X X X1
UT2 R2 X
UT2 R3 X
UT3 X X X
1. Primarily used for profile parameters
Long Branch
Long Branch is located in central Orange County, NC approximately 4 miles northwest of the Community
of Eubanks. This site was classified as a C4/E4 stream type and has a drainage area of 1.49 square miles.
This reach flows through a mature forest and has a channel slope of 0.4%. The bed material d50 for the
reach is 41.6 mm. This reach was used as a reference reach for UT1.
Spencer Creek 2
Spencer Creek Reach 2 is located in central Montgomery County, NC. This site was classified as an E4
stream type and has a drainage area of 0.96 square miles. This reach flows through a mature forest and
has a valley slope of 1.1% and a channel slope of 0.5%. The bed material d50 for the reach is 8.8 mm. This
reach was used as a source of information to develop profile parameters for UT1.
UT to Cane Creek
UT to Cane Creek, is located in southern Alamance County less than 10 miles from the project site. This
stream is classified as a C4/E4 stream type and has a drainage area of 0.28 mi2. This reach also flows
through a mature forest and has a channel slope of 0.46%. The morphological parameters reported for
the riffle cross section include a width to depth ratio of 13.1 and an entrenchment ratio of >2.2. This
reach was used as a reference for the design of UT1.
Foust Creek
The Foust Creek reference reach is located approximately 600 feet upstream of the Foust Creek
Mitigation Site in Alamance County, NC. The Foust Creek reference reach has a drainage area of 1.38
square miles, a valley slope of 0.95% and a channel slope of 0.9%. The reach is classified as a C4 stream
type and has a d50 of 43 mm. This reach flows through a mature forest and, although it is stable, it lacks
sinuosity. It was used in this project to inform the design of UT2. The d50 of this cobble bed stream is 61
mm.
UT to Polecat Creek
The UT to Polecat Creek reference reach is located approximately 8 miles north of Asheboro in Randolph
County. This reference reach was used for the design of UT3. It has a watershed similar in size to the
project streams (0.41 sq. mi.). It is an E4 stream type with a width to depth ratio of 5.2 to 9.6 and an
entrenchment ratio of 3.2 to 8.3.
UT to Sandy Run
The UT to Sandy Run reference reach is located approximately 10 miles southwest of Shelby, NC in
Cleveland County. This reference reach has a watershed similar in size (0.15 sq. mi.) and geomorphic
characteristics to UT3 and was used as a reference for this stream. It is an E4 stream type with a steeper
slope (2.0%), width to depth ratio of 6.6 to 9.8, and an entrenchment ratio of 1.6 to 2.1. The d50 of this
reach is 19mm.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 14 April 2018
8.3 Design Channel Morphological Parameters
Reference reaches were an important source of information to develop the cross section, pattern, and
profile design parameters for the restoration reaches. Ranges of pattern parameters were developed
within the reference reach parameter ranges with some exceptions based on best professional
judgement and experience from previous projects. For example, radius of curvature ratio and meander
width ratio have been kept above 2.0 on all reaches. Wildlands has found these minimum ratios to
support stable geometry. Pool depths were designed to be a minimum of 1.8 times deeper than riffles to
provide habitat variation. Cross-section parameters such as area, depth, and width were designed based
on the design discharge, stable bank slopes, and width to depth ratios similar to reference conditions.
UT1 Reach 1 has been broken out into three sub reaches (A, B, and C) because slight changes in
longitudinal slope resulted in some differences in cross-sectional parameters even though the design
discharge did not change. Key morphological parameters for the restoration reaches are listed in Tables
11 through 13. Complete morphological tables for existing, reference, and proposed conditions are
located in Appendix 6.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 15 April 2018

Table 11: Summary of Morphological Parameters for UT1

Parameter
Existing Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed Parameters
UT1 Reach
1A
UT1
Reach 1B
UT1 Reach
1C
Long
Branch
UT to Cane
Creek
Spencer
Creek 2
UT1 Reach
1A
UT1 Reach
1B
UT1
Reach 1C
Valley Width (ft.) 128 70 81 --- 95 --- 128 70 81
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 201 234 278 954 179.2 614 201 234 278
Channel/Reach Classification G4c E5 E5 C/E4 C4/E4 E4 C4 C42 C42
Bankfull Width (ft.) 12.6 7.2 7.4 14.8 –
18.6 8.2 – 11.8 10.7 - 11.2 14.2 12.0 13.2
Bankfull Depth (ft.) 1.1 0.8 1.6 1.3 – 2.1 0.9 – 1.0 1.6 – 1.8 1.3 1.0 1.1
Bankfull Area (ft2) 13.4 5.8 11.8 28 - 34.6 8.5 – 10.7 17.8 –
19.7 18.4 12.4 14.7
Bankfull Discharge Velocity (ft./s) 2.9 ---1 3.3 3.6 – 4.0 2.4 – 5.0 4.9 – 5.4 2.1 3.2 2.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)1 39 ---1 39 101 - 124 21.0 – 53.0 97 39 39 39
Channel Slope (%) 0.25 0.39 0.45 0.4 0.5 0.47 0.25 0.73 0.45
Sinuosity 1.08 1.05 1.2 1.3 1.2 2.3 1.15 1.15 1.15
Width/Depth Ratio 7.9 9.0 4.6 7.9 – 13.8 7.9 – 13.1 5.8 – 7.1 11 12 12
Bank Height Ratio 2.8 <1 1.7 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.2 >2.2 >2.2 >3.4 >4.6 5.5 - >10.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2
d50 (mm) 4.18 0.33 0.33 41.6 --- <0.063, 3,
8.8, 42, 90 4.18 0.332 0.332
1. UT1 Reach 1B has been heavily manipulated and disturbed by livestock and appears to be significantly undersized to convey the bankfull discharge.
2. UT1 Reaches 1B and 1C have a d50 in the sand range; however, this is largely due to livestock trampling the banks. After construction, the streams are expected to have d50
values in the gravel range.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 16 April 2018

Table 12: Summary of Morphological Parameters for UT2
Parameter Existing Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed Parameters
UT2 Reach 2 UT2 Reach 3 Foust Creek UT2 Reach 2 UT2 Reach 3
Valley Width (ft.) 88 90 --- 88 90
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 143 199 883 143 199
Channel/Reach Classification G4 C4 C4 C4 C4
Bankfull Width (ft.) 7.7 10.4 18.5 - 19.4 10.0 10.4
Bankfull Depth (ft.) 1.0 0.9 1.3 - 1.4 0.8 0.9
Bankfull Area (ft2) 7.5 8.9 23.9 - 24.1 8.0 8.9
Bankfull Discharge Velocity (ft./s) 3.4 3.4 2.9 - 3.7 3.0 3.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)1 25 30 88 24 30
Channel Slope % 1.0 0.68 0.90 0.93 1.0
Sinuosity 1.17 1.13 1.10 1.15 1.15
Width/Depth Ratio 7.9 12.2 13.9 - 14.2 13 12
Bank Height Ratio 2.1 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 4.8 2.6 - 3.4 >2.2 >2.2
d50 (mm) 9.38 9.38 --- 9.38 9.38

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 17 April 2018
Table 13: Summary of Morphological Parameters for UT3
Parameter Existing Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed Parameters
UT3 Spencer Creek 1 UT to Polecat Creek UT to Sandy Run UT3
Valley Width (ft.) 43 --- --- --- 43
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 49

320 262 96 48.5
Channel/Reach Classification E4b E4/C4 E4 E4 C4
Bankfull Width (ft.) 3.0 8.7 10.9 7.3 – 7.8 7.0
Bankfull Depth (ft.) 0.8 1.2 1.1 0.7 – 0.8 0.5
Bankfull Area (ft2) 2.4 10.6 12.0 5.7 – 6.2 3.7
Bankfull Discharge Velocity (ft./s) 4.6 4.8 1.6 3.4 3.1
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)1 11 51 20.3 20 11
Channel Slope % 2.2 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.7
Sinuosity 1.05 2.32 1.0 1.6 1.2
Width/Depth Ratio 3.6 7.3 9.9 6.6 – 9.8 13
Bank Height Ratio 1.05 1.0 1.0 – 1.1 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio 2.0 26.3 3.2 – 8.3 2.1 >2.2
d50 (mm) 7.23 8.6 --- 19 7.23
1. Existing Bankfull Discharge is calculated with Manning’s equation for a flow at the elevation of field identified bankfull indicators. The proposed conditions bankfull discharge
(design discharge) is based on detailed statistical hydrologic analysis as described in Section 8.4.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 18 April 2018
8.4 Design Discharge Analysis
Multiple methods were used to develop design bankfull discharge estimates for each of the project
restoration reaches. The resulting values were compared. Concurrence between the estimates and best
professional judgment were used to determine the specific design discharge for each restoration reach.
Each of the methods is described below.
8.4.1 Published Regional Curve Data
Bankfull discharge was estimated using the published NC Rural Piedmont Curve (Harman et al., 1999) as
well as the updated NRCS curve for rural Piedmont and mountain streams (Walker, unpublished).
8.4.2 Regional Flood Frequency Analysis
A regional flood frequency analysis was performed by using 28 USGS gauges in the North Carolina
Piedmont including five gauges with drainage areas smaller than 1 square mile. The Hosking and Walls
(1993) homogeneity test was performed using statistical software R© to identify the most appropriate
gages for use in the analysis. Flood frequency regression curves were developed to calculate discharges
for ungauged streams in the North Carolina Piedmont for the 1-year, 1.2-year, and 1.5-year recurrence
intervals.
8.4.3 Reference Reach Regional Curve
Seven reference reaches were identified to develop design data for this project (Section 8.2) and to
develop a reference reach curve. Survey data from each reference reach was used to generate
information for analyzing drainage area-discharge relationships. Stable cross-sectional dimensions and
channel slopes were used to compute a bankfull discharge with the Manning’s equation for each
reference reach. The resulting discharge values were plotted with drainage area and compared to the
other discharge estimation methods. Development of the reference reach curve focused on sites with
comparable drainage area, slopes, and dimensions as the project streams.
8.4.4 Design Discharge Analysis Summary
The design discharges for each restoration reach were developed so that the reconstructed channels will
flood with the desired frequency. Results from each of the methods described above were evaluated
and compared to the other methods. For this analysis, emphasis was placed on the results from the
regional flood frequency (1.2-year event), the Walker regional curve, and the reference reach curve in
determination of design discharge. Table 14 gives a summary of the discharge analysis. Figure 10
illustrates the design discharge data analysis.
Table 14: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis

UT1 –
Reach 1
UT2 –
Reach 2
UT2 – Reach
3 UT3
DA (acres) 278 143 199 49
DA (sq. mi.) 0. 43 0.22 0.31 0.08
Regional Flood Frequency
Analysis
1 -year event 12.7 7.31 9.64 2.98
1.2-year event 42.0 25.7 32.8 11.6
1.5-year event 60.4 37.3 47.4 17.1
Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman, et. Al, 1999) 49 30 38 14
Rural Piedmont and Mountain Regional Curve
(Walker, unpublished) 29 17 22 7
Qbkf from Reference Reach Curve 40 25 32 12
Final Design Q 39 24 30 11

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 19 April 2018
8.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
Small streams in the Slate Belt are generally low bedload systems. To assess the magnitude of the bed
load supply on the project streams, Wildlands performed a qualitative assessment of the sediment
volume and sources in the project watershed. The watershed was assessed through aerial photography
and field reconnaissance to characterize past and current land cover and potential sediment sources (for
more information on the project watershed, refer to Section 3.0). The primary sediment sources within
the watershed are streambank erosion (both fluvial erosion and erosion from livestock hoof shear) and,
to a lesser degree, bed scour. The land cover in the watershed is mostly forest or pasture, so overland
runoff is not likely a significant source of sediment. On-site streams were visually inspected several
times during 2016 and 2017 to qualitatively assess aggradation and degradation within the channels.
UT1 Reach 1, UT2 Reach 2, UT2 Reach 3, and UT3 all exhibited evidence of on-going fluvial erosion. All of
the project reaches have been impacted by cattle and some reaches such as UT1 Reach 1 have severe
cattle impacts. However, accumulations of fine sediment were not commonly observed indicating that
aggradation within the project streams is not an issue. Once the project is constructed, on-site sediment
sources will be addressed by protecting streambanks, reducing shear stress in the channels, and
excluding cattle from the conservation easement.
The watershed assessment indicates that the bedload supply is relatively low and that the project
streams are not capacity limited. The focus of sediment transport analysis for this design was to verify
that the designed channels will be stable over time and can pass sediment from the watersheds. Both
competence and capacity analyses were performed on the streams to aid in the development of the
final channel designs.
8.5.1 Competence Analysis
Competence analyses were performed for each restoration reach (UT1 Reach 1, UT2 Reaches 2 and 3,
and UT3) by comparing shear stress associated with the design bankfull discharge, channel dimensions,
and channel slope with the size distribution of the bed load. The analysis utilized standard equations
based on a methodology using the Shields (1936) curve and Andrews (1984) equation described by
Rosgen (2001). This analysis is used to verify that the design will move the bed load material supplied to
the stream. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 15.
Table 15: Results of Competence Analysis

The competence analysis indicates that each design reach will have enough boundary shear stress to
move the largest particle in the subpavement (which is theoretically representative of the bedload). It
should be noted that the competence analysis is based on the size material naturally found in the
UT1 – Reach 1 UT2 – Reach 2 UT2 – Reach 3 UT3
Dbkf (ft.) 1.10 0.80 0.90 0.50
Schan (ft./ft.) 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.011
Bankfull Shear Stress, t (lb. /sq. ft.) 0.24 0.48 0.52 0.53
Dmax Bar/Subpavement (mm) 44.07 47.29 47.30 59.82
Dcrit (ft.) 1.29 0.70 0.65 0.87
Scrit (ft. /ft.) 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.019
Movable particle size (mm) 53.91 89.09 93.85 94.72
Predicted Shear Stress to move Dmax 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.28

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 20 April 2018
stream. Riffles with larger material such as chunky riffles will be used in the design as grade control. The
reconstructed channels will not produce enough shear stress to entrain the large particles in these
structures. Therefore, excess shear stress will not present a problem.
8.5.2 Capacity Analysis
To evaluate the sediment transport capacity of the project streams HEC-RAS models were developed for
existing and proposed conditions for representative reaches of UT1 Reach 1, UT2 Reach 2, UT2 Reach 3,
and UT3. The hydraulic design sediment capacity module of HEC-RAS was used to verify that proposed
design reaches will transport the sediment loads supplied to them from their watersheds at the bankfull
discharge. The Meyer-Peter-Mueller equation was used for the analysis since the ranges of channel
slope, depth, and sediment size for which the equation is recommended were the most representative
of the project reaches. HEC-RAS results are available in Appendix 7.
The results of the HEC-RAS analysis indicate that the proposed restored channels will have the capacity
to convey more sediment than the existing channels (Table 16). Because aggradation of the sediment
supplied to the existing channels is not a problem and capacity will increase while supply remains the
same or decreases, aggradation is not expected to be a problem in the restored channels. The channels
will be protected from excess stream power through grade control structures and armoring certain
riffles with large rock that will not be mobilized by bankfull flows.
Table 16: Results of Capacity Analysis
Bankfull Discharge Sediment Transport Capacity (tons/day)
Existing Proposed
UT1 Reach 1 79 108
UT2Reach 2 65 86
UT2 Reach 3 75 97
UT3 12 13

