20180180 Ver 1_MP_DRAFT_March2019_20190429

ID#* 20180180
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review
Completed Date
04/30/2019
Mitigation Project Submittal - 4/29/2019
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? *
Type of Mitigation Project:*
W Stream W Wetlands W Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Cara Conder
Project Information
Existing 20180180
(DWR) (nunbersonly ...nodash)
ID#:*
Project Type: (- DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Hollowell
County: Wayne
Document Information
C' c�
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Existing
Version: (nurrbersonly)
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: Hollowell—MP —
MP_ DRAFT_March20l9.pdf 57.47MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the corrplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Cara Conder
Signature:

Draft Mitigation Plan
Hollowell Mitigation Project
Wayne County, North Carolina

Private Commercial Mitigation Bank for
Stream and Riparian Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Credits
Neuse River Basin (CU 03020201)
USACE Action ID Number: SAW-2017-00159

Prepared for:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1343

Prepared by:

March 2019
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 2
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Bank Sponsor ................................................................................................................................ 6
1.3 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................... 6
2 Bank Establishment and Operation ...................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Site Selection ................................................................................................................................. 8
2.2 Service Area .................................................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Site Protection Instrument............................................................................................................ 8
2.4 Watershed Need and Feasibility ................................................................................................... 9
3 Baseline Information ............................................................................................................................. 9
3.1 Watershed Characterization ....................................................................................................... 10
3.1.1 Surface Water Classification ............................................................................................... 10
3.1.2 Watershed Context ............................................................................................................. 10
3.1.3 Jurisdictional WOTUS .......................................................................................................... 10
3.1.4 NC SAM and NC WAM ......................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Land Use and Development Trends ............................................................................................ 11
3.3 Landscape Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 11
3.3.1 Physiography and Geology .................................................................................................. 11
3.3.2 Soils ..................................................................................................................................... 11
3.3.3 Climate ................................................................................................................................ 12
3.3.4 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................ 12
3.3.5 Existing Vegetation ............................................................................................................. 12
3.4 Existing Stream Conditions ......................................................................................................... 13
3.4.1 Geomorphic Assessment .................................................................................................... 13
3.4.2 Existing Reach Descriptions ................................................................................................ 14
3.4.3 Channel Substrate ............................................................................................................... 17
3.5 Existing Wetland Conditions ....................................................................................................... 17
3.5.1 Plant Community Characterization ..................................................................................... 17
3.5.2 Hydrological Characterization ............................................................................................. 17
3.5.3 Soil Characterization ........................................................................................................... 18
3.6 Potential Site Constraints ............................................................................................................ 19
3.6.1 Existing Easements on the Site ........................................................................................... 19
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 3
3.6.2 Utility Corridors within the Site .......................................................................................... 19
3.6.3 Mineral or Water Rights Assurance .................................................................................... 19
3.6.4 Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................................................................ 19
3.6.5 Invasive Species Vegetation ................................................................................................ 19
3.7 Regulatory Considerations .......................................................................................................... 19
3.7.1 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 19
3.7.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................. 20
3.7.3 Conditions Affecting Hydrology .......................................................................................... 20
3.7.4 Adjacent Land Use .............................................................................................................. 20
4 Functional Uplift Potential .................................................................................................................. 20
4.1.1 Function-Based Parameters and Measurement Methods.................................................. 21
4.1.2 Performance Standards and Functional Capacity ............................................................... 22
4.1.3 Restoration Potential and Project Benefits Summary ........................................................ 22
5 Determination of Credits .................................................................................................................... 25
5.1 Proposed Mitigation Credit Types .............................................................................................. 25
5.2 Credit Release Schedule .............................................................................................................. 26
6 Mitigation Work Plan .......................................................................................................................... 27
6.1 Design Approach ......................................................................................................................... 27
6.2 Design Criteria Selection ............................................................................................................. 28
6.2.1 Stream Design Reach Summary .......................................................................................... 29
6.2.2 Riparian Buffer Restoration ................................................................................................ 31
6.2.3 Planting Materials and Methods ......................................................................................... 33
6.2.4 Riparian Wetland Restoration ............................................................................................. 34
6.2.5 Riparian Wetland Enhancement ......................................................................................... 35
6.2.6 Riparian Wetland Preservation ........................................................................................... 35
6.3 Flow Regime ................................................................................................................................ 35
6.3.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge .............................................................................................. 36
6.3.2 Regional Curve Comparison ................................................................................................ 37
6.3.3 Channel Forming Discharge ................................................................................................ 37
6.3.4 Channel Stability and Sediment Transport Analysis ........................................................... 38
6.4 Reference Sites ........................................................................................................................... 39
6.4.1 Reference Streams .............................................................................................................. 39
6.4.2 Reference Wetlands ............................................................................................................ 40
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 4
6.5 Water Quality Treatment Features ............................................................................................. 41
6.6 Site Construction Methods ......................................................................................................... 41
6.6.1 Site Grading and Construction Elements ............................................................................ 41
6.6.2 Stream and Floodplain Improvement Features .................................................................. 42
6.6.3 Construction Feasibility ....................................................................................................... 42
7 Maintenance Plan ............................................................................................................................... 43
8 Performance Standards ...................................................................................................................... 43
8.1 Single-Thread Streams ................................................................................................................ 44
8.2 Headwater Streams .................................................................................................................... 44
8.3 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................... 44
8.4 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 45
9 Monitoring Plan .................................................................................................................................. 45
9.1 Stream Monitoring ...................................................................................................................... 45
9.1.1 Hydrologic Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 46
9.1.2 Geomorphic Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 46
9.1.3 Flow Duration Monitoring................................................................................................... 47
9.1.4 Headwater Stream Monitoring ........................................................................................... 48
9.2 Wetland Monitoring ................................................................................................................... 48
9.3 Vegetation Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 49
9.4 Visual Assessment Monitoring .................................................................................................... 50
10 Long-Term Management Plan ............................................................................................................ 51
11 Adaptive Management Plan ............................................................................................................... 52
12 Financial Assurances ........................................................................................................................... 52
13 References .......................................................................................................................................... 53

Tables
Table 1. Parcel Ownership Information ....................................................................................................... 9
Table 2. Reach Watershed Drainage & Jurisdictional Status for Project Reaches ..................................... 14
Table 3. Existing Channel Morphology Summary ...................................................................................... 14
Table 4. Function-Based Goals and Objectives Summary .......................................................................... 21
Table 5. Existing and Proposed Functional Condition Assessment Summary ........................................... 22
Table 6. Functional Lift Scoring Summary .................................................................................................. 22
Table 7. Project Benefits Summary ............................................................................................................ 23
Table 8. Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits (SMCs) ................................................................................ 25
Table 9. Proposed Wetland Mitigation Credits (WMCs) ............................................................................ 25
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 5
Table 10. Credit Release Schedule ............................................................................................................. 26
Table 11. Proposed Design Parameters ..................................................................................................... 29
Table 12. Proposed Riparian Buffer Bare Root and Live Stake Plantings................................................... 32
Table 13. Proposed Riparian Buffer Permanent Seeding ........................................................................... 34
Table 14. Flow Level and Ecological Role ................................................................................................... 36
Table 15. North Carolina Coastal Plain Regional Curve Equations ............................................................ 37
Table 16. Design Discharge Analysis Summary .......................................................................................... 38
Table 17. Bankfull Shear Stress and Stream Power ................................................................................... 39
Table 18. Reference Reach Data Comparison ............................................................................................ 40
Table 19. Routine Maintenance Components ........................................................................................... 43
Table 20. Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary ......................................................................................... 50
Table 21. Financial Assurances ................................................................................................................... 52