8.6 Project Implementation
8.6.1 Overview
The mitigation approaches proposed for the streams and wetlands on the site have been developed to
achieve the potential for functional uplift relative to the existing conditions on the site (described in
Section 5). The site plan includes elements of stream restoration, stream enhancement II, wetland
rehabilitation, wetland re-establishment, and wetland enhancement as described below. Figures 11-13
shows the approaches proposed for each of the project reaches and wetland areas. Table 17
summarizes the functional impairments and mitigation approaches for each project reach and wetland
area.
Table 17: Functional Impairments and Restoration Approach
Resource Functional Impairments Restoration Approach
UT1 Reach 1 Incision, erosion, livestock access, partially
deforested buffer Priority 1/Priority 2 Restoration
UT1 Reach 2 Incision, erosion, livestock access, partially
deforested buffer Enhancement II
UT2 Reach 1 Cattle access, minor incision Enhancement II
UT2 Reach 2 Cattle access, erosion, incision Priority 1 Restoration
UT2 Reach 3 Cattle access, erosion, incision Priority 1 Restoration

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 21 April 2018
Resource Functional Impairments Restoration Approach
UT2 Reach 4 Cattle access, minor incision Enhancement II
UT3 Cattle access, deforested buffer, on-line pond Priority I Restoration
Wetland
Rehabilitation Cattle access, partially deforested, channelized Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-
Establishment Cattle access, partially deforested, channelized Wetland Re-Establishment
Wetland
Enhancement Cattle access, deforested Wetland Enhancement

Restoration reaches will be constructed as priority 1, except for the upstream portion of UT1 that comes
out of the culvert under Moon-Lindley Road. The stream restoration reaches have been designed to
create stable, functional stream channels based on reference reach parameters, design discharge
analysis, and sediment transport analysis. Dimension, pattern, and profile have been designed for all
restoration reaches to provide a cross-sectional area sized for frequent overbank flows, a stable bed
with variable bed forms, well-vegetated bank slopes, a well-connected floodplain, and improvements to
aquatic habitat and water quality enabling biological lift. Improved vertical and lateral stability will
greatly reduce stream channel erosion. Diverse bedforms will be established using in-stream structures
appropriate for the geomorphic setting. These structures will provide grade control to prevent incision
and serve as habitat features. Pools will have varied depths to increase habitat diversity and mimic
natural streams.
Enhancement II reaches are characterized by relatively stable channels that have incised in the past but
are now stable. These channels are mostly located in wooded areas and, though most are currently
accessible by livestock, impacts from livestock are mostly minor. These channels will be left in place and
livestock exclusion will return the streams to a highly-functional state. Livestock exclusion will enhance
water quality and improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along these reaches.
All the project reaches and wetland areas will be placed in a conservation easement to protect the
project in perpetuity. The easement will be fenced to keep livestock out of the project area along the
perimeter of the project where livestock pasture will remain after project completion. The streambanks,
floodplains, and wetland areas will be planted with native tree and shrub species as described below in
Section 8.7.
8.6.2 UT1
UT1 flows onto the project site through a culvert under Moon-Lindley Road. The channel is very incised
along Reach 1A (station 100+22 to 102+85). However, due to the depth of the culvert, this reach will be
constructed as Priority 2 restoration by leaving the bed at its existing elevation and cutting a floodplain
bench on both sides of the channel at the bankfull elevation. The benches will be flat and approximately
five feet wide though the widths will be somewhat variable. The bed profile along Reach 1A will be
constructed with a fairly low slope (0.25%) so that it can be tied into the upstream end of the first
Priority 1 reach, Reach 1B, at station 102+85. This reach, which extends to station 108+33 will be
constructed largely off-line but it will crisscross the existing channel. The slope of this reach will be
steeper at 0.7%. Priority 1 will continue through Reach 1C with a slope of 0.4% to station 124+13. Reach
1C will continue on with a steeper slope (0.8%) to station 125+86 to tie in with the existing bed elevation
of Reach 2. Reaches 1C will meander across the existing channel similar to Reach 1B. Reach 2 will be
treated as an enhancement II reach and the channel will not be raised or reconstructed.
In-stream structures constructed in the restoration reaches will include constructed riffles, boulder toes,
brush toes, and angled log sills. These structures will protect the stream from vertical and lateral

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 22 April 2018
erosion and create diverse habitat in the channel. Pools with variable depths will be constructed to
dissipate energy and increase habitat diversity. Constructed riffles will be built from excavated on-site
rock when possible. Constructed riffles will incorporate woody material and logs, which will provide
varied pore spaces within the riffles and benefit hyporheic exchange processes and habitat formation.
Boulder sills and log sills will be installed at the tail end of some riffles to accommodate small grade
drops across pools. At select outer meander bends, channel banks will be constructed with brush toe or
boulder toe revetments to reduce erosion potential, encourage pool maintenance, and provide habitat
features. Sod harvested on site will be used to the extent possible to provide bank protection. To the
degree that sod is not available coir fiber matting will be used.
UT1 will have one easement break for a crossing between station 117+90 and station 118+40. External
crossings are necessary for this project because they have already been included in the surrounding
farmland conservation easement and have been approved by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture. The crossing will consist of a culvert
that will be designed and installed so as not to impede passage of aquatic organisms and a gravel road
over the culvert.
8.6.3 UT2
The upstream reach of UT2 (Reach 1, station 200+01 to 212+43) enters the site through a culvert under
R.E. Wright Road. Because this reach flows through a wooded area, it is fairly stable (though it has
incised in the past). It has a gravel- and cobble-dominated substrate and has fairly diverse bed forms. It
is proposed for an enhancement II treatment that will not involve channel reconstruction or
stabilization. Reach 2 (212+93 to 225+23) will be Priority 1 restoration. Similar to the UT1 restoration
reaches, this reach will be constructed to meander across the existing channel. The slope of this reach
will range from 0.6% to 1.2%. Reach 3 is also proposed as Priority 1 restoration and extends from station
225+23 to 229+34. This reach will be constructed on the left floodplain of the existing channel but will
move the stream closer to the center of its valley. The slope of Reach 3 will be 0.9%.
In-stream structures on Reaches 2 and 3 will include constructed riffles, brush toes, and angled log sills.
Pools will be constructed with variable depths. Sod harvested on-site and/or coir fiber matting will be
used to provide bank protection.
UT2 will have easement breaks for crossings between Reach 1 and Reach 2 (stations 212+43 to 212+93)
and near the downstream end of Reach 2 (stations 223+58 to 224+08). Like the crossing on UT1, the UT2
crossings will consist of culverts that will be designed and installed so as not to impede passage of
aquatic organisms. The crossings will have gravel roads over the culverts.
8.6.4 UT3
The upstream extent of UT3 is currently dammed, creating a 1-acre pond. The dam is proposed to be
removed as part of the project so that the stream channel can be restored through the pond. The dam
material will be removed and a portion of it will be used to fill the pond bottom to provide stable
foundation for construction of the new channel. The remainder of the excavated material will be used to
fill portions of the old channels on the site. Once the dam is removed, hydrology for UT3 will be
improved. The stream restoration will begin near the upstream extent of the existing impoundment
(station 301+39). Beyond the existing dam, the restored channel will follow the existing alignment
flowing to the west until it reaches the confluence with UT2 (station 309+40). The proposed channel will
be a sinuous Priority 1 restoration.
In-stream structures on UT3 will include constructed riffles, brush toes, and angled log sills. Like the
other restored streams on the Site, pools will be constructed with variable depths and sod harvested on-
site and/or coir fiber matting will be used to provide bank protection.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 23 April 2018
8.6.5 Wetland Areas
Wetland re-establishment areas (RE1 and RE2) are portions of the site where wetlands previously
existed but have been drained, deforested, and impacted by livestock access. RE1 is on the left
floodplain of UT1 and RE2 is on the right floodplain of UT1. Four wetland rehabilitation areas (RH1 –
RH4) are small jurisdictional wetland areas adjacent to UT1 in the vicinity of of RE1 and RE2. Hydrology
will be improved in all of these areas by raising the stream bed and spreading out flow from adjacent
hillslopes and seeps. No grading is proposed to cut down to relict hydric soils. Groundwater gauge data
was collected at two locations - RE1 from April 28, 2016 to November 29, 2017 and near RH4 from April
28, 2016 to March 1, 2017 (Figure 7, Appendix 8). These data indicate that the hydrology in these areas
is sufficient to support wetland communities. The activities described above to improve hydrology in
addition to planting with native wetland vegetation and excluding livestock will result in functioning
wetlands. An additional jurisdictional wetland area currently exists below the dam on UT3, along the
right floodplain of the existing channel. This area has been deforested and impacted by livestock access.
This area is proposed for wetland enhancement (wetland area E1) and will be planted with native
wetland vegetation and protected from livestock encroachment by fencing. All proposed wetland
mitigation areas will be protected by the conservation easement.
8.7 Vegetation and Planting Plan
The objective of the planting plan is to establish, over time, a thriving riparian community composed of
native tree species. This restored buffer will improve riparian upland and wetland habitats, help the
restored streams stay stable, shade the streams, and provide a source for LWD and organic material to
the streams. Riparian buffers will be seeded and planted with early successional native vegetation
chosen to create a Piedmont Bottomland Forest community. The specific species composition to be
planted was selected based on the community type, observation of occurrence of species in riparian
buffers adjacent to the site, and best professional judgement on species establishment and anticipated
site conditions in the early years following project implementation. Species chosen for the planting plan
are listed on Sheet 2.0 of the construction plans and in Table 18 below. The Construction Plans also
contain additional guidance on planting zones, site preparation, and site stabilization during
construction.
Table 18: Species for Buffer Planting Zone
Species Common
Name
Max
Spacing
Indiv.
Spacing
Min. Caliper
Size Stratum # of Stems
Quercus phellos Willow Oak 12 ft. 6-12 ft. 0.25”-1.0” Canopy 10%
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 12 ft. 6-12 ft. 0.25”-1.0” Canopy 20%
Betula nigra River Birch 12 ft. 6-12 ft. 0.25”-1.0” Canopy 20%
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark
Oak 12 ft. 6-12 ft. 0.25”-1.0” Canopy 5%
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar 12 ft. 6-12 ft. 0.25”-1.0” Canopy 10%
Celtis accidentalis Hackberry 12 ft. 6-12 ft. 0.25”-1.0” Canopy 5%
Ulmus americana American Elm 12 ft. 6-12 ft. 0.25”-1.0” Canopy 5%
Quercus michauxii Swamp
Chestnut Oak 12 ft. 6-12 ft. 0.25”-1.0” Canopy 10%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 12 ft. 6-12 ft. 0.25”-1.0” Canopy 15%
100%

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 24 April 2018
The riparian buffer areas will be planted with bare root seedlings. In addition, the stream banks of
restoration reaches will be planted with live stakes. The toe of each bank of these areas will be planted
with plugs of herbaceous species. Live stake and herbaceous plug species are shown in Table 19 below.
Bare roots will be planted at an initial density of 605 plants per acre based on a 12-foot by 6-foot
spacing (targeted densities after monitoring year 3 are 320 stems per acre). Live stakes will be installed
above base flow elevation with 6-foot spacing. Herbaceous plugs will be planted at the toe of left and
right banks in tangent sections and point bars at a 4-foot spacing. Permanent herbaceous seed will be
spread on streambanks, floodplain areas, and all disturbed areas within the conservation easement.
Table 19: Species for Streambank Planting Zone
Species Common
Name
Max
Spacing
Indiv.
Spacing Min. Size Stratum % of
Stems
Live Stakes
Cornus ammomum Silky Dogwood 8 ft. 2-8 ft. 0.5”-1.5” cal. Shrub 40%
Salix sericea Silky Willow 8 ft. 2-8 ft. 0.5”-1.5” cal. Shrub 40%
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 8 ft. 2-8 ft. 0.5”-1.5” cal. Shrub 20%
100%
Herbaceous Plugs
Juncus effusus Common Rush 5 ft. 3-5 ft. 1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb 40%
Carex alata Broadwing
Sedge 5 ft. 3-5 ft. 1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb 30%
Carex stricta Tussock Sedge 5 ft. 3-5 ft. 1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb 30%
100%

8.8 Project Risk and Uncertainties
In general, this project has low risk. Due to the rural nature of the watershed, there is very little risk that
changes in land use upstream in the project watershed would alter the hydrology or sediment supply
enough to damage the project streams after construction. There are three internal crossings: one on
UT1 and two on UT2 as described in Section 8.6.
9.0 Determination of Credits
The stream and wetland mitigation credits associated with the Bethel Branch Site are listed in Table 20.
Stream restoration is proposed at a ratio of 1:1. Stream enhancement I is proposed at a ratio of 1.5:1.
Stream enhancement II is proposed at a ratio of 2.5:1. For some reaches, the total number of mitigation
credits is adjusted due to reduced easement/buffer width. Wetland re-establishment is proposed at a
ratio of 1:1, wetland rehabilitation is proposed at 1.5:1, and wetland enhancement is proposed at 2:1.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 25 April 2018
Table 20: Project Asset Table
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland Riparian Buffer4
Type R RE R RE R RE R RE
Totals 5,228 N/A 3.137 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Project Components
Project
Component or
Reach ID
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Proposed
Stationing
Location
Approach
(P1, P2,
etc.)
Restoration or
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Total
Credits1
Adjusted
Credits2
UT1 Reach 1 2,398
100+22 –
117+90 P2 & P1 Restoration 2,514 1:1 2,514 2,432 118+40 –
125+86
UT1 Reach 2 114 125+86 –
127+00 N/A Enhancement
II 114 2.5:1 46 0
UT2 Reach 1 1,242 200+01 –
212+43 N/A Enhancement
II 1242 2.5:1 497 487
UT2 Reach 2 1,364
212+93 –
223+58 P1 Restoration 1180 1:1 1,180 1,152 224+08 –
225+23
UT2 Reach 3 440 225+23 –
229+34 P1 Restoration 411 1:1 411 378
UT2 Reach 4 434 229+34 –
233+68 N/A Enhancement
II 434 2.5:1 174 0
UT3 461 301+39 –
309+40 P1 Restoration 801 1:1 801 779
RE1 and RE2 3.03 N/A N/A Re-
establishment 3.03 1:1 3.030 3.030
RH1 – RH4 0.07 N/A N/A Rehabilitation 0.07 1.5:1 0.047 0.047
E1 0.06 N/A N/A Enhancement 0.06 2:1 0.060 0.060
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream
(LF)3
Riparian
Wetland
(Acres)
Non-Riparian Wetland
(Acres)
Buffer (sq.
ft.)4 Upland (Acres)
Restoration 4,923 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Enhancement I N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Enhancement II 1,690 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Re-Establishment N/A 3.03 N/A N/A N/A
Rehabilitation N/A 0.07 N/A N/A N/A
Enhancement N/A 0.12 N/A N/A N/A
1. Total Credits are based on reach length and proposed mitigation ratio and do not include adjustments for reduced buffer width.
2. Adjusted credits are the final credit total including the adjustments for reduced buffer width.
3. Credit totals does not include crossing widths. Component summation does include crossings.
4. Buffer credits will be summarized in a separate document.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 26 April 2018
10.0 Credit Release Schedule
The credit release schedule follows the 2013 Wilmington District credit release schedule guidance
document. The initial credit release will be based on the estimated credits in the final mitigation plan. All
subsequent credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as-built survey
of the mitigation site. All preservation credits will be fully released at the initial credit release. 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 Interagency Review Team (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 at the discretion of the DE in consultation with the IRT. Extended monitoring may be required
should the site fail to meet the specified performance standards. The release of project credits will be
subject to the criteria described in Table 21.
Table 21: Credit Release Schedule - Stream Credits
Stream Credit Release Schedule
Release Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Released
1 Bank Establishment 15% 15%
2 Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made pursuant to
the Mitigation Plan 15% 30%
3 First year monitoring report demonstrates channels are stable and interim
performance standards have been met 10% 40%
4 Second year monitoring report demonstrates channels are stable and interim
performance standards have been met 10% 50%
5 Third year monitoring report demonstrates channels are stable and interim
performance standards have been met 10% 60%
6 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates channels are stable and interim
performance standards have been met 5% 65%
(75%1)
7 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met 10% 75%
(85%1)
8 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met 5% 80%
(90%1)
9 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable,
performance standards have been met. 10% 90%
(100%1)
1. Ten percent of credits reserved for the site that can be subsequently released after four bankfull events have occurred in
separate monitoring years, provided that the channel is stable and all other performance standards are being met.
10.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits is defined as Bank Establishment in the 2013 Wilmington District
credit release schedule guidance document. The initial allocation can be released without prior written
approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a. Execution of the Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument by the Sponsor and the USACE
b. Approval of the Final Mitigation Plan
c. Recordation of the conservation easement, as well as delivery of a title opinion that is
acceptable to the USACE.
d. Delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan.
e. 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 27 April 2018
10.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream projects, a reserve
of 10% of a site’s total stream credits shall be released after four bankfull events have occurred in
separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event
that less than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits
shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with the credit release,
the Sponsor 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.
11.0 Performance Standards
The stream performance standards for the project site will follow approved performance standards
presented in the NC IRT Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update
(10/24/2016). Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of
the finished project. Specific performance standard components are proposed for stream morphology,
hydrology, and vegetation. Performance standards will be evaluated throughout the seven-year post-
construction monitoring period.
11.1 Streams
11.1.1 Dimension
Riffle cross sections on the restoration reaches should be stable and should show little change in
bankfull area, and width-to-depth ratio. Per NC IRT guidance, bank height ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and
entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2 for restored channels to be considered stable. All riffle cross
sections should fall within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate stream type. If any
changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing
signs of instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically incising thalweg or eroding channel banks.
Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a
decrease in the width-to-depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial
action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
11.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Visual assessments and photo documentation, and bank pin arrays (located within stream bends) should
indicate that streams are remaining stable and do not indicate a trend toward vertical or lateral
instability. Signs of instability may include bank scour, bank migration, and bed incision as indicated by
the measurement of bank pin exposure. Furthermore, individual bank pin measurements shall not
exceed 10% of the as-built bankfull width during any monitoring interval and shall not exceed 20% of the
as-built bankfull width over the entire monitoring period.
11.1.3 Photo Documentation
Photographs should illustrate the site’s vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel and no vertical incision. Grade
control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is
preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
11.1.4 Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events will be documented on restoration reaches throughout the
monitoring period. Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 28 April 2018
period. The four bankfull events must occur in separate years. Stream monitoring will continue until
performance standards in the form of four bankfull events in separate years have been documented.
11.2 Vegetation
The final vegetative performance standard will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the
planted riparian areas at the end of the required monitoring period (year seven). The interim measure of
vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of
the third monitoring year and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring. It
should be noted that no single planted or volunteer species shall comprise more than 50% of the total
stem density within any plot at year three, five, or seven. Planted vegetation must average 7 feet in
height in each plot at the end of the fifth year of monitoring and 10 feet in height at Year 7. The extent
of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required
monitoring period (year seven).
11.3 Visual Assessments
Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards for each metric as described
above.
11.4 Wetlands
Based on the soil type on the site and associated USACE guidance, the proposed performance standard
for wetland hydrology shall be free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground surface for 6%
of the growing season for Chatham County under normal precipitation conditions.
12.0 Monitoring Plan
Annual monitoring data will be reported in accordance with Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 08-03.
The monitoring report shall provide project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of
project status, trends, research purposes, and assist in decision making regarding close-out. The
monitoring period will extend seven years beyond completion of construction or until performance
criteria have been met. All survey will be georeferenced to North Carolina State Plane coordinates.
Using the RGL 08-03, 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 year of monitoring and submitted to USACE no
later than April 1 of the year following monitoring. The monitoring plan is described in Table 22.
Table 22: Monitoring Plan
Goals Treatment Expected Outcomes Performance
Standard Monitoring Metric
Reduce pollutant
inputs to streams
including fecal
coliform, nitrogen,
and phosphorous.
Exclude cattle from streams
and buffers by installing
fencing around conservation
easements adjacent to cattle
pastures and providing
alternative water sources or
removing cattle from sites.
Reduction in pollutant
loads to streams
caused by cattle
access.
Prevent easement
encroachment.
Visually inspect the
perimeter of the site
to insure no easement
encroachment is
occurring.
Reduce inputs of
sediment into
streams from eroding
stream banks.
Reconstruct stream channels
with stable dimensions. Add
bank revetments and in-
stream structures to protect
restored/enhanced streams.
Reduction in sediment
loadings to streams
from bank erosion.
Riffle cross sections
on the restoration
reaches should be
stable and should
show little change in
bankfull area,
Cross section
monitoring and visual
inspections.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 29 April 2018
Goals Treatment Expected Outcomes Performance
Standard Monitoring Metric
maximum depth
ratio, and width-to-
depth ratio.
Return a network of
streams to a stable
form that is capable
of supporting
hydrologic, biologic,
and water quality
functions.
Construct stream channels
that will maintain a stable
pattern and profile
considering the hydrologic
and sediment inputs to the
system, the landscape
setting, and the watershed
conditions.
Reduce shear stress
on channel boundary.
Support all stream
functions above
hydrology.
Entrenchment ratio
stays over 2.2 and
bank height ratio
below 1.2 with visual
assessments showing
progression towards
stability.
Cross section
monitoring and visual
inspections.
Improve aquatic
habitat in project
streams.
Install habitat features such
as constructed riffles, cover
logs, 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, and amphibians
leading to colonization
and increase in
biodiversity over time.
Add complexity
including LWD to the
streams.
N/A N/A
Raise stream bed
elevations and allow
for more frequent
overbank flows to
provide a source of
hydration for
floodplain wetlands.
Reduce shear stress
on channels during
larger flow events.
Reconstruct stream channels
with appropriate bankfull
dimensions and depth
relative to the existing
floodplain.
Raise water table and
hydrate riparian
wetlands. Allow flood
flows to disperse on
the floodplain.
Support gGeomorphic
and higher- level
functions.
Four recorded
bankfull events in
separate years within
the seven- year
monitoring period.
Crest gauges on
restoration sections
recording flow
elevations.
Create and improve
riparian and wetland
habitats by planting
native vegetation.
Provide a canopy to
shade streams and
reduce thermal
loadings. Create a
source of woody
inputs for streams.
Reduce flood flow
velocities on
floodplain and
improve long-term
lateral stability of
streams.
Plant native tree and shrub
species in riparian zone and
wetland areas.
Reduce sediment
inputs from bank
erosion and runoff.
Increase nutrient
cycling and storage in
floodplain. Provide
riparian and wetland
habitat. Add a source
of LWD and organic
material to stream.
Support all stream
functions.
210 planted stems
per acre after
monitoring year 7.
Interim survival rate
of 320 planted stems
per acre at year 3
and 260 at year 5.
One hundred meter2
vegetation plots will
be placed on 2% of
the planted area of
the project and
monitored annually.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 30 April 2018
Goals Treatment Expected Outcomes Performance
Standard Monitoring Metric
Restore wetland
hydrology, soils, and
plant communities.
Restore riparian wetlands by
raising stream beds, plugging
existing ditches, removing fill
material over relict hydric
soils, and planting native
wetland species.
Restored wetland
hydrology, formation
of hydric soils, and
establishment of
wetland vegetation.
Free groundwater
surface within 12
inches of the ground
surface for 6% of the
growing season for
wetland areas.
Groundwater gauges
will be placed in
wetland rehabilitation
and re-establishment
areas and monitored
annually.
Ensure that
development and
agricultural uses that
would damage the
site or reduce the
benefits of the
project are
prevented.
Establish conservation
easements on the sites.
Protection of the site
from harmful uses in
perpetuity.
Prevent easement
encroachment.
Visually inspect the
perimeter of the site
to insure no easement
encroachment is
occurring.

12.1 Monitoring Components
Project monitoring components are listed in more detail in Table 23. Approximate locations of the
proposed vegetation plots and monitoring gages are illustrated in Figure 12.
Table 23: Monitoring Components
Parameter Monitoring
Feature
Quantity/ Length by Reach Frequency Notes
UT1
Reach 1
UT2
Reach 2
UT2
Reach 3 UT3
Dimension
Riffle Cross
Sections 3 1 1 1
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 1 Pool Cross
Section 2 1 0 1
Pattern Pattern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 Profile Longitudinal
Profile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Stream
Stability
Bank pin
Array 3 1 N/A 1 Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Stream
Hydrology Crest Gage 1 1 1 Semi- Annual 3
Vegetation
CVS Level 2
Vegetation
Plots
10 (5 fixed and 5 random) Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 4
Wetlands Groundwater
Wells 4
Visual
Assessment
Photos/
Notes Yes Semi-Annual
Exotic and
nuisance
vegetation
N/A Semi-Annual 5
Project
Boundary Semi-Annual
Reference
Photos Photographs 26 Annual

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 31 April 2018
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 and/or transducers will be inspected quarterly or semi-annually, evidence of bankfull events will be documented
with a photo when possible. Transducers will be set to record stage once every 3 hours. Device will be inspected and
downloaded semi-annually.
4. Vegetation monitoring will follow CVS protocols.
5. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc.
will be mapped.
13.0 Long-Term Management Plan
13.1 Ownership and Long-Term Manager
The Site will remain in private ownership, protected in its entirety, and managed under the terms
detailed in the conservation easement. Unique Places to Save (UP2Save) will serve as the Grantee and
long-term manager and will be the party responsible for long-term management. The conservation
easement will be transferred to UP2Save prior to the initial credit release.
UP2Save is a 501c3 non-profit organization that is committed to land conservation through sustainable
planning and management. UP2Save has the ability, both logistically and financially, to monitor and
enforce the provisions of the conservation easement and long-term management plan. The organization
operates in a sustainable manner to facilitate operations well into the future. UP2Save has been
approved to serve as the easement holder and long-term manager on several mitigation banks in North
Carolina, including the Falling Creek and Box Creek projects. Additional qualifications and UP2Save’s
annual report can be provided upon request.
13.2 Long-Term Management Activities
The stream systems within the Site have been modeled after natural, functioning, and stable Piedmont
systems. Natural materials (e.g., wood, native transplants, etc.) and practices have been incorporated
into the design based on features observed and data gathered at reference sites. The design approach
and best construction methods will provide a stable regime while on-site vegetation, the stream
channel, and the adjacent wetland and floodplain habitats mature. Monitoring will be conducted for
seven years following construction to ensure that the mitigation site develops the dynamic equilibrium
and stability of a natural system. This design and monitoring approach is intended to promote a self-
sustaining stream and wetland system and to reduce long-term management activities. However, long-
term management activities have been identified to ensure that the mitigation site is maintained and
protected following the monitoring period.
Prior to the initial credit release and following authorization of the Mitigation Banking Instrument, the
Site will be protected in perpetuity with a conservation easement. Following the issuance of the
closeout letter (i.e., final determination of success), long-term management activities will be conducted
to ensure the site remains perpetually monitored. The long-term manager will be responsible for
inspecting the protected area annually and for conducting the long-term management activities
described in Table 24 below, as necessary to rectify identified deficiencies. The restrictions and long-
term management responsibilities will convey with the land, should the property be transferred in the
future. The long-term manager will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that the
restrictions documented in the recorded easement are upheld.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 32 April 2018
Table 24: Long-term Management Plan
Long-Term Management Activity Long-Term Manager Responsibility Landowner Responsibility
Where livestock are present, a
fence will be installed and
maintained along the
conservation easement boundary
to prevent livestock from
accessing the Site.
The long-term steward (or manager)
will be responsible for inspecting for
and reporting livestock intrusion to
the landowner(s).
The landowner(s) will be
responsible for inspecting the
and maintaining the fence, and
excluding livestock from the
conservation easement area.
Signage will be installed and
maintained along the Site
boundary to denote the area
protected by the recorded
conservation easement.
The long-term steward will be
responsible for inspecting the Site
boundary and for maintaining or
replacing signage to ensure that the
conservation easement area is clearly
marked.
The landowner(s) shall report
damaged or missing signs to
the long-term manager, as well
as contact the long-term
manager if a boundary needs to
be marked, or clarification is
needed regarding a boundary
location.
The mitigation site will be
protected in its entirety and
managed under the terms
outlined in the recorded
conservation easement.
The long-term manager will be
responsible for conducting annual
inspections and for undertaking
actions that are reasonably calculated
to swiftly correct the conditions
constituting a breach. The USACE,
and their authorized agents, shall
have the right to enter and inspect
the Site and to take actions necessary
to verify compliance with the
conservation easement.
The landowner(s) shall contact
the long-term manager if
clarification is needed
regarding the restrictions
associated with the recorded
conservation easement.