Figures
Figure 1 ................................................................................................................................. Project Location
Figure 1a.......................................................................................................... Geographic Service Area Map
Figure 2 ..................................................................................................................... USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3 .................................................................................................................................. NRCS Soils Map
Figure 4 ......................................................................................................................................... LiDAR Map
Figure 5 .................................................................................................................................. Floodplain Map
Figure 6a.................................................................................................................... 1993 Aerial Photograph
Figure 6b ................................................................................................................... 2004 Aerial Photograph
Figure 6c .................................................................................................................... 2013 Aerial Photograph
Figure 7 ......................................................................................................................... Existing Hydrography
Figure 8 .................................................................................... Channel Stability & Pre-Monitoring Features
Figure 9 ..................................................................................................................... Water Quality Stressors
Figure 10 ......................................................................................................... Proposed Mitigation Features
Figure 11 ......................................................................................................... Reference Site Locations Map

Appendices
Appendix A ........................................................................................................................ Design Plan Sheets
Appendix B ............................................................................................................... Existing Conditions Data
Appendix C .......................................................................................................................... Site Analysis Data
Appendix D ........................................................................................................... Site Protection Instrument
Appendix E ............................................................................................................ USACE Assessment Forms
Appendix F ..................................................................................................................... WOTUS Information
Appendix G ............................................................................................................... Agency Correspondence
Appendix H ........................................................................................................................... Site Photographs

DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 6
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is submitting this mitigation plan for the Hollowell Mitigation Project
(“Project”) under the WLS Neuse 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank (“Bank”). The proposed Bank is being
developed as a private commercial umbrella mitigation bank to allow for the addition of future mitigation
sites located in the Neuse River Basin, 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201 (Figure 1a). The
purpose of the Bank is to provide stream and wetland mitigation credits to compensate for unavoidable
impacts to Waters of the U.S. authorized under sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and all applicable state statutes.
This mitigation plan was prepared in accordance with C.F.R. §332.1-8 (2008), Compensatory Mitigation
for Losses of Aquatic Resources, and was based on current United States Army Corps of Engineers –
Wilmington District (USACE) Guidance, which is subject to the approval of the USACE District Engineer
(DE) in consultation with the North Carolina (NC) Inter-Agency Review Team (IRT).
In addition to the Bank, The Hollowell Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel (“Parcel”) is
proposed under the terms and conditions of the Hollowell Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Banking
Instrument (MBI), made and entered into by WLS, acting as Bank Sponsor (“Sponsor”), and the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (“NCDEQ”), Division of Water Resources (“DWR”). The
Parcel shall be planned and designed according to the MBI, 15A NCAC 02B .0240, and the Consolidated
Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295, which became effective on November 1, 2015. The Bank
Parcel Development Plan (“BPDP”) will be designed in concurrence with the Hollowell Mitigation Site
(SAW #2017-00159).
1.2 Bank Sponsor
Water & Land Solutions, LLC submits this mitigation plan and will serve as the sponsor for the WLS Neuse
01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The contact information for the sponsor is listed below:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Attn: Adam V. McIntyre
7721 Six Forks Rd, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27614
919-614-5111
[e-mail]
1.3 Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The mitigation goals and objectives are based on the current resource condition and functional capacity
of the watershed to improve and protect diverse aquatic resources comparable to stable headwater
stream and wetland systems within the Inner Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The Project will meet
the general restoration goals and opportunities outlined in the North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) Neuse River Basin Restoration Priority Plan (RBRP) (DEQ 2010). More specifically,
watershed goals and management strategies will be met by:
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 7
• Reducing sediment, soil erosion, turbidity, and nutrient inputs such as nitrogen and phosphorus
to the Neuse River Watershed.
• Restoring, enhancing, preserving and protecting headwater streams, wetlands, riparian buffers
and aquatic habitat functions.
• Improving riparian corridor management and targeting restoration of impacted streams and
riparian buffer areas.
• Promoting agronomic farm management techniques and implementing agricultural BMPs and
water quality features such as nutrient management and wetlands restoration.
To accomplish these project-specific goals, the following objectives will be measured to document overall
project success:
 Provide a floodplain connection to the incised Project stream reaches by lowering bank height
ratios (BHRs) greater than 1.5, thereby promoting more a natural headwater flow regime and
overbank flood flows,
 Improve bedform diversity by increasing scour pool spacing and depth variability,
 Increase native species riparian buffer and wetland vegetation density/composition along
streambank and floodplain areas that meet requirements of a minimum 50-foot-wide and 210
stems/acre after the monitoring period,
 Improve aquatic habitat and fish species diversity and migration through the addition of in-stream
cover and native woody debris,
 Site protection through a 72-acre conservation easement in excess of 50 feet from the top of the
restored streambanks, will protect all streams, wetlands and aquatic resources in perpetuity.
The baseline information and existing conditions site assessment suggests that the proposed mitigation
activities will result in a higher functioning aquatic ecosystem. The mitigation goals and objectives address
water quality stressors by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs through stream restoration, riparian
buffer restoration, riparian wetland restoration and implementing agricultural BMPs. Hydrologic functions
will be improved by raising the local water table. A more natural flow regime will be restored to riparian
wetlands and floodplain areas by implementing a Rosgen Priority Level I and headwater valley restoration
approach. The biologic and habitat functions will be improved by extending wildlife corridors that connect
with wooded areas near the upstream extents of the Project reaches.
As a design consideration, WLS coordinated with the landowners to extend the easement boundary
beyond minimum buffer width requirements in key locations to capture additional wetland areas and
natural drainage features within the riparian corridor. Increasing the conservation easement boundary
will provide wider riparian buffers and also allow the implementation of agricultural best management
practices, which ultimately improve floodplain functions and pollutant removal effectiveness. These
mitigation efforts will provide a significant ecological benefit with minimal impacts and constraints during
a recovery period that would not otherwise occur through natural processes.
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 8
2 Bank Establishment and Operation
2.1 Site Selection
The Project is located approximately seven miles southwest of the Town of Goldsboro in Wayne County,
NC (35.35814°, -78.11642°). The Project is located within the 8-digit HUC 03020201, in the NC Department
of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) sub-basin 03-04-02 (Warm Water Thermal Regime), all within in the
Neuse River Basin. This sub-basin spans portions of Johnston and Wayne Counties and includes the
municipalities of Goldsboro, Selma, Pine Level, Mount Olive and Princeton. The Project would further the
Neuse River RBRP goals by promoting nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring
and preserving wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers, as well as focusing mitigation projects for North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in areas where they will provide the most functional
improvement to the ecosystem (NCDOT, 2015). Also, the ecologically valuable floodplain of the Neuse
River will be protected in perpetuity in the Project area.
To access the Project from Raleigh, NC, follow US Interstate 40 towards Smithfield/Goldsboro. Take Exit
309 for US Highway 70 East and continue for approximately 17 miles. Keep left for US 70 Bypass East and
continue approximately four miles and turn right onto Creechs Mill Road. Continue on Creechs Mill Road
for approximately three miles and turn left onto Brogden Road and continue approximately eight miles.
Continue onto Old Smithfield road approximately one mile and turn right onto Lassiter Road. Continue on
Lassiter Road approximately two miles and turn right onto Ferry Bridge Road. Continue on Ferry Bridge
Road for approximately two miles and turn left onto Stevens Mill Road. Continue on Stevens Mill Road
approximately two miles and arrive at the site entrance on the left. Follow the farm road to the site
boundary.
2.2 Service Area
The proposed Geographic Service Area (GSA) for the Bank will provide compensatory mitigation credits
for unavoidable, permitted impacts to Waters of the United States (WOTUS) in the Neuse River
Watershed, 8-Digit HUC 03020201 (See Figure 1a) as described in the UMBI. The proposed GSA for the
Project site was determined using a combined watershed and ecoregion approach selected in accordance
with 33 CFR. Additional considerations included economic factors and compensatory mitigation need and
ecological benefit (credit types) for the Project location, which were supported by evaluating appropriate
scientific data and literature and projected growth and impacts to aquatic resources as documented by
both the NCDOT and DMS. The Project stream credits are warm water thermal regime and may be used
for warm water stream impacts. The Project will also yield riparian wetland credits.
2.3 Site Protection Instrument
The Sponsor has obtained agent authorization forms and option agreements to purchase a conservation
easement for each of the property parcels that comprise the Project. Copies of the agent authorization
forms and draft conservation easement template are provided in Appendix D. The Sponsor shall record a
conservation easement with the Wayne County Clerk that has been approved by the USACE, in
coordination with the IRT, and provide a copy of the recorded conservation easement to the USACE. The
current property owners for the Project site are listed in Table 1 below.
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 9
Table 1. Parcel Ownership Information
Parcel ID Number Owners of Record Acres Deed Reference
BK/PG
2568057761 Connie H. and Paul A. Feige 265.7 03133 0504
2568356824 Debra H. and George Grantham 266.1 03133 0495
2568560252 Timothy Robbins 112.9 01065 0840
2568223903 John L. and Laure R. Tart II 111.62 03363 0205