13.3 Funding Mechanism
Anticipated long-term management activities and their associated annual cost are listed in the table
below. Wildlands will fund a stewardship endowment that will be managed by UP2Save. UP2Save’s
endowment is designated to provide on-going revenue to support long-term management activities. The
stewardship endowment is invested to provide recurring revenue to cover the cost of anticipated annual
activities, easement defense, and violation resolution.
The total stewardship endowment was calculated based on the information listed in Table 25 below.
The level of effort is listed in hours or as a lump sum, defined as LS. The cost per unit or labor rate and
anticipated frequency are listed and were utilized to calculate the total and annual activity cost. For
example, the steward anticipates four hours of staff time at a rate of $50 per hour to support adjacent
landowner coordination, which may consist of coordinating with current and adjacent landowners to
ensure access and maintain relationships and scheduling site visits. A conservative (lower than
anticipated) rate of return (or capitalization rate) of 4.50% and the estimated annual costs of the
identified management activities were utilized to determine the endowment funding requirement.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 33 April 2018
Table 25: Management Funding
Management Activity Level of Effort Cost per Unit Anticipated
Frequency Activity Cost Annual Cost
Annual Activities
Annual Planning 2 $50 Annual $100 $100
Adjacent Landowner
Coordination 2 $50 Annual $100 $100
Field Inspection, Inventory
and Documentation 4 $50 Annual $200 $200
Annual Report to Board 2 $50 Annual $100 $100
Vehicle and supplies 1 $150 Annual $150 $150
Adaptive Management
Trash Removal & Disposal 6 $25 Annual $150 $150
Sign Maintenance 6 $25 Every five
(5) years $150 $30
Minor Violation 1 $4,500 Every ten
(10) years $4,500 $450
Major Violation 1 $14,000
Every
twenty (20)
years
$14,000 $700
Total Annual Cost $1,980
Capitalization Rate 4.50%
Funding Amount $44,000

14.0 Adaptive Management Plan
Upon completion of site construction, Wildlands will implement the post-construction monitoring
protocols and minor remedial actions (i.e., routine maintenance) will be performed as needed for the
duration of the monitoring period. Wildlands, as the Sponsor will notify the USACE immediately if
monitoring results or visual observations suggest a trend towards instability, major remedial actions are
needed, or that performance standards cannot be achieved. Should major remedial measures be
required, the Sponsor will submit a Corrective Action Plan and coordinate with the USACE until
authorization is secured to conduct the adaptive management activities. The Bank Sponsor is
responsible for funding and/or providing the services necessary to secure any necessary permits to
support the proposed major remedial adaptive management actions, to implement the corrective action
plan, and to deliver record drawings that depict the extent and nature of the work performed. If the
USACE determines that the Bank is not meeting performance standards or the Sponsor is not complying
with the terms of the instrument, the USACE may take appropriate actions, including but not limited to:
suspending credit sales, utilizing financial assurances, and/or terminating the instrument.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 34 April 2018
15.0 Financial Assurances
Financial assurances will be provided in the form of insurance for the activities specified in this plan. The
insurance will assure performance of construction and monitoring work to restore, enhance and/or
preserve the project aquatic resources. The principal amount of the insurance will be based on Table 24
below.
Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC will serve as the Principal and Nautilus Insurance Company will serve as the
Surety. In the event that the Nautilus fails to meet the conditions of the insurance obligation, the surety
may fulfill the principal’s obligations either by performing those obligations up to the limit of the penal
sum, or by paying an amount up to the penal sum (less any costs already incurred by the surety) into a
standby trust or to a willing party acceptable to the USACE, who would develop a proposal to fulfill the
mitigation obligations. The insurance will stipulate that any insurance payouts be made payable to an
established third party. Unique Places to Save (UP2Save) is to serve as the third party for this Mitigation
Bank. At such time as funds are distributed to UP2Save, they will become a surety to the insurance.
Financial assurances will not be structured to provide funds to the USACE in the event of default by the
Principal (Sponsor). The USACE will be notified a minimum of 120 days prior to termination of financial
assurances. A letter from UP2Save acknowledging their third-party status is located in Appendix 9.
Insurance will be phased to allow coverage through the monitoring period. Insurance covering
construction will be provided after the MBI is approved and prior to the initial credit release. The
casualty insurance will be retired upon submittal of the final as-built report to the DE. The initial term of
the insurance policy will be 15 months and will include an option to renew the policy for a term not to
exceed one year to cover site construction. The principal amount of the construction insurance will be
calculated based on the remaining cost to complete engineering, permitting, and construction activities
as described in Table 24. Note, the cost of recording easements will not be included in the construction
insurance as this process will be complete at the time the insurance is submitted to the USACE.
Following retirement of the construction insurance, insurance for annual monitoring will be utilized to
cover anticipated monitoring and adaptive management costs. Insurance will be structured to provide
continuous coverage through a single policy that will decrement in value each year according to Table
24. Annual monitoring insurance will be submitted to the USACE upon approval of each previous year
monitoring report. The principal amount of monitoring insurance is calculated based on the total
estimated costs that remains through closeout, including monitoring and maintenance activities. Table
26 lists the proposed insurance principal amounts for each monitoring year.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 35 April 2018
Table 26: Financial Assurances Table
Category 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Engineering $20,000
Legal $3,500
Construction $438,500
Planting $20,000
As-Built $20,000
Monitoring $12,000 $12,600 $13,230 $13,892 $14,586 $15,315 $16,081
Re-grading Contingency $ - $ - $5,000 $ - $ - $ - $5,000
Re-Planting Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Beaver Control $ - $ - $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500
Invasive Control $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000
Easement Access Control $750 $750 $750 $750 $750 $750 $750
USACE Admin Costs $18,900 $6,300 $6,300 $6,300 $6,300 $6,300 $3,100 $12,600
Sub-Total $520,900 $19,050 $21,650 $26,780 $24,442 $23,136 $22,665 $37,931
Insurance Principal $520,900 $575,681 $597,331 $624,111 $648,553 $671,689 $694,354 $732,285
Monitoring Phase Insurance

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 36 April 2018
16.0 References
Andrews, E.D. 1984. Bed-material entrainment and hydraulic geometry of gravel-bed rivers in Colorado.
Geological Society of America Bulletin, 95, 371-378.
Daniel, C.C., III, 1989, Statistical analysts relating well yield to construction practices and siting of wells in
the Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces of North Carolina US Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper
2341-A, 27 p.
Dunne, T. and Leopold, L.B. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and Company, San
Francisco.
Giese, G.L. and Mason, R. M., 1993. Low Flow Characteristics of Streams in North Carolina. USGS Water
Supply Paper #2403 USGPO, 1993.
Harman, W.A. R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function-Based
Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC. EPA 843-K-12-006.
Harman, W.H., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patteson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and
R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. AWRA
Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited By: D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy. AWRA Summer
Symposium. Bozeman, MT.
Hosking, J.R.M and J.R. Wallis. 1993. Some Statistics Useful in Regional Frequency Analysis. Water
Resources Research 29(2):271-281.North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic map of
North Carolina 1:500,000 scale. Compiled by Philip M. Brown at el. Raleigh, NC, NCGS.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2009. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database,
Chatham County, NC and Alamance County, NC.
Rogers, John J.W., 2006. The Carolina Slate Belt. In Steponaitis, V.P., Irwin, J.D., McReynolds, T.E., and
Moore, C.R. (Ed.), Stone Quarries and Sourcing in the Carolina Slate Belt (pp. 10 – 15). Retrieved from
http://rla.unc.edu/Publications/pdf/ResRep25/Ch2.pdf
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal
Interagency Sediment Conference, Reno, NV, March 2001.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, 3rd
approx. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11-26.
Shields, A. 1936. Application of Similarity Principles and Turbulence Research to Bed-Load Movement.
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena (Translate from German).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2014. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal
Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Chatham County, NC.
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/chatham.html
Walker, Alan, unpublished. NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional Curve.

FIGURES
!!
!
Pine Hill Branch Site
Bethel Branch Site
South Fork Site
BoxElderBottomlands
Cane CreekMountains/ObservatoryWoods
CaneCreek/CrawfordMountain
Cedar CliffBottomlands
CedarockPark
Eli WhitneyRichSlopes
Haw RiverAlluvial TerranceKimesvilleRoad BasicForest
LesslerMontmorilloniteForest
Lower CaneCreek Slopesand Bottom
PineHill XericWoodlands
Rock CreekUplandDepressions
Rocky RiverBasalt Bluffsand Levees
SaxapahawSloughsand Slopes
Wood'sMill Bend
HawRiverAquatic Habitat
Marys CreekAquaticHabitat
Upper RockyRiver AquaticHabitat
Chatham CountyOpen Space
North CarolinaHerpetologicalSociety Preserve
North CarolinaNational GuardExercise Site
Orange County Water andSewer Authority Property
ConservationReserve EnhancementProgram Easement
GrasslandsReserve ProgramEasement
NC Agriculture Developmentand Farmland PreservationTrust Fund Easement
NC EcosystemEnhancementProgram Easement
OrangeCounty EasementOrange County Water andSewer Authority Easement
Piedmont LandConservancyEasement
Triangle LandConservancyEasement
Wetland ReserveProgramEasement
NC 902 Laurel Bluffsand Upper Rocky RiverAquatic Habitat RHA
Rocky RiverBasaltBluffs RHA
03030002
03030003
Figure 1 Vicinity MapBethel Branch Mitigation PlanCane Creek Umbrella Mitigation BankCape Fear River Basin 03030002
Chatham County, NC
0 2 4 Miles ¹
Hydrologic Unit (8-Digit)
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
NC Natural Heritage Program Managed Areas
Local Watershed Plan
NC Historic Preservation Areas
Water Supply Watershed
303(d) Listed Streams
!Other Cane Creek Umbrella Bank Sites
!Bethel Branch Site

Bethel Branch Site
South Fork Site
Underwood Upstream Site
Holman Mill Site
Maney Farm Site
South Fork Site
Pine Hill Branch Site
Underwood Downstream Site
Chatham CountyAlamance County
03030002
03030003
Figure 2 Location MapBethel Branch Mitigation PlanCane Creek Umbrella Mitigation BankCape Fear River Basin 03030002
Chatham County, NC
0 0.5 1 Miles ¹
Hydrologic Unit (8-Digit)
Bethel Branch Site
Other Cane Creek Umbrella Bank Sites
Existing DMS Conservation Easements
!!
!

Pine Hill Branch Site Bethel Branch Site
South Fork Site
03030002
Figure 3 Service Area MapBethel Branch Mitigation PlanCane Creek Umbrella Mitigation BankCape Fear River Basin 03030002
Chatham County, NC
0 5 10 Miles ¹
Cane Creek Watershed
Ser vice Area
!Other Cane Creek Umbrella Bank Sites
!Bethel Branch Site
2011 Aerial Photography
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
o
n£
n£
n£
n£
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
n£
X X
oo
o
o
oo
!!
oooo
o
o
o
#
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
#
#
#
!
!
!
n£
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
n£!!
!
!
!
!
!"o
X
n£
o
X
X
X
JordanLake
CAPE FEAR
NEUSE
PAMLICO
ROANOKE
YADKIN
03030002
03030003
03020201
03040103
03040101
03010103
03010104 03020101
0303000403040104
£¤50
£¤68
£¤22
£¤751
£¤57
£¤87
£¤902
£¤49
£¤86
£¤55
£¤150
£¤6
£¤8
£¤119
£¤65
£¤109
£¤98
£¤62
£¤100
£¤54
£¤801
£¤157
£¤42£¤134
£¤61
£¤772
£¤56
£¤704
£¤66
£¤159
£¤89
£¤147
£¤268
£¤610
£¤109
£¤86
£¤68
£¤87
£¤86
£¤22
£¤65
£¤100
£¤42
£¤8
£¤150
£¤87
£¤100
£¤150
£¤98
£¤119
£¤49
- CHATHAM CO -
- RANDOLPH CO -
- GUILFORD CO -
- DAVIDSON CO -
- WAKE CO -
- ORANGE CO -
- FORSYTH CO -
- ALAMANCE CO -
- DURHAM CO -
- STOKES CO -- PERSON CO -
- ROCKINGHAM CO -
- CASWELL CO -
- ROWAN CO -
- GRANVILLE CO -
- DAVIE CO -
- YADKIN CO -
- LEE CO -
Cape Fear Basin 02 (HUC 03030002)
River Basin Boundaries
County Boundaries
Interstate
North Carolina Highway
STIP Point Features
o Division Aviation
o Statewide Aviation
X Divsion Rail
n£Division Transit
X Regional Rail
n£Regional Transit
!Bridge Project
#Safety
"Transition
STIP Line Features
Division BIke/Pedestrian
Division Highway
Interstate Maintenance
Regional Highway
Statewide Highway
Transition, Highway
Transition
^_Bethel Branch Site Location
Chatham County, NC
Figure 4 NCDOT Draft STIP FY 2016 - 2025Bethel Branch Mitigation PlanCane Creek Umbrella Mitigation BankCape Fear River Basin 03030002¹0 5 10 Miles
^_Bethel BranchSite Location
UT1UT2UT3
Chatham County, NC
Figure 5 Watershed MapBethel Branch Mitigation PlanCane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank Cape Fear River Basin 03030002¹0 500 1,000 Feet
2013 Aerial Photography
Project Stream
Non-Project Stream
UT1 (485 acres)
UT2 (207 acres)
UT3 (49 acres)
Topographic Contours (2')
U
T
2 R
e
ac
h 4
UT1 Reach 2
LINDLEY M DARRYL TRUSTEE8795-08-1897.000
UT3
UT2 Reach 1
UT2 Reach 3
UT1 Reach 1UT2 Reach 2NaC
CmB
CmB
CmB
CmB
CmB
NaC
W
NaC
NaC
NaC
GeC2
NaC
Figure 6 Soils MapBethel Branch Mitigation PlanCane Creek Umbrella Mitigation BankCape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC
0 350175 Feet ¹
Property Boundary
Proposed Conservation Easement
Project Stream
Non-Project Stream
CmB - Cid-Lignum complex, 2-6% slopes
GeC2 - Georgeville silt loam, 2-8% slopes
NaC - Nanford-Badin complex, 6-10% slopes
W - Water
Reach Break
2014 Aerial Photography
!
!
!
!
!
!
#0
#0 UT2 Reach 2UT1 Reach 1AUT2 Reach 3
UT2 Reach 1
UT3
XS 7XS 4
XS 5 XS 12U
T
2 R
e
a
c
h 4
UT1 Reach 2
XS 13XS 14UT1 Reach 1BUT1 Reach 1CXS 16XS 15XS 11XS 10
XS 8XS 9
XS 2
XS 3
XS 1
XS 6
Wetland J
Wetland I
Wetland H
Wetland G
Wetland F
Wetland E
Wetland C
Wetland B
Wetland A
Figure 7 Existing ConditionsBethel Branch Mitigation PlanCane Creek Umbrella Mitigation BankCape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC
0 350175 Feet ¹
Property Boundary
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Pond
Existing Wetland
Perennial Project Stream
Intermittent Project Stream
Non-Project Stream
Surveyed Cross Section
!Reach Break
#0 Groundwater Monitoring Gauge
2014 Aerial Photography
UT1UT2UT335157.2 FEET34647FEET
35729.5 FE
ET36379.4
FE
E
T
Chatham County, NC
Figure 8 FEMA Flood MapBethel Branch Mitigation PlanCane Creek Umbrella Mitigation BankCape Fear River Basin (03030002)¹0 450225 Feet
Property BoundaryProposed Conservation EasementProject StreamNon-Project StreamFEMA Cross Section1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
#*!
!
!!!
!
!
UT to Cane Creek
Spencer Creek 1
UT to Polecat Creek
Foust Upstream
Long Branch
Spencer Creek 2UT to Sandy Run
Figure 9 Reference Reach Vicinity Map Bethel Branch Mitigation PlanCane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank Cape Fear Basin 03030002Chatham County, NC
¹
2013 Aerial Photography
#*Bethel Branch Site Location
!Reference Reach Location
0 2512.5 Miles
L ip s c o m b G r o v e C h u r c h R d
Figure 10 Discharge AnalysisBethel Branch Mitigation PlanCane Creek Umbrella Mitigation BankCape Fear Basin 03030002Chatham County, NC
2013 Aerial Photography
y = 89.039x 0.7223R² = 0.9069
y = 55.699x 0.7855R² = 0.9931
y = 72.933x0.7068R² = 0.7886
1
10
100
100 0
100 00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Discharge (cfs)Dra ina ge Are a (squa re mile s)
Bethel B ranch Site Design Discharge Plot
Rural P iedmont Regional Curve Rural Upper 95% Limit Rural Lower 95% Limit
NRCS Regional Curv e USGS Rural Piedmont Cal culator 1.2-yr Predi ctions Reference Reaches
Design Dis charges Power (Rural Pi edmont Regional Curve)Power (NRCS Regional Curve)
Power (Reference Reaches)
!
!
!
!
!
!
Proposed Wetland RE2
UT1 Reach 1AUT3 UT2 Reach 2UT2 Reach 1
UT2 Reach 3
50' Easement BreakWith Culvert Crossing
50' Easement BreakWith Culvert Crossing
Pond to be removed
U
T
2 R
e
ac
h 4
UT1 Reach 1BUT1 Reach 1CUT1 Reach 2
Proposed Wetland RE2
Proposed Wetland RH2
ProposedWetland E1
Proposed Wetland RE1
Proposed Wetland RE1
Proposed Wetland RH4
Proposed Wetland RH3
Proposed Wetland RH1
Chatham County, NC
0 350175 Feet ¹
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Pond
Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Re-Establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement II
Non-Project Stream
!Reach Break
Figure 11 Concept Design MapUT to Bethel Branch Mitigation PlanCane Creek Umbrella Mitigation BankCape Fear River Basin 03030002
!
!
!
!
!
!
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
XYXY
XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
"
"
"
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
!!
!!
UT3 UT2 Reach 2UT2 Reach 1
UT2 Reach 3
50' Easement BreakWith Culvert Crossing
50' Easement BreakWith Culvert Crossing
Pond to be removed
U
T2 R
each 4
UT1 Reach 2
UT1 Reach 1AUT1 Reach 1BUT1 Reach 1CChatham County, NC
0 350175 Feet ¹
Project Boundary
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Pond
Proposed Wetland Enhancement
Proposed Wetland Re-Establishment
Proposed Wetland Rehabilitation
Proposed Stream Restoration
Proposed Stream Enhancement II
Non-Project Stream
Proposed Cross Section
!Reach Break
#*Proposed Bank Pin
"Proposed Crest Gage
XY Proposed Photo Point
$+Proposed Vegetation Plot
!Proposed Ground Gage
Figure 12 Monitoring Components MapBethel Branch Mitigation PlanCane Creek Umbrella Mitigation BankCape Fear River Basin 03030002
APPENDIX 1
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE
PERMANENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT (“Conservation Easement”) made this
day of , 201_ by and between ,
(“Grantor”) and _________________ (“Grantee”).
The designation 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.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying and
being in ___________ County, North Carolina, more particularly described in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Property”);
WHEREAS, Grantee is a charitable, not-for-profit or educational corporation,
association, or trust qualified under § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue
Code, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq., the purposes or powers of which include
one or more of the purposes (a) – (d) listed below;
(a) retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open-space aspects of real
property;
(b) ensuring the availability of real property for recreational, educational,
or open-space use;
(c) protecting natural resources;
(d) maintaining or enhancing air or water quality.
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic, natural, or
aesthetic value of the property in its natural state, which includes the following
natural communities: add or delete as appropriate: wetlands, streams, and riparian
buffers. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to maintain streams, wetlands
and riparian resources and other natural values of approximately ___acres, more or
less, and being more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated fully herein by reference (the “Conservation Easement Area”), and
prevent the use or development of the Conservation Easement Area for any purpose
or in any manner that would conflict with the maintenance of its natural condition.
WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the Conservation
Easement Area is a condition of the approval of the Mitigation Banking Instrument
(MBI) and Mitigation Plan for the ___________ Mitigation Bank, Department of the
Army (DA) Action ID Number SAW-_____________, entitled “Agreement to Establish
the ____________ Mitigation Bank in the _________ River Basin within the State of
North Carolina”, to be made and entered into by and between ___________ acting as
the Bank Sponsor and the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps), in
consultation with the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT). The __________
Mitigation Site has been approved by the Corps for use as a mitigation bank to
compensate for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts authorized by DA permits.
WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the Conservation
Easement Area is also a condition of the approval of the __________ Riparian Buffer
and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) and Bank Parcel Development
Package (BPDP) for the ____________ Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation
Bank, North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Project ID# __________,
which was approved by the NCDWR, and will be made and entered into by and
between ____________, acting as the Bank Sponsor, and the NCDWR. The
__________ Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Site is intended to be used to
compensate for riparian buffer and nutrient impacts to surface waters.
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee agree that third-party rights of enforcement
shall be held by the NCDWR and the Corps (to include any successor agencies) (“Third-
Parties”), and may be exercised through the appropriate enforcement agencies of the
United States and the State of North Carolina, and that these rights are in addition to,
and do not limit, the rights of enforcement under the NC DWR Project ID# __________
and the Department of the Army instrument number SAW- _____________
(“Mitigation Banking Instrument”), or any permit or certification issued by the Third-
Parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and
representations contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby
unconditionally and irrevocably grants and conveys unto Grantee, its heirs, successors
and assigns, forever and in perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and
character and to the extent hereinafter set forth, over the Conservation Easement Area
described on Exhibit B, together with the right to preserve and protect the conservation
values thereof, as follows:
ARTICLE I.
DURATION OF EASEMENT
This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. This Conservation Easement is
an easement in gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by Grantee against Grantor,
Grantor’s personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, lessees, agents and
licensees.
ARTICLE II.
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
Any activity on, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area inconsistent with
the purpose of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. The Conservation
Easement Area shall be preserved in its natural condition and restricted from any
development that would impair or interfere with the conservation values of the
Conservation Easement Area.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and
uses are expressly prohibited, restricted or reserved as indicated hereunder:
A. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change disturbance, alteration or
impairment of the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any
introduction of non-native plants and/or animal species is prohibited.
B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any building,
mobile home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other advertising
display, antenna, utility pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock or any other
temporary or permanent structure or facility on or above the Conservation
Easement Area.
C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential and/or
commercial activities, including any rights of passage for such purposes are
prohibited.
D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing, animal
husbandry, and horticultural use of the Conservation Easement Area are prohibited.
E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction, harming,
cutting or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation in the Conservation Easement
Area except as provided in the Mitigation Plan and Bank Parcel Development Plan.
Mowing of invasive and herbaceous vegetation for purposes of enhancing planted or
volunteer trees and shrubs approved in the Mitigation Plan and BPDP is allowable once
a year for no more than five consecutive years from the date on page 1 of this
Conservation Easement, except where mowing will negatively impact vegetation or
disturb soils. Mowing activities shall only be performed by ___________ and shall not
violate any part of Item L of Article II.
F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or walkways
on the Conservation Easement Area; nor enlargement or modification to existing
roads, trails or walkways.
G. Signage. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Conservation Easement
Area, except the posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying the conservation
values of the Conservation Easement Area, signs giving directions or proscribing rules
and regulations for the use of the Conservation Easement Area and/or signs identifying
the Grantor as owner of the Conservation Easement Area.
H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage,
waste, abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous substances, or toxic or
hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or aboveground storage tanks or
other materials on the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.
I. Excavation, Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat,
minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography of the land in any
manner on the Conservation Easement Area, except to restore natural topography or
drainage patterns. For purposes of restoring and enhancing streams and wetlands
within the Conservation Easement Area, ___________is allowed to perform grading,
filling, and excavation associated with stream and wetland restoration and
enhancement activities as described in the Mitigation Plan and authorized by
Department of the Army Nationwide Permit 27.
J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking, draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related activities, or
altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or
alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns. In addition,
diverting or causing or permitting the diversion of surface or underground water into,
within or out of the easement area by any means, removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is
prohibited.
K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been encumbered
or extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be transferred pursuant to a
transferable development rights scheme or cluster development arrangement or
otherwise.
L. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not limited to,
motorcycles, dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is prohibited other than for
temporary or occasional access by the Enter Sponsor Name, the Grantee, its
employees and agents, successors, assigns, NCDWR, and the Corps for purposes of
constructing, maintaining and monitoring the restoration, enhancement and
preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within the Conservation
Easement Area..
M. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the Conservation
Easement Area which is or may become inconsistent with the purposes of this grant,
the preservation of the Conservation Easement Area substantially in its natural
condition, or the protection of its environmental systems, is prohibited.
ARTICLE III
GRANTOR’S RESEVERED RIGHTS
The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, the right to continue the use of the Conservation Easement Area
for all purposes not inconsistent with this Conservation Easement, including, but not
limited to, the right to quiet enjoyment of the Conservation Easement Area, the rights
of ingress and egress, the right to hunt, fish, and hike on the Conservation Easement
Area, the right to sell, transfer, gift or otherwise convey the Conservation Easement
Area, in whole or in part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to
the terms of, and shall specifically reference, this Conservation Easement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor, its
successors and assigns, including __________ acting as the Bank Sponsor, the right to
construct and perform activities related to the restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within the Conservation
Easement Area in accordance with the approved ___________ Mitigation Plan, the
_____________ Bank Parcel Development Package, and the two Mitigation Banking
Instruments described in the Recitals of this Conservation Easement.
ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEE’S RIGHTS
The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns, the Corps
and NCDWR, shall have the right to enter the Property and Conservation Easement Area
at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting the Conservation Easement Area to
determine if the Grantor, or his personal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns,
is complying with the terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this Conservation
Easement. The Grantee, Enter Sponsor Name, and its authorized representatives,
successors and assigns, the Corps and NCDWR shall also have the right to enter and go
upon the Conservation Easement Area for purposes of making scientific or educational
observations and studies, and taking samples. The easement rights granted herein do
not include public access rights.
ARTICLE V
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee, the Corps, and
NCDWR are allowed to prevent any activity on or use of the Conservation Easement
Area that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement and to require the
restoration of such areas or features of the Conservation Easement Area that may be
damaged by such activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation
Easement by Grantor that comes to the attention of the Grantee, the Grantee shall
notify the Grantor in writing of such breach. The Grantor shall have 30 days after
receipt of such notice to correct the conditions constituting such breach. If the breach
remains uncured after 30 days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement
by appropriate legal proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief.
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 of the terms of this Conservation Easement is or would irreversibly or
otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation
Easement. The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such circumstances
damage to the Grantee would be irreparable and remedies at law will be 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. The costs of a breach, correction or restoration,
including the Grantee’s expenses, court costs, and attorneys’ fees, shall be paid by
Grantor, provided Grantor is determined to be responsible for the breach. The Corps
and the NCDWR shall have the same rights and privileges as the said Grantee to
enforce the terms and conditions of this Conservation easement..
B. No failure on the part of the Grantee to enforce any covenant or provision
hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other covenant, condition,
or provision hereof or affect the right to Grantee to enforce the same in the event of
a subsequent breach or default.
C. 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 resulting from causes beyond the Grantor’s control,
including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, war, acts of God or third parties, except
Grantor’s lessees or invitees; or from any prudent action taken in good faith by Grantor
under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life,
damage to property or harm to the Conservation Easement Area resulting from such
causes.
ARTICLE VI
MISCELLANEOUS
A. Warranty. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns the
Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the Property which
may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement or that there are no
outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other interests in the Property
which have not been expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement. Grantor
further warrants that Grantee shall have the use of and enjoy all the benefits derived
from and arising out of this Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and
defend title to the Property against the claims of all persons.
B. Subsequent Transfers. The Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms of this
Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that transfers any
interest in all or a portion of the Conservation Easement Area. The Grantor agrees to
provide written notice of such transfer at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of the
transfer. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement
shall survive any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Conservation
Easement Area or any portion thereof and shall not be amended, modified or
terminated without the prior written consent and approval of the Corps.
C. Assignment. 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 pursuant to 33 CFR 332.7 (a)(1), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 501 (c)(3)
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.
D. Entire Agreement and Severability. The combined Mitigation Banking
Instruments: MBI with corresponding Mitigation Plan, and MBI with corresponding
BPDP, and this Conservation Easement 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 void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction,
the remainder shall continue in full force and effect.
E. Obligations of Ownership. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes,
assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall keep the
Property free of any liens or other encumbrances for obligations incurred by Grantor.
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. 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.
F. Long-Term Management. Grantor is responsible for all long-term
management activities associated with fencing. These activities include the
maintenance and/or replacement of fence structures to ensure the aquatic resource
functions within the boundaries of the Protected Property are sustained.
G. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render impossible the
continued use of the Conservation Easement Area for the conservation purposes, this
Conservation Easement may only be extinguished, in whole or in part, by judicial
proceeding.
H. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Conservation Easement Area
is taken in the exercise of eminent domain so as to substantially abrogate the
Restrictions imposed by this Conservation Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in
appropriate actions at the time of such taking to recover the full value of the taking,
and all incidental and direct damages due to the taking.
I. Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property interest
immediately vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of the Conservation
Easement Area is sold, exchanged, or involuntarily converted following an
extinguishment or the exercise of eminent domain, Grantee shall be entitled to the fair
market value of this Conservation Easement as determined at the time of the
extinguishment or condemnation.
J. Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other communication
required under this Conservation Easement shall be sent by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, to the following addresses (or such address as may be hereafter
specified by notice pursuant to this paragraph):
To Grantor:
[Name, address and fax number]
To Grantee:
[Name, address and fax number]
To Sponsor:
To the Corps:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
To NCDEQ -DWR:
NCDEQ – Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
K. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to enforce this
Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified grantee, and if within a
reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of these events Grantee fails to
make an assignment pursuant to this Conservation Easement, then the Grantee’s
interest shall become vested in another qualified grantee in accordance with an
appropriate proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction.
L. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but only in
a writing signed by all parties hereto, and provided 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 conservation purposes of this
grant.
M. Present Condition of the Conservation Easement Area. The wetlands, scenic,
resource, environmental, and other natural characteristics of the Conservation
Easement Area, and its current use and state of improvement, are described in Section
____ of the Mitigation Plan, prepared by Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor
and Grantee to be complete and accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and
Grantee have copies of this report. It will be used by the parties to assure that any
future changes in the use of the Conservation Easement Area will be consistent with
the terms of this Conservation Easement. However, this report is not intended to
preclude the use of other evidence to establish the present condition of the
Conservation Easement Area if there is a controversy over its use.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto Grantee for
the aforesaid purposes.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
[Signatures of the Grantor and Grantee in appropriate form]
APPENDIX 2
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same prope rty, 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):
Cane Creek Mitigation Bank - Bethel
Br. 2. Date of evaluation: 8/9/2017
3. Applicant/owner name: Wildlands Engineering 4. Assessor name/organization:
W. Taylor / Wildlands
Engineering
5. County: Chatham 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Silk Hope 7. River basin: Cape Fear
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.830245N / -79.367977W
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 200
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 5 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (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)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
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 i n 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 contribute s 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 proport ions. 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 Cane Creek Mitigation Bank
- Bethel Br. Date of Assessment 8/9/2017
Stream Category Pb2 Assessor Name/Organization W. Taylor / Wildlands
Engineering

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

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 MEDIUM (4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality LOW
(2) Baseflow LOW
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW (3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM (2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance OMITTED (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW (2) In-stream Habitat MEDIUM (3) Baseflow LOW (3) Substrate HIGH (3) Stream Stability LOW (3) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(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 RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same prope rty, 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):
Cane Creek Mitigation Bank - Bethel
Br. 2. Date of evaluation: 8/9/2017
3. Applicant/owner name: Wildlands Engineering 4. Assessor name/organization:
W. Taylor / Wildlands
Engineering
5. County: Chatham 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Silk Hope 7. River basin: Cape Fear
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.830245N / -79.367977W
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): 500
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): 7 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (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)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
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 i n 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 contribute s 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 proport ions. 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 Cane Creek Mitigation Bank
- Bethel Br. Date of Assessment 8/9/2017
Stream Category Pb2 Assessor Name/Organization W. Taylor / Wildlands
Engineering

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

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 NA
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality LOW
(2) Baseflow LOW
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW (3) Thermoregulation HIGH (2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance OMITTED (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH (2) In-stream Habitat MEDIUM (3) Baseflow LOW (3) Substrate HIGH (3) Stream Stability HIGH (3) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same prope rty, 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):
Cane Creek Mitigation Bank - Bethel
Br. 2. Date of evaluation: 8/9/2017
3. Applicant/owner name: Wildlands Engineering 4. Assessor name/organization:
W. Taylor / Wildlands
Engineering
5. County: Chatham 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Silk Hope 7. River basin: Cape Fear
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.830245N / -79.367977W
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): 500
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2 - 3 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 7 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (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)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
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 i n 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 contribute s 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 proport ions. 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 Cane Creek Mitigation Bank
- Bethel Br. Date of Assessment 8/9/2017
Stream Category Pb2 Assessor Name/Organization W. Taylor / Wildlands
Engineering

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

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

NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall LOW

APPENDIX 3
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Bethel Branch Site Snow Camp/Chatham 12/13/2016
Wildlands Engineering NC Wetland A - DP1
Win Taylor
Hill side seep concave <1
MLRA 136 N 35.828997 W -79.366760
Cid-Lignum (CmB)n/a
Vegetation significantly disturbed due to livestock grazing.
0.5
0 - 12+
0 - 12+
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.

Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
30'
0
1
1
100
15'
0
5'
Persicaria longiseta
Hydrocotyle umbellata
60
2
62
Yes
No
FAC
OBL
30'
0
Wetland A - DP1
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

0-8
8-12
10YR 3/1
10YR 4/1
98
98
10YR 5/6
10YR 5/6
2
2
C
C
PL
PL
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Wetland A - DP1
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Bethel Branch Site Snow Camp/Chatham 12/13/2016
Wildlands Engineering NC Upland - DP2
Win Taylor
Floodplain concave 0
MLRA 136 N 35.829631 W -79.366771
Cid-Lignum (CmB)n/a
Vegetation significantly disturbed due to livestock grazing.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.

Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
30'
Acer rubrum
Liquidambar styraciflua 75
5
80
Yes
No
FAC
FAC
2
4
50
0 0
15'0 0
Liquidambar styraciflua
Cornus florida
Ligustrum japonicum
30
10
2
42
Yes
Yes
No
FAC
FACU
UPL
110 330
20 80
5 25
135 435
3.2
5'
Allium vineale
Stellaria media
10
3
13
Yes
No
FACU
UPL
30'
0
Upland - DP2
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

0-4
4-12
10YR 4/4
2.5Y 5/4
100
80 10YR 5/6 20
C
C
PL
PL
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Upland - DP2
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Bethel Branch Site Snow Camp/Chatham 12/13/2016
Wildlands Engineering NC Wetland B - DP3
Win Taylor
Hill side seep concave <1
MLRA 136 N 35.831108 W -79.365281
Cid-Lignum (CmB)n/a
Vegetation significantly disturbed due to livestock grazing and mowing.
0 - 12+
0 - 12+
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.

Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
30'
0
2
2
100
15'
0
5'
Festuca sp
Juncus effusus
Persicaria longiseta
55
30
5
90
Yes
Yes
No
FAC
FACW
FAC
30'
0
Wetland B - DP3
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

0-6
6-10
10-12
10YR 5/1
10YR 5/1
2.5Y 6/2
95
90
90
10YR 5/4
10YR 5/4
10YR 5/6
5
10
10
C
C
C
PL
PL
PL
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Wetland B - DP3
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Bethel Branch Site Snow Camp/Chatham 12/13/2016
Wildlands Engineering NC Wetland C - DP4
Win Taylor
Floodplain concave 0
MLRA 136 N 35.833125 W -79.367671
Cid-Lignum (CmB)n/a
Vegetation significantly disturbed due to livestock grazing.
1
0 - 12+
0 - 12+
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.

Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
30'
0
2
2
100
15'
0
5'
Festuca sp
Hydrocotyle americana
5
5
10
Yes
Yes
FAC
OBL
30'
0
Wetland C - DP4
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

0-12 10YR 5/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C PL Silt Loam
Wetland C - DP4
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Bethel Branch Site Snow Camp/Chatham 12/13/2016
Wildlands Engineering NC Upland - DP5
Win Taylor
Floodplain concave 0
MLRA 136 N 35.833063 W -79.367676
Cid-Lignum (CmB)n/a
Vegetation significantly disturbed due to livestock grazing.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.

Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
30'
0
1
1
100
15'
0
5'
Festuca sp
Stellaria media
80
15
95
Yes
No
FAC
UPL
30'
0
Upland - DP5
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

0-2
2-12
10YR 5/3
10YR 5/4
100
100
C
C
PL
PL
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Upland - DP5
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Bethel Branch Site Snow Camp/Chatham 12/14/2016
Wildlands Engineering NC Wetland E - DP7
Win Taylor
Floodplain concave 0
MLRA 136 N 35.832326 W -79.368402
Cid-Lignum (CmB)n/a
Vegetation significantly disturbed due to livestock grazing.
0 - 12+
0 - 12+
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.

Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
30'
0
1
1
100
15'
0
5'
Persicaria longiseta
Hydrocotyle americana
40
2
42
Yes
No
FAC
OBL
30'
0
Wetland E - DP7
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

0-3
3-10
10-12
10YR 4/2
10YR 5/2
10YR 5/2
98
95
85
10YR 4/6
10YR 5/6
10YR 5/6
2
5
15
C
C
C
PL
PL
PL
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Wetland E - DP7
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Bethel Branch Site Snow Camp/Chatham 12/14/2016
Wildlands Engineering NC Upland - DP8
Win Taylor
Floodplain concave 0
MLRA 136 N 35.832302 W -79.368459
Cid-Lignum (CmB)n/a
Vegetation significantly disturbed due to livestock grazing.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.

Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
30'
0
1
1
100
15'
0
5'
Festuca sp
Stellaria media
90
2
92
Yes
No
FAC
UPL
30'
0
Upland - DP8
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

0-2
2-12
10YR 4/4
10YR 5/4
100
100
C
C
PL
PL
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Upland - DP8
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Bethel Branch Site Snow Camp/Chatham 12/14/2016
Wildlands Engineering NC Wetland F - DP9
Win Taylor
Floodplain concave 0
MLRA 136 N 35.830932 W -79.369243
Cid-Lignum (CmB)n/a
Vegetation significantly disturbed due to livestock grazing.
0.25
0 - 12+
0 - 12+
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.

Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
30'
0
1
1
100
15'
0
5'
Persicaria longiseta
Hydrocotyle americana
40
3
43
Yes
No
FAC
OBL
30'
0
Wetland F - DP9
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

0-8
8-12
10YR 5/1
10YR 5/2
98
90
10YR 4/6
10YR 4/6
2
10
C
C
PL
PL
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Wetland F - DP9
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Bethel Branch Site Snow Camp/Chatham 12/14/2016
Wildlands Engineering NC Upland - DP10
Win Taylor
Floodplain none <1
MLRA 136 N 35.831028 W -79.369242
Cid-Lignum (CmB)n/a
Vegetation significantly disturbed due to livestock grazing.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.

Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
30'
0
1
4
25
0 0
15'0 0
Juniperus virginiana
Ligustrum sinense
20
5
25
Yes
Yes
FACU
FACU
10 30
65 260
0 0
75 290
3.9
5'
Paspalum notatum
Festuca sp
40
10
50
Yes
Yes
FACU
FAC
30'
0
Upland - DP10
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

0-2
2-12
10YR 4/3
10YR 4/4
100
100
C
C
PL
PL
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Upland - DP10
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Bethel Branch Site Snow Camp/Chatham 12/14/2016
Wildlands Engineering NC Wetland G - DP11
Win Taylor
Floodplain concave 0
MLRA 136 N 35.830476 W -79.369266
Cid-Lignum (CmB)n/a
Vegetation significantly disturbed due to livestock grazing.
0.5
0 - 12+
0 - 12+
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.

Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
30'
0
1
1
100
15'
0
5'
Microstegium vimineum
Hydrocotyle americana
5
1
6
Yes
No
FAC
OBL
30'
0
Wetland G - DP11
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

0-2
2-12
10YR 6/1
10YR 5/2
98
90
10YR 5/6
10YR 5/6
2
10
C
C
PL
PL
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Wetland G - DP11
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Bethel Branch Site Snow Camp/Chatham 12/14/2016
Wildlands Engineering NC Wetland H - DP12
Win Taylor
Floodplain concave 0
MLRA 136 N 35.829942 W -79.369683
Cid-Lignum (CmB)n/a
Vegetation significantly disturbed due to livestock grazing.
0.25
0 - 12+
0 - 12+
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.

Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
30'
0
1
1
100
15'
0
5'
Microstegium vimineum
Festuca sp
60
2
62
Yes
No
FAC
FAC
30'
0
Wetland H - DP12
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

0-2
2-8
8-12
10YR 6/2
10YR 5/1
2.5Y 6/2
98
95
85
10YR 4/4
10YR 4/6
10YR 4/6
2
5
15
C
C
C
PL
PL
PL
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Wetland H - DP12
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Bethel Branch Site Snow Camp/Chatham 12/14/2016
Wildlands Engineering NC Wetland I - DP13
Win Taylor
Floodplain concave 0
MLRA 136 N 35.829770 W -79.369683
Cid-Lignum (CmB)n/a
Vegetation significantly disturbed due to livestock grazing.
0 - 12+
0 - 12+
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.

Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
30'
Platanus occidentalis 20
20
Yes FACW 2
2
100
15'
0
5'
Microstegium vimineum
Amaranthus spinosus
60
2
62
Yes
No
FAC
FACU
30'
0
Wetland I - DP13
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

0-2
2-12
10YR 5/1
10YR 4/1
98
95
10YR 4/4
10YR 4/6
2
5
C
C
PL
PL
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Wetland I - DP13
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Bethel Branch Site Snow Camp/Chatham 12/14/2016
Wildlands Engineering NC Upland - DP14
Win Taylor
HIllslope none 1
MLRA 136 N 35.829684 W -79.369621
Cid-Lignum (CmB)n/a
Vegetation significantly disturbed due to livestock grazing.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.

Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
30'
0
1
1
100
15'
0
5'
Festuca sp
Stellaria media
Amaranthus spinosus
60
10
5
75
Yes
No
No
FAC
UPL
FACU
30'
0
Upland - DP14
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

0-2
2-12
10YR 4/3
10YR 5/4
100
100
C
C
PL
PL
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Upland - DP14
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Bethel Branch Site Snow Camp/Chatham 12/14/2016
Wildlands Engineering NC Wetland J - DP15
Win Taylor
Floodplain concave 0
MLRA 136 N 35.829648 W -79.369865
Cid-Lignum (CmB)n/a
Vegetation significantly disturbed due to livestock grazing.
0 - 12+
0 - 12+
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.

Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
30'
0
1
1
100
15'
0
5'
Microstegium vimineum
Amaranthus spinosus
40
2
42
Yes
No
FAC
FACU
30'
0
Wetland J - DP15
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

0-6
6-12
10YR 5/2
10YR 6/1
98
90
10YR 4/6
10YR 4/6
2
10
C
C
PL
PL
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Wetland J - DP15
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Bethel Branch Site Snow Camp/Chatham 12/14/2016
Wildlands Engineering NC Upland - DP18
Win Taylor
Terrace concave <1
MLRA 136 N 35.828787 W -79.371480
Cid-Lignum (CmB)n/a
Vegetation significantly disturbed due to livestock grazing.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.

Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
30'
Liquidambar styraciflua 80
80
Yes FAC 2
3
66
15'
Acer rubrum
Cornus florida
5
5
10
Yes
Yes
FAC
FACU
5'
0
30'
0
Upland - DP18
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

0-3
3-12
10YR 4/3
10YR 5/4
100
100
C
C
PL
PL
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Upland - DP18
NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Cane Creek - Bethel Branch Date of Evaluation 8/9/2017
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland A
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization W. Taylor Wildlands
Engineering
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body South Fork Cane Creek
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03030002
County Chatham NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.830245 -79.367977
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 compact ion, 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 a nd
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 disturbe d.)
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 (W T) 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 contigu ous
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. Artificia l 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 c lear 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 compo sed 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. P atterned
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

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland A Date of Assessment 8/9/2017
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
W. Taylor Wildlands
Engineering

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
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) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

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 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 MEDIUM
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 FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Cane Creek - Bethel Branch Date of Evaluation 8/9/2017
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland B
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization W. Taylor Wildlands
Engineering
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body South Fork Cane Creek
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03030002
County Chatham NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.830245 -79.367977
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 compact ion, 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 a nd
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 disturbe d.)
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 (W T) 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 contigu ous
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. Artificia l 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 c lear 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 compo sed 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. P atterned
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

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland B Date of Assessment 8/9/2017
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
W. Taylor Wildlands
Engineering

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
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) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

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 FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Cane Creek - Bethel Branch Date of Evaluation 8/9/2017
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland C
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization W. Taylor Wildlands
Engineering
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body South Fork Cane Creek
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03030002
County Chatham NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.830245 -79.367977
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 compact ion, 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 a nd
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 disturbe d.)
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 (W T) 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 contigu ous
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. Artificia l 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 c lear 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 compo sed 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. P atterned
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

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland C Date of Assessment 8/9/2017
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
W. Taylor Wildlands
Engineering

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
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) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

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 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 MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Cane Creek - Bethel Branch Date of Evaluation 8/9/2017
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland E
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization W. Taylor Wildlands
Engineering
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body South Fork Cane Creek
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03030002
County Chatham NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.830245 -79.367977
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 compact ion, 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 a nd
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 disturbe d.)
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 (W T) 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 contigu ous
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. Artificia l 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 c lear 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 compo sed 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. P atterned
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

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland E Date of Assessment 8/9/2017
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
W. Taylor Wildlands
Engineering

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
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) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

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 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 FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Cane Creek - Bethel Branch Date of Evaluation 8/9/2017
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland F
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization W. Taylor Wildlands
Engineering
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body South Fork Cane Creek
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03030002
County Chatham NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.830245 -79.367977
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 compact ion, 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 a nd
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 disturbe d.)
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 (W T) 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 contigu ous
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. Artificia l 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 c lear 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 compo sed 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. P atterned
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

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland F Date of Assessment 8/9/2017
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
W. Taylor Wildlands
Engineering

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
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) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

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 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 FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Cane Creek - Bethel Branch Date of Evaluation 8/9/2017
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland G
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization W. Taylor Wildlands
Engineering
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body South Fork Cane Creek
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03030002
County Chatham NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.830245 -79.367977
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 compact ion, 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 a nd
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 disturbe d.)
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 (W T) 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 contigu ous
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. Artificia l 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 c lear 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 compo sed 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. P atterned
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

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland G Date of Assessment 8/9/2017
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
W. Taylor Wildlands
Engineering

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
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) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

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 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 FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Cane Creek - Bethel Branch Date of Evaluation 8/9/2017
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland H
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization W. Taylor Wildlands
Engineering
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body South Fork Cane Creek
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03030002
County Chatham NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.830245 -79.367977
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 compact ion, 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 a nd
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 disturbe d.)
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 (W T) 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 contigu ous
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. Artificia l 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 c lear 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 compo sed 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. P atterned
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

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland H Date of Assessment 8/9/2017
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
W. Taylor Wildlands
Engineering

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
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) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

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 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 FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Cane Creek - Bethel Branch Date of Evaluation 8/9/2017
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland I
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization W. Taylor Wildlands
Engineering
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body South Fork Cane Creek
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03030002
County Chatham NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.830245 -79.367977
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 compact ion, 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 a nd
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 disturbe d.)
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 (W T) 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 contigu ous
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. Artificia l 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 c lear 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 compo sed 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. P atterned
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