The conservation easement will ensure that the Project will be protected in perpetuity from land uses that
are not consistent with the UMBI. With the exception of USACE-approved activities (in coordination with
the IRT), the Project shall not be disturbed by activities that would adversely affect the intended extent,
condition, or function of the bank. The conservation easement shall not be removed or modified without
prior written approval of the USACE.
2.4 Watershed Need and Feasibility
The proposed mitigation activities will restore, enhance, preserve and protect approximately 8,960 linear
feet of stream and 10.52 acres of wetland to address components as defined in the RBRP (DMS, December
2010). The RBRP describes this basin as a rapidly growing area of North Carolina, particularly within the
Goldsboro area. Mitigation banks in this region are essential to improving water quality and protecting
aquatic resource functions in order to offset unavoidable impacts to WOTUS associated with rapid growth
and development. Based on the Project location, the restoration of on-site wetlands and streams are likely
the best solution to providing significant water quality benefits to offset lost aquatic resource functions
in the Neuse River watershed.
3 Baseline Information
WLS performed an existing conditions assessment for the Project by compiling and analyzing baseline
information, aerial photography, and field data. The purpose of this assessment was to determine how
aquatic resource functions have been impacted within the catchment area. Parameters such as watershed
drainage area, percent impervious cover, land use, climate, and hydrology (rainfall/runoff relationships)
were evaluated, along with the analysis of physiography (soils and local geology), topographic position
(basin relief, landforms, valley morphology), flow regime (discharge, precipitation, evapotranspiration,
controlling vegetation, substrate, open stream channel, storm water flow), as well as agrarian, forestry,
and other land use practices and development trends.
Combined with historical context, the processes of hydrology and geomorphology must be linked to
evaluate current physical and biological conditions and system responses to human activities within the
riparian ecosystem (Montgomery and Bolton, 2003). Identifying the hydrogeomorphic variability, site
constraints, and cause-and-effect relationships plays a key role in determining the functional loss and
maximizing potential uplift (Harman et al., 2012). The following sub-sections further describe the existing
site conditions, degrees of impairment, and primary controls that were considered for developing an
appropriate restoration design approach.
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 10
3.1 Watershed Characterization
3.1.1 Surface Water Classification
The Project tributaries drain directly to the Neuse River, which is listed as a Water Supply IV (WS-IV)
nutrient sensitive water (WS-IV; NSW), according to the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) (2018). WS-IV waters are sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing
purposes. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. WS-IV waters are generally in moderately to
highly developed watersheds.
3.1.2 Watershed Context
The spatial and temporal variability of hydrologic and geomorphic processes, as well as excess sediment
and nutrient inputs have influenced the overall system response and stability trends across the Project.
Measurable changes in the landscape ecology, including native buffer vegetation disturbance or removal,
stream channel alteration/ditching, and erosion dynamics/sediment supply have negatively impacted
historic stream and wetland functions at the Project. Evidence of these observed changes were
documented throughout the watershed as increased channel widths/depths and bank height ratios,
decreased riffle-pool frequency and bedform diversity, as well as limited floodplain connectivity and
hyporheic zone interaction and wetland hydrology. Additionally, agricultural fertilization has likely
increased nutrient levels within the watershed. These ecological impacts and the rates of systematic
responses within the watershed have increased considerably over the past few decades.
3.1.3 Jurisdictional WOTUS
WLS investigated on‐site jurisdictional WOTUS using the USACE Routine On‐Site Determination Method.
This method is defined in the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual and subsequent Atlantic and Gulf
Coastal Plain Regional Supplement (v2.0). Potential jurisdictional (JD) wetland areas, as well as upland
areas, were classified using the USACE Wetland Determination Data Form. Determination methods for
stream classification utilized the NCDWQ Stream Identification Form (v4.11). The results of the on‐site
field investigation indicated that all Project reaches were determined to be jurisdictional stream channels.
In addition, five jurisdictional wetland areas (totaling 14.26 acres) were delineated within the proposed
Project area (See Figure 7) and are located within the floodplain areas along the Project stream reaches.
WLS submitted a preliminary jurisdictional determination (JD) application package to the USACE in
February 2019 and supporting documents and agency correspondence are provided located in Appendix
F.
3.1.4 NC SAM and NC WAM
WLS completed stream and wetland assessments using the NC Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM,
Version 5.1, 2015) and NC Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM, Version 2.1, 2015). WLS evaluated the
NC WAM and NC SAM metrics relevant to the Project wetland areas and stream reaches. The metrics were
documented to evaluate various stream and wetland conditions and functions (See Appendix B). The
Project reach scores ranged from ‘low’ to ‘high’. Reaches UT1-R1, UT1-R2, UT2-R1, UT2-R2, and UT2A
scored ‘low’ due to extensive ditching, buffer and water quality stressors from agriculture, and altered
stream morphology. Reach UT2-R3 scored ‘’medium” because of improved aquatic habitat, substrate and
marginal buffer widths. UT2B scored high due to higher quality aquatic habitat and mature buffer with
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 11
adequate widths. Wetland areas W1 and W2 rated ‘high’ because of relatively undisturbed conditions and
mature riparian buffer vegetation with a high water table. W3, W4 and W5 rated ‘low’ given historic
disturbances such as removal of riparian buffer vegetation removal and drainage ditching.
The ecological assessments also incorporated qualitative and quantitative observations using historic
aerials, field evaluations, and detailed topographic survey data collected across the Project site. The
conclusions from these assessments help describe the current stream and wetland conditions and
functional ratings, however, these methods are not intended to be used for determining mitigation
success on the constructed stream and wetland site.
3.2 Land Use and Development Trends
The USGS 2011 National Land Cover Data (NLCD) GIS Dataset was used to estimate the impervious cover
and dominant land use information for the Project catchment area. WLS conducted field reconnaissance
to verify the current land use practices within the catchment are predominantly row-crop agriculture and
silviculture. Much of the watershed has remained a mixture of forest and agricultural fields, but an
increase in agricultural production was evident as illustrated on recent historic aerials (See Figures 6a-6c).
Over time the natural stream and wetland processes and aquatic resource functions have been
significantly impacted because of these anthropogenic disturbances.
3.3 Landscape Characteristics
3.3.1 Physiography and Geology
The Project is located in the ‘Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces’ Level IV Ecoregion (Griffith et
al, 2002). The underlying geology within this region is located in the Eastern Slate Belt geologic province.
More specifically, the project area consists of felsic metamorphic rock (‘CZfv’) formation interlayered with
metamorphosed dacitic to rhyolitic flows and tuffs, light gray to greenish gray; interbedded with mafic
and intermediate metavolcanic rock, meta-argillite, and metamudstone (Geologic Map of North Carolina,
NC Geological Survey, 1998). The Project area is located along the Neuse River which represents a
transitional zone or fall line between eastern Piedmont and Inner Coastal Plain. The Inner Coastal Plain
physiographic province in this area is characterized by broad interstream divides with flatter marine
terraces and steeper stream gradients along the escarpment boundary.
3.3.2 Soils
The soils mapped by the USDA, Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey of Wayne County (USDA, 1974)
indicate six major soil mapping units across the Project site (Figure 3) that are classified as hydric by the
NRCS. The map units located in low elevations and concave landforms are very poorly and poorly drained
soil. The poorly drained soil includes Bibb, Kinston loam, Lumbee, Torhunta, Pantego, and Weston
(Woodington) loamy sand. The higher elevation slopes contain the better drained map units; Dragston,
Craven, Kalmia, Kenansville, Norfolk, and Wagram.
On-site soils investigations were conducted to identify potential hydric soils in June 2018 by licensed soil
scientist (LSS), George Lankford, LSS with George K Lankford, LLC (See Hydric Soils Report in Appendix B).
The findings were based on hand-turned auger borings and indicate the presence of hydric soils along the
floodplains of the Project reaches. The hydric soils status is based upon the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 12
in the United States (USDA, NRCS, 2018, Version 8.2). The soils within the Project area were categorized
as “Hydric” and “Non-Hydric” in the Hydric Soils Investigation.
3.3.3 Climate
Wayne County has a warm and humid climate with long, hot summers, and short and mild winters (NRCS,
1974). The average growing season for the Project is 225 days, beginning late in March until early
November (NRCS Wayne County Soil Survey, Weather Station: Goldsboro, NC). The average annual
precipitation in the Project area is approximately 49.8 inches with a consistent monthly distribution,
except for convective storm events and/or hurricanes that occur during the summer and fall months. Over
the past 36 months, the Goldsboro area has recorded over 189.97 inches of rain according to the NC State
Climate Office – NC CRONOS Cherry Research Station (GOLD). In September 2018, Hurricane Florence
produced over 20 inches of rainfall and the annual rainfall total was 32 inches above the historical average.
3.3.4 Hydrology
Hydrology enters and leaves the Project site by groundwater flow, surface runoff, channelized surface
flow, and/or seepage. Annual losses due to seepage, or percolation of water are not considered a
significant loss pathway for excess water. However, groundwater flow and the hyporheic exchange is
critical in these small headwater stream and wetland systems, as most excess water is lost via surface and
shallow subsurface flow. Further observations and flow data help to understand perennial flow frequency,
response time to precipitation events, streambank erosion and groundwater saturation over the past
three years support this conclusion.
3.3.5 Existing Vegetation
Historic land management surrounding the Project area has been primarily for agricultural and silvicultural
purposes. Prior to anthropogenic land disturbances, the riparian vegetation community likely consisted
of Mesic Mixed Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype) in the uplands and with Coastal Plain Bottomland Forest
and Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp characteristics in the lower areas and floodplains (Schafale, 2012).