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland I Date of Assessment 8/9/2017
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
W. Taylor Wildlands
Engineering

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
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) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

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 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 FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Cane Creek - Bethel Branch Date of Evaluation 8/9/2017
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland J
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization W. Taylor Wildlands
Engineering
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body South Fork Cane Creek
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03030002
County Chatham NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.830245 -79.367977
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 compact ion, 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 a nd
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 disturbe d.)
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 (W T) 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 contigu ous
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. Artificia l 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 c lear 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 compo sed 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. P atterned
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

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland J Date of Assessment 8/9/2017
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
W. Taylor Wildlands
Engineering

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
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) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

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 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

APPENDIX 4
Bethel Branch Site: XS1 Riffle - UT1 UpstreamBankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials13.4 x-section area (ft.sq.) 15.2 W flood prone area (ft) ---d5012.6 width (ft) 1.2 entrenchment ratio ---d841.1 mean depth (ft) 3.7 low bank height (ft) 19 threshold grain size (mm):1.3 max depth (ft) 2.8 low bank height ratio13.5 wetted parimeter (ft)1.0 hyd radi (ft)11.8 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power2.9 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 0.62 channel slope (%)39.2 discharge rate (cfs) --- D'Arcy-Weisbach fric. 0.38 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.52 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 0.44 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 1.2 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)0123456789100 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40ElevationWidthRiffle
Bethel Branch Site: XS2 Pool - UT1 UpstreamBankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials12.2 x-section area (ft.sq.) 11.5 W flood prone area (ft) ---d509.2 width (ft) 1.2 entrenchment ratio ---d841.3 mean depth (ft) 4.5 low bank height (ft) 21 threshold grain size (mm):1.7 max depth (ft) 2.7 low bank height ratio10.9 wetted parimeter (ft)1.1 hyd radi (ft)7.0 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.2 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 0.62 channel slope (%)38.5 discharge rate (cfs) --- D'Arcy-Weisbach fric. 0.43 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.53 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 0.47 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 1.61 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)0123456789100 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40ElevationWidthPool
Bethel Branch Site: XS3 Pool - UT1 MiddleBankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials5.4 x-section area (ft.sq.) 34.2 W flood prone area (ft) ---d505.2 width (ft) 6.6 entrenchment ratio ---d841.0 mean depth (ft) 1.6 low bank height (ft) 16 threshold grain size (mm):1.6 max depth (ft) 1.0 low bank height ratio6.6 wetted parimeter (ft)0.8 hyd radi (ft)5.0 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power2.6 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 0.62 channel slope (%)14.1 discharge rate (cfs) --- D'Arcy-Weisbach fric. 0.32 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.50 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 0.41 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 1.05 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)0123456789100 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40ElevationWidthPool
Bethel Branch Site: XS4 Riffle - UT1 MiddleBankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials5.8 x-section area (ft.sq.) 36.0 W flood prone area (ft) ---d507.2 width (ft) 5.0 entrenchment ratio ---d840.8 mean depth (ft) 1.2 low bank height (ft) 13 threshold grain size (mm):1.2 max depth (ft) 1.0 low bank height ratio8.6 wetted parimeter (ft)0.7 hyd radi (ft)9.0 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power2.3 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 0.62 channel slope (%)13.2 discharge rate (cfs) --- D'Arcy-Weisbach fric. 0.26 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.48 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 0.37 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 0.7 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)0123456789100 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40ElevationWidthRiffle
Bethel Branch Site: XS5 Riffle - UT1 LowerBankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials11.8 x-section area (ft.sq.) 36.0 W flood prone area (ft) ---d507.4 width (ft) 4.9 entrenchment ratio ---d841.6 mean depth (ft) 3.1 low bank height (ft) 23 threshold grain size (mm):1.9 max depth (ft) 1.7 low bank height ratio9.8 wetted parimeter (ft)1.2 hyd radi (ft)4.6 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.3 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 0.62 channel slope (%)38.9 discharge rate (cfs) --- D'Arcy-Weisbach fric. 0.46 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.53 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 0.49 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 2 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)0123456789100 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40ElevationWidthRiffle
Bethel Branch Site: XS6 Pool - UT1 LowerBankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials12.7 x-section area (ft.sq.) 35.0 W flood prone area (ft) ---d5010.3 width (ft) 3.4 entrenchment ratio ---d841.2 mean depth (ft) 3.3 low bank height (ft) 20 threshold grain size (mm):2.1 max depth (ft) 1.6 low bank height ratio11.8 wetted parimeter (ft)1.1 hyd radi (ft)8.3 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.1 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 0.62 channel slope (%)39.1 discharge rate (cfs) --- D'Arcy-Weisbach fric. 0.42 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.52 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 0.46 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 1.47 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)0123456789100 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50ElevationWidth Pool
Bethel Branch Site: XS7 Riffle - UT2, EIIBankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials6.5 x-section area (ft.sq.) 36.0 W flood prone area (ft) ---d507.1 width (ft) 5.1 entrenchment ratio ---d840.9 mean depth (ft) 1.8 low bank height (ft) 24 threshold grain size (mm):1.2 max depth (ft) 1.5 low bank height ratio8.2 wetted parimeter (ft)0.8 hyd radi (ft)7.7 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.2 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 1.01 channel slope (%)20.7 discharge rate (cfs) --- D'Arcy-Weisbach fric. 0.50 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.63 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 0.51 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 1.85 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)0123456789100 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40ElevationWidthRiffle
Bethel Branch Site: XS8 Pool - UT2, EIIBankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials7.7 x-section area (ft.sq.) 30.0 W flood prone area (ft) ---d508.5 width (ft) 3.5 entrenchment ratio ---d840.9 mean depth (ft) 2.5 low bank height (ft) 26 threshold grain size (mm):1.4 max depth (ft) 1.8 low bank height ratio9.3 wetted parimeter (ft)0.8 hyd radi (ft)9.3 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.3 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 1.01 channel slope (%)25.5 discharge rate (cfs) --- D'Arcy-Weisbach fric. 0.52 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.64 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 0.52 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 1.9 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)0123456789100 5 10 15 20 25 30ElevationWidthPool
Bethel Branch Site: XS9 Riffle, UT2, RestorationBankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials7.5 x-section area (ft.sq.) 10.0 W flood prone area (ft) ---d507.7 width (ft) 1.3 entrenchment ratio ---d841.0 mean depth (ft) 2.6 low bank height (ft) 26 threshold grain size (mm):1.2 max depth (ft) 2.1 low bank height ratio8.8 wetted parimeter (ft)0.9 hyd radi (ft)7.9 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.4 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 1.01 channel slope (%)25.2 discharge rate (cfs) --- D'Arcy-Weisbach fric. 0.54 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.64 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 0.53 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 2.1 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)0123456789100 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40ElevationWidthRiffle
Bethel Branch Site: XS10 Pool - UT2, RestorationBankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials8.7 x-section area (ft.sq.) 16.7 W flood prone area (ft) ---d509.4 width (ft) 1.8 entrenchment ratio ---d840.9 mean depth (ft) 2.7 low bank height (ft) 26 threshold grain size (mm):1.5 max depth (ft) 1.7 low bank height ratio10.2 wetted parimeter (ft)0.9 hyd radi (ft)10.1 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.4 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 1.01 channel slope (%)29.4 discharge rate (cfs) --- D'Arcy-Weisbach fric. 0.54 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.64 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 0.53 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 1.97 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)0123456789100 5 10 15 20 25 30 35ElevationWidthPool
Bethel Branch Site: XS11 Riffle - UT3Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials2.4 x-section area (ft.sq.) 5.8W flood prone area (ft) ---d503.0 width (ft) 2.0 entrenchment ratio ---d840.8 mean depth (ft) 1.4 low bank height (ft) 55 threshold grain size (mm):1.0 max depth (ft) 1.5 low bank height ratio4.2 wetted parimeter (ft)0.6 hyd radi (ft)3.6 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power4.6 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 3.13 channel slope (%)11.1 discharge rate (cfs) --- D'Arcy-Weisbach fric. 1.12 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)1.06 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 0.76 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 7.4 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)0123456789100 5 10 15 20 25 30ElevationWidthRiffle
Bethel Branch Site: XS 12 Pool - UT3Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials2.7 x-section area (ft.sq.) 11.6 W flood prone area (ft) ---d503.3 width (ft) 3.5 entrenchment ratio ---d840.8 mean depth (ft) 2.1 low bank height (ft) 59 threshold grain size (mm):1.1 max depth (ft) 1.9 low bank height ratio4.4 wetted parimeter (ft)0.6 hyd radi (ft)4.1 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power4.7 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 3.13 channel slope (%)12.7 discharge rate (cfs) --- D'Arcy-Weisbach fric. 1.19 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)1.07 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 0.78 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 7.5 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)0123456789100 5 10 15 20 25 30ElevationWidthPool
Bethel Branch Site: 13 UT1 Reach 2Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials17.2 x-section area (ft.sq.) 26.4 W flood prone area (ft) ---d5013.2 width (ft) 2.0 entrenchment ratio ---d841.3 mean depth (ft) 3.1 low bank height (ft) 23 threshold grain size (mm):1.9 max depth (ft) 1.6 low bank height ratio14.0 wetted parimeter (ft)1.2 hyd radi (ft)10.1 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.4 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 0.62 channel slope (%)57.7 discharge rate (cfs) --- D'Arcy-Weisbach fric. 0.47 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.53 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 0.49 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 1.7 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)5335345355365375385395405415425430 10203040506070ElevationWidth Riffle
Bethel Branch Site: 14 UT2 Reach 4Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials8.1 x-section area (ft.sq.) 11.1 W flood prone area (ft) ---d507.2 width (ft) 1.5 entrenchment ratio ---d841.1 mean depth (ft) 3.9 low bank height (ft) 30 threshold grain size (mm):1.6 max depth (ft) 2.5 low bank height ratio8.3 wetted parimeter (ft)1.0 hyd radi (ft)6.4 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.7 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 1.01 channel slope (%)30.1 discharge rate (cfs) --- D'Arcy-Weisbach fric. 0.62 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.66 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 0.57 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 2.6 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)5355365375385395405415425435445450 102030405060ElevationWidthRiffle
Bethel Branch Site: XS15 Riffle - UT2 R3Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials8.9 x-section area (ft.sq.) 50.0 W flood prone area (ft) ---d5010.4 width (ft) 4.8 entrenchment ratio ---d840.9 mean depth (ft) 2.1 low bank height (ft) 27 threshold grain size (mm):1.5 max depth (ft) 1.4 low bank height ratio11.0 wetted parimeter (ft)0.8 hyd radi (ft)12.2 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.4 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 1.1 channel slope (%)30.0 discharge rate (cfs) --- D'Arcy-Weisbach fric. 0.55 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.66 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 0.53 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 1.98 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)5415425435445455465475485495505510 1020304050607080ElevationWidthRiffle
Bethel Branch Site: XS16 Pool - UT2 R3Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials8.7 x-section area (ft.sq.) 13.8 W flood prone area (ft) ---d509.8 width (ft) 1.4 entrenchment ratio ---d840.9 mean depth (ft) 3.8 low bank height (ft) 28 threshold grain size (mm):1.2 max depth (ft) 3.1 low bank height ratio10.3 wetted parimeter (ft)0.8 hyd radi (ft)11.0 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.5 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 1.1 channel slope (%)30.3 discharge rate (cfs) --- D'Arcy-Weisbach fric. 0.58 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.67 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 0.55 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 2.1 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)5385395405415425435445455465475480 102030405060ElevationWidthPool
APPENDIX 5
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director

Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

June 28, 2016

Ms. Ruby Davis
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203

Subject: Request for Environmental Information for the Cane Creek Mitigation Bank, Chatham and
Alamance Counties, North Carolina.

Dear Ms. Davis,

Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed project description. Comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (as amended), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. proposes to complete a stream restoration project to provide in-kind
mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts. The proposed project, referred to as the Cane Creek
Mitigation Bank, has three sites: Pine Hill Branch, Bethel Branch and South Fork. The Pine Hill Branch
site is located southeast of the intersection of Clark and Holman Mill Roads, southeast of Snow Camp.
There are records for the state-significantly rare, Carolina ladle crayfish (Cambarus davidi), in an
unnamed tributary of the Pine Hill Branch site. The Bethel Branch site is located northeast of the
intersection of Moon Lindley and RE Wright Roads, north of Siler City. The South Fork site is located
southwest of the intersection of Moon Lindley and Johnny Lindley Roads, north of Siler City. The
proposed work will involve stream restoration, enhancement and preservation. The site has historically
been disturbed as a result of agricultural use. The project site includes unnamed tributaries to South Fork
Cane Creek in the Cape Fear River basin.

Stream restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native, forested
buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats and
provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. The NCWRC recommends the use of biodegradable and
wildlife-friendly sediment and erosion control devices. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products
should have loose-weave netting that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the
vertical and horizontal twines. Silt fencing and similar products that have been reinforced with plastic or
metal mesh should be avoided as they impede the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt
and sediment loads can have detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning
habitat, suffocation of eggs and clogging of gills. Any invasive plant species that are found onsite should
be removed.

Page 2

June 28, 2016
Scoping – Cane Creek Mitigation Bank

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If I can be of further assistance,
please contact me at [phone] or [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203 ◦ (P) 704-332-7754 ◦ (F) 704-332-3306

April 1, 2016 

Shannon Deaton  
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission  
Division of Inland Fisheries 
1721 Mail Service Center 
Raleigh, NC  27699 

Subject: Cane Creek Mitigation Bank 
  Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina 

Dear Ms. Deaton, 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that 
might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with the proposed 
Cane Creek Mitigation Bank.  The stream mitigation bank includes three sites:  Pine Hill 
Branch, Bethel Branch, and South Fork.  A USGS map and aerial maps showing the 
approximate project areas are enclosed.  The topographic figure was prepared from the 
Crutchfield Crossroads and Silk Hope, 7.5‐Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles. 

The Cane Creek Mitigation Bank is being developed to provide in‐kind mitigation for 
unavoidable stream channel impacts.  Several sections of channel have been identified 
as significantly degraded.  The project will include stream restoration, enhancement, 
and preservation.  The site has historically been disturbed due to agricultural use, 
primarily for livestock production. 

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 this project. 

Sincerely, 

Ruby M. Davis 
Environmental Scientist 

Attachment: 
USGS Topographic Map 
Aerial Map 

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susan Kluttz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry

Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

July 1, 2016

Ruby Davis
Wildlands Engineering
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203

Re: Cane Creek Mitigation Bank, Alamance and Chatham Counties, ER 16-1133
Dear Ms. Davis:
Thank you for your email of June 24, 2016, concerning the above project.
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 919-807-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,

Ramona M. Bartos

1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 ◦ (P) 704-332-7754 ◦ (F) 704-332-3306

April 1, 2016 

Renee Gledhill‐Earley 
State Historic Preservation Office 
4617 Mail Service Center 
Raleigh, NC 27699‐4617 

Subject:   Cane Creek Mitigation Bank  
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina    

Dear Ms. Gledhill‐Earley, 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might 
emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the Cane Creek 
Mitigation Bank, a stream mitigation bank located on three sites:  Pine Hill Branch, Bethel 
Branch, and South Fork.  A USGS site map and aerial maps with approximate project areas are 
enclosed. 

The Cane Creek Mitigation Bank is being developed to provide in‐kind mitigation for 
unavoidable stream channel impacts.  Several sections of channel have been identified as 
significantly degraded.  The project will include stream restoration, enhancement, and 
preservation.  The site has historically been disturbed due to agricultural use, primarily for 
livestock production.   

We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence 
of any historic properties. 

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 project. 

Sincerely, 

Ruby M. Davis 
Environmental Scientist 
[e-mail] 

1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC  28203 ◦ (P) 704‐332‐7754 ◦ (F) 704‐332‐3306 

April 1, 2016 

Dale Suiter 
US Fish and Wildlife Service 
Raleigh Field Office 
PO Box 33726 
Raleigh, NC 27636 

Subject: Cane Creek Mitigation Bank 
  Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina 

Dear Mr. Suiter, 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might 
emerge with respect to endangered species, migratory birds or other trust resources associated 
with the proposed Cane Creek Mitigation Bank.  The stream mitigation bank includes three 
sites:  Pine Hill Branch, Bethel Branch, and South Fork.  A USGS map and aerial maps showing 
the approximate project areas are enclosed.  The topographic figure was prepared from the 
Crutchfield Crossroads and Silk Hope, 7.5‐Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles. 

The Cane Creek Mitigation Bank is being developed to provide in‐kind mitigation for 
unavoidable stream channel impacts.  Several sections of channel have been identified as 
significantly degraded.  The project will include stream restoration, enhancement, and 
preservation.  The site has historically been disturbed due to agricultural use, primarily for 
livestock production. 

According to your website (http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/species‐by‐current‐range‐
county?), there are no federally‐listed species in Alamance County.  The Cape Fear shiner, Red‐
cockaded woodpecker and the Harperella are the federally listed endangered species for 
Chatham County.  Due to the recent listing of the Northern long‐eared bat and the forested 
nature of the site, we are requesting a specific review and any known information regarding this 
species, along with the federally listed species.   

If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will assume that you do not have any comments 
regarding associated laws and that you do not have any information relevant to this projects at 
the current time. 

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 this project. 

Sincerely, 

Ruby M. Davis 
Environmental Scientist 

Attachment: 
USGS Topographic Map and Aerial MapAerial Map 
APPENDIX 6
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
stream type
drainage area DA sq mi
bankfull cross-
sectional area Abkf SF
average 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
bankfull pool cross-
sectional area Apool SF
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf
pool-pool spacing p-p feet 40.7 87.0 51.0 144.7 30.8 174.4 36.9 185.0 31.5 90.4 84.6 90.3
pool-pool spacing
ratio p-p/Wbkf 3.2 6.9 7.1 20.1 4.2 23.6 4.8 24.0 3.0 8.7 28.2 30.1
valley slope Svalley feet/foot
channel slope Schannel feet/foot
sinuosity K
belt width wblt feet 21.2 23.7 22.7 26.7 18.3 38.2 26.4 58.5 19.3 31.8 14.7 24.1
meander width ratio wblt/wbkf 1.7 1.9 3.2 3.7 2.5 5.2 3.4 7.6 1.9 3.1 4.9 8.0
meander length Lm feet 48.7 82.3 66.7 183.8 46.9 344.7 48.1 248.5 54.5 290.0 67.3 147.6
meander length ratio Lm/wbkf 3.9 6.5 9.3 25.5 6.3 46.6 6.2 32.3 5.2 27.9 22.4 49.2
linear wavelength LW 43.0 67.7 104.3 183.6 50.8 210.1 37.0 211.6 53.3 152.5 33.0 142.0
linear wavelength
ratio LW/wbkf 3.4 5.4 14.5 25.5 6.9 28.4 4.8 27.5 5.1 14.7 11.0 47.3
radius of curvature Rc feet 16.3 34.0 15.5 128.9 9.6 43.9 12.9 31.5 16.1 57.5 13.1 24.5
radius of curvature
ratio Rc/ wbkf 1.3 2.7 2.2 17.9 1.3 5.9 1.7 4.1 1.5 5.5 4.4 8.2
1.UT1 Reach 1B has been heavily manipulated and disturbed by livestock and appears to be significatly undersized to convey the bankfull discharge
1.3
10.3
1.4
12.7
1.1
1.6
4.6
3.1
1.7
> 36
> 4.9
2.1
1.17 1.13
0.011 0.0091
0.010 0.00680.0045
1.20
0.0056
10.0 50.0
1.5 1.2
1.3 4.8
1.5 1.3
1.2 1.0
8.7 8.7
1.2 0.9
9.4 9.8
7.4
1.9
2.1 1.4
12.2
2.1
7.5
0.9
1.5
10.4
8.9
2.6
7.7
7.9
Parameter Notation Units
UT1 - R1A UT1 - R1B1 UT1 - R1C
0.43
11.8
3.3
E5
UT2 - R2 UT2 - R3
G4 C4
3.4
0.310.22
1.0
1.2
3.4
12.2 5.4
0.9 0.9
9.2 5.2
1.08 1.05
0.0070 0.0073
0.0039
0.7 0.7
0.0025
1.7 1.6
1.5 2.0
15.2 > 36
1.2 > 5.0
3.7 1.2
2.8 <1
9.0
12.6 7.2
1.3 1.2
2.9 2.3
G4 E5
0.31 0.37
13.4 5.8
1.1 0.8
1.1
0.016
0.022
1.05
Existing Conditions Geomorphic Parameters
1.4
1.5
5.8
2.0
1.1
1.4
3.3
1.1
2.7
UT3
B4c
0.08
2.4
4.6
3.0
1.0
0.8
3.611.8
Typical
Section
Values
Min Max
Typical
Section
Values
Min Max
Typical
Section
Values
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 - 1.7 1.9 - 1.3 1.6 - 1.5 1.7
mean depth at
bankfull dbkf feet
bankfull width to
depth ratio wbkf/dbkf
max depth ratio dmax/dbkf feet 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5
bank height ratio BHR
floodprone area
width wfpa feet - 31 71 - 26 60 - 29 66
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 0.0025 0.0024 0.0026 0.0073 0.0070 0.0076 0.0045 0.0043 0.0047
riffle slope Sriffle feet/foot - 0.0029 0.0087 - 0.0084 0.0252 - 0.0052 0.0156
riffle slope ratio Sriffle/Schnl - 1.2 3.3 - 1.2 3.3 - 1.3 3.3
pool slope Sp feet/foot - 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.000
pool slope ratio Sp/Schnl - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0
pool-pool
spacing Lp-p feet - 48 101 - 41 85 - 45 94
pool spacing
ratio Lp-p/wbkf - 3.4 7.1 - 3.4 7.1 - 3.4 7.1
pool cross-
sectional area Apool SF - 20.3 46.1 - 13.6 31.0 - 16.2 36.9
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf - 1.1 2.5 - 1.1 2.5 - 1.1 2.5
maximum pool
depth dpool feet - 2.3 3.9 - 1.9 3.1 - 2.0 3.4
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf - 1.8 3.0 - 1.8 3.0 - 1.8 3.0
pool width at
bankfull wpool feet - 12.8 22.7 - 10.8 19.2 - 11.9 21.1
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf - 0.9 1.6 - 0.9 1.6 - 0.9 1.6
sinuosity K 1.15 1.10 1.20 1.15 1.10 1.20 1.15 1.10 1.20
belt width wblt feet - 45 58 - 38 49 - 42 54
meander width
ratio wblt/wbkf - 3.2 4.1 - 3.2 4.1 - 3.2 4.1
meander length LW feet - 107 213 - 90 180 - 99 198
meander length
ratio LW/wbkf - 7.5 15.0 - 7.5 15.0 - 7.5 15.0
linear
wavelength LW feet - 58 146 - 49 124 - 54 136
linear
wavelength ratio LW/wbkf - 4.1 10.3 - 4.1 10.3 - 4.1 10.3
radius of
curvature Rc feet - 28 67 - 24 56 - 26 62
radius of
curvature ratio Rc/ wbkf - 2.0 4.7 - 2.0 4.7 - 2.0 4.7
1.UT1 Reaches 1B and 1C have a d50 in the sand range; however, this is largely due to livestock trampling the banks. After
construction, the streams are expected to have d50 values in the gravel range.
11.0 12.0
0.0029
12.0
0.0084 0.0052
1.0 1.0 1.0
39.0
1.3 1.0
2.1 3.2 2.6
14.2 12.0 13.2
18.4 12.4 14.7
Parameter Notation Units
UT1 - R1A UT1 - R1B UT1 - R1C
0.31
C4 C41 C41
0.37 0.43
1.1
39.0 39.0
Proposed Geomorphic Parameters
Typical
Section
Values
Min Max
Typical
Section
Values
Min Max
Typical
Section
Values
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 - 1.0 1.2 - 1.1 1.3 - 0.7 0.8
mean depth at
bankfull dbkf feet
bankfull width to
depth ratio wbkf/dbkf
max depth ratio dmax/dbkf feet 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5
bank height ratio BHR
floodprone area
width wfpa feet - 22 50 - 23 52 - 15 35
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 0.0093 0.0092 0.0100 0.010 0.010 0.011 0.017 0.0131 0.0148
riffle slope Sriffle feet/foot - 0.011 0.033 - 0.012 0.036 - 0.0157 0.0488
riffle slope ratio Sriffle/Schnl - 1.2 3.3 - 1.2 3.3 - 1.2 3.3
pool slope Sp feet/foot - 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.000
pool slope ratio Sp/Schnl - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0
pool-pool
spacing Lp-p feet - 34 71 - 35 74 - 24 50
pool spacing
ratio Lp-p/wbkf - 3.4 7.1 - 3.4 7.1 - 3.4 7.1
pool cross-
sectional area Apool SF - 8.8 20.0 - 9.8 22.3 - 4.1 9.3
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf - 1.1 2.5 - 1.1 2.5 - 1.1 2.5
maximum pool
depth dpool feet - 1.4 2.4 - 1.5 2.6 - 1.0 1.6
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf - 1.8 3.0 - 1.8 3.0 - 1.8 3.0
pool width at
bankfull wpool feet - 9.0 16.0 - 9.4 16.6 - 6.3 11.2
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf - 0.9 1.6 - 0.9 1.6 - 0.9 1.6
sinuosity K 1.15 1.10 1.20 1.15 1.10 1.20 1.20 1.15 1.30
belt width wblt feet - 32 41 - 33 43 - 22 29
meander width
ratio wblt/wbkf - 3.2 4.1 - 3.2 4.1 - 3.2 4.1
meander length LW feet - 75 150 - 78 156 - 53 105
meander length
ratio LW/wbkf - 7.5 15.0 - 7.5 15.0 - 7.5 15.0
linear
wavelength LW feet - 41 103 - 43 107 - 29 72
linear
wavelength ratio LW/wbkf - 4.1 10.3 - 4.1 10.3 - 4.1 10.3
radius of
curvature Rc feet - 20 47 - 21 49 - 14 33
radius of
curvature ratio Rc/ wbkf - 2.0 4.7 - 2.0 4.7 - 2.0 4.7
1.UT1 Reaches 1B and 1C have a d50 in the sand range; however, this is largely due to livestock trampling the banks. After
construction, the streams are expected to have d50 values in the gravel range.
13.0
UT2 - R3 UT3
C4 C4 C4
UT2 - R2
0.31 0.08
24.0 30.0 11.0
0.22
0.9 0.5
8.9 3.7
3.0 3.3 3.1
8.0
10.0
0.011 0.012 0.017
UnitsParameter Notation
Proposed Geomorphic Parameters
12.0 13.0
1.0 1.0 1.0
10.4 7.0
0.8
APPENDIX 7
Hydraulic Design Data
Sediment Reach UT3
River: UT3, Reach: UT3 PR
RS: 58.4 to 0
Sediment Transport Functions: MPM
Temperature: 55
Specific Gravity of Sediment: 2.65
Concentration of Fine Sediment: 0
Fall Velocity Method: Default
Depth/Width Type: Default

Gradation Left Overbank Main Channel Right Overbank
Diameter % Finer Diameter % Finer Diameter % Finer
.100 50 .00620 16 .100 50
2.00 61 1.46 35 2.00 61
16.0 70 7.23 50 16.0 70
32.0 80 29.1 84 32.0 80
128 92 51.8 95 128 92
362 100 128 100 362 100

d90 102 39.9 102
d84 50.8 29.1 50.8
d50 .100 7.22 .100

Bed Material Fraction by Standard Grade Size
Class dm (mm) Left Main Right
1 .003 0.000 0.000 0.000
2 .006 0.000 0.169 0.000
3 .011 0.000 0.024 0.000
4 .023 0.000 0.024 0.000
5 .045 0.000 0.023 0.000
6 .088 0.508 0.024 0.508
7 .177 0.026 0.024 0.026
8 .354 0.026 0.024 0.026
9 .707 0.026 0.024 0.026
10 1.41 0.026 0.043 0.026
11 2.83 0.030 0.065 0.030
12 5.64 0.030 0.080 0.030
13 11.3 0.030 0.170 0.030
14 22.6 0.100 0.164 0.100
15 45.1 0.060 0.099 0.060
16 90.5 0.060 0.022 0.060
17 181 0.020 0.022 0.020
18 362 0.020 0.000 0.020
19 724 0.020 0.000 0.020
20 1448 0.020 0.000 0.020

Sediment Transport Potential (tons/day) UT2 R2 87.23 MPM Total All Grains
(tons/day)

Sed Reach RS Profile Function All Grains
1 UT3 58.4 PF 1 MPM 12.78
APPENDIX 8
Groundwater Gage PlotsProject Name (DMS Project No. XXXXX)Monitoring Year 1 - 2017Wetland 1Start of Growing Season4/1/2016End of Growing Season11/3/2017MarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNov0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0-60-50-40-30-20-1001020Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 1 - 2017RainfallReference Gage DepthGage #1Criteria LevelBethel Branch Groundwater Gage #1
Groundwater Gage PlotsProject Name (DMS Project No. XXXXX)Monitoring Year 1 - 2017Wetland 1Start of Growing Season4/1/2016End of Growing Season11/3/2017MarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNov0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0-60-50-40-30-20-1001020Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 1 - 2017RainfallReference Gage DepthGage #2Criteria LevelBethel Branch Groundwater Gage #2
APPENDIX 9

April 16, 2018

Jeff Keaton
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609

Dear Mr. Keaton,

This letter is to confirm that Unique Places To Save, a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization located in North
Carolina, is willing to act as the responsible party to accept bond funds and successfully complete the Cane
Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank Bethel Branch Site (“Mitigation Project”) in the event that Wildlands
Engineering fails to perform these tasks or no longer exists.

As the long-term easement holder and manager of the perpetual conservation easement associated with the
Mitigation Project, we are a logical consideration for this role.

We also understand that Unique Places To Save has the right and opportunity to review the bond amount and
level of responsibility and work to be completed on the Mitigation Project prior to accepting the bond funds or
completing any work on the Mitigation Project. After this review, Unique Places To Save has the right to accept
or deny the bond funds and subsequent mitigation responsibilities.

This role in no way affects our ability to monitor, steward and legally defend the perpetual conservation
easement associated with the Mitigation Project.

Sincerely,
David Harper
Executive Director

PO Box 1183 Chapel Hill, NC 27587-1183 585-472-9498 [e-mail]