Row Crop Areas: The majority of the Parcel is in row crop production as soybean and corn (right bank of
UT1-R1, UT1-R2, UT2-R2, UT2A, and left bank of UT2-R3). There is some fringe growth of immature and
successional native vegetation along UT1-R2.

Forested Areas: UT1-R1 originates in a regenerated forest area consisting of red maple (Acer rubrum),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Downstream, there is a ditch that
drains directly to this reach that has a fringe buffer of red maple, sweetgum, and Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense). The left bank of this reach is forested, and the right bank is in crop production. The downstream
portion of UT1-R2 drains directly to the Neuse River and consists of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)
and swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora) on the right bank.

UT2-R1 originates in a bottomland hardwood forest consisting of water oak (Quercus nigra), swamp
chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), sweetgum, red maple (Acer rubrum), and American Holly (Ilex opaca)
in the understory. UT2B and the right bank of UT2-R3 is entirely forested and is a bottomland hardwood
forest with similar canopy species as UT2-R1. The left bank has varying levels of forested buffer. The
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 13
surrounding land has been periodically logged, and many tree species located in surrounding riparian
areas are now mid-successional. The species in these areas are not necessarily indicative of what would
have been on site before human disturbance.

Invasive Species: There are currently no substantial communities of invasive plant species within the
proposed project boundaries. There is Chinese Privet on the fringe buffer of the ditch in the floodplain of
UT1-R1; however, there is also regrowth of native species and spot treatment will occur in this area.
3.4 Existing Stream Conditions
3.4.1 Geomorphic Assessment
WLS conducted geomorphic and ecological assessments of the Project reaches to determine the current
stream function, channel stability, and the impact of past and current land use on the Project’s aquatic
resources. Jurisdictional stream identification and function were evaluated according to the NC Division
of Water Quality Identification Form (NC DWQ, v4.11) and the NC Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM,
v2.1). From historical aerial research, evidence was found to demonstrate that most of the Project area
has been historically cleared and heavily impacted from historic and current land use practices, including
agriculture and silv iculture .
Within the P roject area, a general characterization of stream reaches noted that approximately 80
percent of the total stream length is actively subject to on -site water quality stressors resulting
from nutrient inputs and lack of adequate riparian buffer widths and 80 percent of the total stream
lengths exhibit significant, obvious incision and ditched condi tions (BHRs>1.5).
Figure 9, Water Qu ality Stressors, shows the most recent aerial photography with narrow and/or
absent riparian buffers. Land alteration for agriculture and silviculture purposes have severely
impacted the streambanks along the project stream reaches. The lack of adequate and quality
buffer vegetation, past land use disturbances, minimal impervious cover and current agricultural
and silvicultural practices presen t a significant opportunity for water quality and ecosystem
improvements thr ough the implementation of this project.
A further review of topographic maps, field investigation of on-site features, similar stream and wetland
reference conditions, and LiDAR survey data provide clear evidence that the existing channel patterns that
appear to be indicative of valley signatures, valley slopes, and drainage basins that likely supported
headwater stream and wetland systems with associated bottomland hardwood forest. The unnamed
tributaries (UT) within the project boundary flow directly to the Neuse River. The streams at the Project
were broken down into eight reaches (UT1-R1, UT1-R2, UT2-R1, UT2-R2, UT2-R3, UT2A, UT2B) totaling
approximately 8,628 linear feet of existing streams, based on drainage area at confluences, valley
lengths/slopes, significant changes in existing condition, restoration/enhancement approaches, and
changes in intermittent/perennial stream status. Table 2 provides reach designations and drainage areas.

DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 14
Table 2. Reach Watershed Drainage & Jurisdictional Status for Project Reaches
Project
Reach
Designation
Watershed
Drainage Area
(ac)
Watershed Drainage
Area (sq mi)
Stream Status Based on
Field Analyses
NCDWQ Stream
Classification Form
Score
UT1-R1 184 0.288 Intermittent 20.5
UT1-R2 260 0.406 Perennial 30.5
UT2-R1 45 0.070 Intermittent 26.5
UT2-R2 256 0.400 Perennial 30.5
UT2-R3 512 0.800 Perennial 44.75
UT2A 69 0.108 Intermittent 22.0
UT2B 306 0.478 Perennial 36.0
Note: Watershed drainage area was approximated based on topographic and LiDAR information and
compared with USGS StreamStats at the downstream end of each reach.

While some of the drainage areas of the headwater tributaries are small, the NCDWQ stream scores are
all above 19. Discussions with the landowners regarding flow histories of the streams, as well as our
extensive experience with headwater restoration projects in the Inner Coastal Plain, led WLS to conclude
which of the Project stream reaches are suited to the proposed restoration and enhancement practices.
Table 3 characterizes the existing stream morphology based on general descriptions, channel evolution
(Simon, 1989) and Rosgen stream classification (Rosgen, 2001).
Table 3. Existing Channel Morphology Summary
Project Reach
Designation
Entrenchment
Ratio (ER)
Width/Depth Ratio
(W/D)
Typical Bank Height
Ratio (BHR)
Channel Evolution
Model (CEM)
UT1-R1 1.3, 4.6 12.1, 12.9 2.6, 1.7 IV/V
UT1-R2 1.4 8.2 2.7 IV/V
UT2-R1 1.4 13.3 3.6 IV/V
UT2-R2 1.5 13.0 3.0 IV/V
UT2-R3 13.4 5.8 1.3 IV/V
UT2A 1.4 24.1 4.9 V
UT2B 12.5 5.6 1.2 V

3.4.2 Existing Reach Descriptions
UT1-R1: UT1-R1 originates as a small headwater stream and wetland complex at the top of the catchment.
The perennial stream reach has a drainage area of 184 acres, valley slope of 0.00 35 ft/ft, with an
impervious coverage of less than one percent. Due to historic land use activities (silviculture), it is likely
the stream was straightened and manipulated as it flows through the existing agricultural fields. In
general, the stream banks are mostly stable however limited bedform diversity was observed throughout
the entire reach length. The channelized headwater stream is moderately to severely incised with minimal
mature canopy vegetation. The riparian buffer and habitat features along this reach segment have been
degraded through the removal of native buffer vegetation and draining manipulation activities to
implement silviculture practices. Based on NC SAM, the UT1-R1 stream system is classified as ‘low’ and is
therefore considered to have low functional quality.
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 15
UT1-R2: UT1-R2 continues flowing towards the
Neuse River. UT1-R2 has a drainage area of 260
acres, valley slope 0.004 ft/ft, with impervious
coverage of less than 1 percent. Because of
historic land use activities (row crop agriculture),
the stream has been straightened and deepened,
thereby draining any associated wetlands.
Because of significant modifications to this valley
(i.e. installation of field crowns/ditching) and on-
going agricultural practices, it is difficult to
discern the historic channel location. However,
the LiDAR signature illustrates a natural valley
morphology and crenulations that would likely
support a headwater stream and wetland system.
In this area, a series of small lateral ditches
connect to the primary flow path, indicating
seasonally wet conditions are present throughout
the floodplain. Based on NC SAM, this stream system is classified as ‘low’ and is therefore considered to
have low functional quality. UT1-R2 is actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly in the form of
nutrient inputs and minimal riparian buffer widths.
UT2-R1: UT2-R1 originates at a hillslope seep
within a relatively undeveloped drainage area.
The drainage area is approximately 45 acres, and
the valley slope is 0.008 ft/ft. The headwater
stream is currently a high functioning, multi-
thread channel with associated riparian wetlands
before flowing into the adjacent field area.
As the tributary flows to its confluence with UT2A,
the channel has been relocated against the edge
of the field and straightened to maintain
oversized ditch characteristics as shown on cross
section 1. Fine sediments have deposited in the
downstream portion of the reach, and the channel
has limited bedform diversity and habitat
functions as it flows out of the wooded area
towards the existing culvert crossing.
Photo showing channelized conditions and lack of
adequate riparian buffer vegetation.
Looking downstream at stable headwater stream and
wetland complex along upper section of UT2-R1.
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 16
UT2-R2: As UT2-R2 transitions from the wooded
area of UT2-R1 to downstream below the road
crossing, the stream remains channelized with no
riparian buffer vegetation. The perennial tributary
has a drainage area of 252 acres, valley slope of
0.0045 ft/ft, with an impervious coverage of less
than 1 percent. Cross Section 3 illustrates a high
bank height ratio and oversized channel condition
below the stream crossing. Based on NC SAM, this
stream system is classified as having ‘low’
functional quality. UT2-R2 is actively subject to
water quality stressors, mainly in the form of
nutrient inputs and minimal riparian buffer widths.

UT2-R3: UT2-R3 continues flowing to the north
towards the Neuse River. UT2-R3 has a drainage
area of 512 acres, valley slope 0.0007 ft/ft, with
impervious coverage of less than 1 percent. The
stream and associated wetlands in this area have
been manipulated in the past (culvert crossing and
row crop agriculture), however the current stream
conditions are mostly stable throughout the entire
reach length as shown on the representative cross
section 4.
In addition, site investigations identified mussel
(Elliptio sp.) communities along the downstream
wooded portion of UT2-R3. The presence of the
mussels offers a unique opportunity for
enhancement and long-term protection of these
critical aquatic habitats. Based on NC SAM, this
stream system is classified as ‘medium’ and is therefore considered to have medium functional quality.
UT2-R3 is actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly in the form of nutrient inputs and marginal
riparian buffer widths.
UT2A: UT2A is a small headwater tributary that flows east towards the culvert crossing and UT2-R2.
Within the Project property, the stream has been straightened and deepened, thereby draining any
associated wetlands. The reach is oversized and exhibits little to no habitat value. The drainage area is 69
acres, valley slope of 0.0006 ft/ft, with an impervious coverage of less than 1 percent. The channel does
not appear to have frequent access to its floodplain. The BHR is greater than 4.0 as shown on the surveyed
cross section 2. UT2-R2 is actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly in the form of nutrient inputs
and minimal riparian buffer widths. Based on NC SAM, this stream system is classified as ‘low’ and is
considered to be low quality.
Looking downstream at channelized conditions and
lack of riparian buffer vegetation along UT2-R2.
Looking downstream at stable channel conditions
along Reach UT2-R3.
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 17
UT2B: UT2B is a perennial tributary that flows to the mainstem along UT2-R2. The valley is moderately to
well-defined in this area, and the reach is mostly stable and exhibits minimal bank erosion. The channel
appears to be within its natural valley, and the existing buffer is vegetated. Based on NC SAM, this stream
system is classified as high and is considered to be high functional quality as the buffer helps to filter
pollutants (nutrients).
3.4.3 Channel Substrate
WLS investigated potential sediment sources within the watershed and collected bed/bank samples to
characterize stream reach sediments. Based on field reconnaissance and observations over the past three
years, and a review of past and current agricultural land use/watershed conditions, it was determined
that the sediment supply from the catchments and bedload contributions is low and transported mostly
during larger storm events. The channel substrate material and small depositional features (i.e. side bars)
observed within the stream channels contain a mix of sand, silt/clay, and small gravel due to the parent
soils and minimal bank slumping from past stream bank erosion. The dominant bed material in UT1 (D50
=0.55 mm) and UT2 (D50 = 0.62 mm) is medium coarse sand.
3.5 Existing Wetland Conditions
3.5.1 Plant Community Characterization
The existing vegetation communities within the wetland areas range from disturbed row crop agriculture,
successional vegetation and adjacent forested areas. Based on historical aerials, agricultural activities and
vegetation management over the past several decades, a mature plant community is largely absent from
the wetland areas, except for W1 and W2 (See Figure 7 and Appendix F). In successional riparian areas
within the fields, the understory is dominated by Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Understory species consist
of red maple, sweetgum, and swamp chestnut oak. Woody shrub and vine species include Chinese privet
and greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia). Herbaceous species consist of weeds, fescue, common rush (Juncus
effusus) and soft rush (Juncus effusus) along many of the ditches. In addition to numerous weeds, species
present include, but are not limited to, arrowleaf tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), shallow sedge
(Carex lurida), and fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea). Most of the woody vegetation near the streambanks is
limited due to regular maintenance.
3.5.2 Hydrological Characterization
Prior to disturbance, the natural vegetation communities were likely a mosaic of cypress-gum swamp in
the wider, mostly level floodplain areas bordered by bottomland hardwood forest and mixed hardwoods
where the higher relief limits hydroperiods. Site hydrology is derived from a combination of overbank
events from the small streams, groundwater, upland runoff, and the groundwater seepages present along
the lower slopes. Combined with slow runoff from these flatter landforms, this area contains jurisdictional
wetlands throughout the delineated hydric soils. Groundwater discharge provides a significant source for
this landscape.
The channelized and dredged streams have lateral ditches, surface modifications and shallow crowning
which prevents surface ponding and lowers groundwater that reduces the natural hydroperiods. The
streams represent a significant source of hydrology at the site along with numerous seepage areas present
along the edges of the floodplain. Many of the shallow ditches have been placed to remove slope seepage
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 18
adjacent to the fields. The streams and seeps appear more than adequate to provide hydrology to support
restoring wetlands within the hydric soils found across the site.
Seven (7) automated groundwater wells were installed in the project area to evaluate the range of
hydrologic conditions on-site (see Figure 10 for well number and locations). The well data will help to
provide a basis for comparing pre-and post-restoration groundwater hydrology. The wells were installed
in March 2019 at the beginning of the growing season and well data summary will be included with the
final mitigation plan. WLS will identify trends in water table depth throughout the pre-restoration
monitoring period that reflect seasonal rainfall as well the hydrologic interaction between the disturbed
stream and man-made drainageways across the site. Wells 2 and 3 were installed in forested riparian
wetland areas and will serve as reference wetland areas. Wells 1 and 5 were installed in hydric soil areas
targeted for wetland restoration. Wells 4 and 7 were installed in hydric soil areas targeted for wetland
enhancement. The wells were installed to an approximate depth of 24 inches below ground surface, and
the automated data loggers (HOBO U20L-04) were programmed to record water table levels every 12
hours.
3.5.3 Soil Characterization
Detailed soils mapping, conducted by a licensed soil scientist (George K Lankford, LLC) determined that
jurisdictional wetlands and hydric soils are present within the Project area (See Figure 7 and Hydric Soils
report in Appendix B). The soil borings exhibited hydric soil indicators within 12 inches of the soil surface
within low elevation depressions and drained soils on the low ridges and levees. Approximately 120
shallow borings ranging from 12 to 24 inches or deeper were evaluated to characterize the soils and
delineate the hydric soil boundaries. Soils have a similar range across both the east and west tracts where
a thinner dark surface sandy surface horizon is underlain by gray soils having redoximorphic mottles.
Based upon field observations, the actual site conditions appear representative of the expected range of
soil characteristic described by NRCS mapping units.
Soils in the east tract having areas of either clayey or sandy textured subsoil and soils within the west tract
exhibit mostly a clayey textured subsoil. The clayey subsoil is limiting in infiltration and can perch a water
table near the surface to produce hydric indicators. Soils with sandy textured subsoil exhibited numerous
redoximorphic mottles that indicate a high water table was present also. A sandy textured horizon was
found below 24 inches in a few borings, but appears to be limited. Because of the disturbance from
cultivation, any previous mucky surface textures and the redoximorphic features within the plow layer
have been destroyed. A water table was not observed near the surface, but was occasionally encountered
below 30 inches.
A typical surface within the east tract consists of very dark gray to black sandy loam 5 to 10 inches in
thickness. These sandy alluvial soils are present throughout the floodplain and the shallow rises. Soils in
the west consist of very dark gray to black sandy loam surface layer 5 to 10 inches in thickness.
Immediately below is a gray clayey horizon having weak structure with limited porosity to a depth of 25
inches or more. The variations of observed soil characteristics appear primarily related to broad elevation
differences in the landscape between the nearly level to concave surfaces and the gentle slope along the
ridges and slopes. In the lower elevation soils have dark upper horizons extending to 25 inches or more in
depth becoming thinner outward toward the edges of the floodplain. The main factor driving hydrology
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 19
of natural wetlands in this landscape are slow surface drainage combined with a high water table and
seasonal ponding in shallow depressions.
3.6 Potential Site Constraints
3.6.1 Existing Easements on the Site
There are no existing easements on the Project.
3.6.2 Utility Corridors within the Site
There is an existing 50-foot wide Duke Energy Progress transmission line easement that runs east to west
across the site. A break has been included across the conservation easement boundary along UT1 and the
limits of the described existing utility corridor. Any easement breaks will permanently exclude the existing
easement corridors from the conservation easement boundary.
3.6.3 Mineral or Water Rights Assurance
There are no mineral or water rights issues within or adjacent to the Project properties.
3.6.4 Hydrologic Trespass
The downstream portions of UT1 and UT2 are located within a FEMA regulated floodplain (Zone ‘AE’).
While it is not anticipated that there will be issues associated with FEMA permitting or documentation,
WLS will coordinate with the local floodplain administrator as needed and prepare the required
documentation to obtain approval for any FEMA regulated impacts. In addition, the Project will be
designed so that any increase in flooding will be contained within the project boundary and will not impact
adjacent landowners; therefore, hydrologic trespass will not be a concern.
3.6.5 Invasive Species Vegetation
There are currently no substantial communities of invasive plant species within the proposed project
boundaries. Some small, immature Chinese privet plants were observed on the periphery of the project
area and existing riparian buffer areas. These areas will be monitored by WLS, and any invasive species
vegetation found within the project boundary will be treated to prevent expansion and establishment of
a substantial invasive community. This will allow for a healthy, native riparian and upland plant community
to dominate the area and help prevent future establishment of invasive species vegetation.
3.7 Regulatory Considerations
3.7.1 Cultural Resources
In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, WLS investigated and confirmed that the
Project area and property do not contain nor are adjacent to any properties listed by the National Register
of Historic Places or the NC State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO). There are no properties currently
on the National Register of Historic Places within one mile of the Project, and the nearest site is the
Stevens Mill, which is approximately one mile from the Project area. On-site investigations and discussions
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 20
with the landowners have not disclosed any potential resources or occurrences of this type on the
property.
3.7.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
Based on a review of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database, there is currently one federally-
listed threatened and endangered species known to occur in Wayne County: Red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis). Project implementation is not anticipated to have a negative impact on th is
species.
3.7.3 Conditions Affecting Hydrology
There are existing culverted crossings at UT1-R1, UT1-R2 and UT2-R2. The culvert sizes and locations will
be replaced and design elevations and culvert sizes will be modified to tie into these vertical control
points. The proposed conservation easement is broken at each of these proposed crossing locations to
best facilitate the landowner’s use of the property (See Figure 10). The proposed stream crossings will be
culverted and the pipes have been sized to pass the 10-year design storm to ensure proper hydraulic
function and stream stability, as well as to encourage aquatic passage. There are several ditches
throughout the Project. These ditches were historically used to drain wetlands and create arable land for
farming. These ditches will be plugged or filled slightly during restoration activities to prevent them from
negatively affecting hydrology on the completed project.
3.7.4 Adjacent Land Use
Adjacent land use in the watershed includes agriculture and forestry. None of these land uses will have
negative impacts on the operation of the Project and no significant changes are expected in the near
future.
4 Functional Uplift Potential
Harman et al. (2012) provides a framework for conducting function-based assessments to develop project
goals and objectives based on a site’s restoration potential and functional uplift. The framework is based
on the Stream Functions Pyramid (SFP) which is a conceptual model that can be used to better define
project goals and objectives by linking them to stream functions. Stream functions are separated into a
hierarchy of functions and structural measures, ranging from Level 1 to Level 5 and include the following
functional categories: Hydrology (Level 1), Hydraulic (Level 2), Geomorphic (Level 3), Physiochemical
(Level 4), and Biological (Level 5). The SFP framework is applied below to further describe the functional
lift potential based on the existing conditions assessment and proposed restoration design elements.
Function-based goals and objectives were considered that relate restoration activities to the appropriate
parameters from the SFP framework, which are based on existing conditions, site constraints and overall
restoration potential. When developing realistic function-based project goals and design objectives, it is
imperative to know why the functions or resources need to be restored (Goal) and what specific
restoration activities and measurement methods will be used to validate the predicted results (Objective).
To accomplish these site-specific goals, the following function objectives will be measured to document
overall project success as described in Table 4:

DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 21
Table 4. Function-Based Goals and Objectives Summary
Functional Category
(Level) Functional Goal / Parameter Functional Design Objective
Hydrology (Level 1) Improve Base Flow
Improve and/or remove existing stream
crossings and restore a more natural flow
regime and aquatic passage.
Hydraulics (Level 2) Reconnect Floodplain / Increase
Floodprone Area Widths
Lower BHRs from >2.0 to <1.5 and increase ERs
greater than 2.2.
Geomorphology
(Level 3)
Improve Bedform Diversity Increase riffle/pool percentage and pool-to-
pool spacing ratios.
Increase Lateral Stability
Reduce streambank erosion rates comparable
to reference condition and stable cross-section
values.
Establish Riparian Buffer Vegetation
Plant native species vegetation a minimum 50’
wide from the top of the streambanks with a
composition/density comparable to
downstream reference condition.
Physicochemical
(Level 4) Improve Water Quality
Establish 50-200 ft wide riparian buffers and
install agricultural BMPs that will filter excess
nutrients.
Biology
(Level 5)
Improve Macroinvertebrate
Community and Aquatic Species
Health
Incorporate native woody debris into channel.

The function-based goals and objectives address water quality stressors by reducing nutrient and
sediment inputs through stream restoration, riparian buffer restoration, riparian wetland restoration and
implementing agricultural BMPs. Hydrologic functions will be improved by raising the local water table. A
more natural flow regime will be restored to riparian wetlands and floodplain areas by implementing a
Priority Level I and headwater valley restoration. The biologic and habitat functions will be improved by
extending wildlife corridors that connect with wooded areas near the upstream and downstream extents
of the Project reaches. Additionally, site protection through a conservation easement in excess of 50 feet
from the top of banks, will protect all stream reaches and aquatic resources in perpetuity. These
mitigation efforts will provide a significant ecological benefit with minimal impacts and constraints during
a recovery period that would not otherwise occur through natural processes.
4.1.1 Function-Based Parameters and Measurement Methods
Function-based parameters and measurement methods were evaluated using the NC Stream Functional
Lift Quantification Tool (SQT, v3.0) to help assess the existing stream conditions, determine restoration
potential and identify risks associated with the Project. The SQT is a qualitative and quantitative resource
used to describe the function-based condition of each Project reach, as well as evaluate functional
capacity and predict the overall proposed lift (Harman and Jones, 2016). WLS applied the SQT to help
further define function-based goals and objectives based on the restoration potential. The results of this
assessment helped determine the highest level of restoration that may be achieved based on site
constraints and existing conditions. Table 5 shows the function-based condition assessment parameters
and measurement methods selected to help quantify and describe each functional category. The
complete SQT functional assessment worksheets and summaries are provided in Appendix B.
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 22
Table 5. Existing and Proposed Functional Condition Assessment Summary
Functional Category (Level) Function-Based Parameters Measurement Method
Hydrology (Level 1) Catchment Hydrology Catchment Assessment/ Curve
Number
Runoff Curve Number
Hydraulics (Level 2)
Floodplain Connectivity Bank Height Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Geomorphology (Level 3)
Bank Migration/Lateral Stability Meander Width Ratio
Percent Streambank Erosion
Riparian Vegetation
Left Buffer Width (ft)
Right Buffer Width (ft)
Left Density (stems/acre)
Right Density (stems/acre)
Bed Form Diversity Pool Depth and Spacing Ratio
Percent Riffle and Pool
Sinuosity Planform
Channel Evolution Simon Channel Evolution Model
Physicochemical (Level 4) Organic Carbon Percent Shredders
Biology (Level 5) Macrobenthos Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Note: Table adapted from Harman et al. (2012).
4.1.2 Performance Standards and Functional Capacity
The Pyramid Framework includes performance standards associated with the function-based assessments
and measurement methods described above. The performance standards are used to determine the
functional capacity and are stratified into three types: Functioning (F), Functioning-at-Risk (FAR), and Not
Functioning (NF). The detailed definitions and index value ranges for each type are described further in
the SQT (Harman and Jones, 2016). Table 6 summarizes the overall reach scoring and functional lift
summary for each Project reach proposed for restoration or enhancement activities.
Table 6. Functional Lift Scoring Summary
Reach Scoring / Rating UT1-R2 UT2-R2
Overall Existing Condition Score (ECS) 0.09 0.10
Overall Proposed Condition Score (PCS) 0.45 0.45
Functional Lift Score (PCS – ECS) 0.36 0.35
Percent Condition Lift (%) 400% 350%
Functional Foot Score (FFS) Existing vs. Proposed 749 321
Functional Lift (%) 484% 401%
Overall Existing vs. Proposed Condition NF /FAR NF / FAR
Note: Functional lift scoring for headwater, preservation and enhancement reache s are not included in this summary.
4.1.3 Restoration Potential and Project Benefits Summary
It is common for restoration projects to occur at a reach scale that provide minimum functional lift of
Level 2 and 3 parameters. To achieve goals in Levels 4 and 5, a combination of reach scale restoration and
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 23
upstream watershed health must be measurable and sustainable. The overall restoration potential was
determined at Level 3 (Geomorphology) since the watershed assessment may not fully support biological
reference conditions given the current nutrient inputs and future watershed conditions. It should also be
noted that the SQT (version 3.0) does not consider headwater stream classification (Rosgen ‘DA’ stream
type) and therefore not included in the functional lift scoring summary.
Based on the existing condition assessments, it is expected that the implementation of the Project will
reduce pollutant loads, including sediment and nutrients, improving overall aquatic functions. Given the
landscape position and catchment size, the restoration activities will likely provide functional lift within
the physicochemical and biological functional categories. Post-restoration efforts will also include
supplemental monitoring of biological parameters (Level 5 Category) to document any functional
improvements and/or identify trends during the monitoring period. However, any Level 4 and 5 function-
based parameters and monitoring activities will not be tied to performance standards nor required to
demonstrate success for credit release.
The Project will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the Neuse River
watershed. While many of these benefits focus on the Project area, others, such as nutrient removal,
sediment reduction, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, others have more far-reaching effects
that extend downstream. The expected project benefits and ecological improvements are summarized
below in Table 7.
Table 7. Project Benefits Summary
Benefits Related to Hydrology (Level 1)
Rainfall/Runoff
Improving existing stream crossings and properly sizing pipe culverts and water quality
treatment features will reestablish more natural flow conditions and water transport during
various storm events.

Benefits Related to Hydraulics (Level 2)
Floodplain
Connectivity
The restored streams will be raised and reconnected to their active or relic floodplains to
spread higher flow energies onto the floodplain thereby increasing retention time and
floodplain roughness.
Surface Storage
and Retention
Incorporation of vernal pools, depressional areas, and other constructed floodplain features
will improve flow dynamics by reducing runoff velocities and provide additional surface
storage and habitat diversity.
Groundwater
Recharge/
Hyporheic
exchange
Benefits will be achieved through establishing vegetated buffers, which increase
groundwater infiltration, surface water interaction, and recharge rates.
Benefits Related to Geomorphology (Level 3)
Proper Channel
Form
Restoring an appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile will efficiently transport and
deposit sediment (point bars and floodplain sinks) relative to the stream’s power and load
that is supplied from banks and uplands. Stream channels that are appropriately sized to
convey higher frequency storm flows will greatly improve channel stability by reducing
active bank erosion (lateral stability) and bed degradation (vertical stability; i.e. headcuts,
downcutting, incision).
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 24
Benefits Related to Geomorphology (Level 3)
Sediment
Transport
Boundary conditions, climate, and geologic controls influence stream channel formation and
how sediment is transported through its watershed. Adequate channel capacity will ensure
sediment supply is distributed such that excessive degradation and aggradation does not
occur.
Riparian Buffer
Vegetation
Planting buffer vegetation will improve thermal regulation (stream shading) along the
riparian corridor, as well as increase woody root mass and density thereby decreasing bank
erosion and sedimentation and increasing organic matter and woody debris.
Bioengineering
Treatments
Bioengineering practices such as live staking, brush layering, and vegetated soil lifts will help
encourage lateral bank stability and prevent further bank erosion and sedimentation.
Benefits Related to Physicochemical (Level 4)
Nutrient
Reduction
Benefit will be achieved through the removal of excess nutrients through filtration and
nutrient uptake within the restored and enhanced vegetated buffers.
Sediment
Reduction
Benefit will be achieved through stabilization of eroding streambanks; installation of
vegetation buffers; and by dissipating stream energy with increased overbank flows during
storm events.
DO, NO3-, DOC
Concentration
Benefits will be achieved through the restoration of more natural stream forms including
riffle and pool sequences, which will increase dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations. In
addition, as planted riparian buffers mature, the increased shade and wider vegetation
density/structure will reduce water temperatures and groundwater nitrates (NO3-) as well as
increase dissolved organic carbon (DOC) (King et al, 2016).
Benefits Related to Biology (Level 5)
Terrestrial and
Aquatic Habitat
Benefits will be achieved through the incorporation of physical structure, removal of
invasive species vegetation and reestablishment of native species vegetation to the restored
riparian buffer areas. Benefits to aquatic organisms will be achieved through the installation
of appropriate in-stream structures. Adequately transporting and depositing fine-grained
sediment onto the floodplain will prevent embeddedness and create interstitial habitat,
organic food resources and in-stream cover.
Landscape
Connectivity
Benefits to landscape connectivity will be achieved by restoring a healthy stream corridor,
promoting aquatic and terrestrial species migration and protecting their shared resources in
perpetuity.

The SQT manual recommends that practitioners, stakeholders and regulators collaborate when selecting
appropriate parameters for determining whether function-based goals and objectives are being met or if
any performance standards need to be adjusted based on local site conditions. Not all functional
categories and parameters, such as water quality (Physicochemical - Level 4) and performance standards
listed in the SQT will be compared (i.e. headwater stream reaches) or required to determine project success
and stream mitigation credit and debit scenarios. However, selecting applicable monitoring and evaluation
methods will help develop a more function-based assessment and improve our project implementation
process, thereby advancing the practice of ecosystem restoration.
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 25
5 Determination of Credits
The Project will include a combination of Stream Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation activities,
as well as Riparian Wetland Restoration (Re-establishment) Enhancement, and Preservation activities,
depending upon the need of the individual reach and/or wetland area, and the highest ecological lift
possible.
5.1 Proposed Mitigation Credit Types
Expected credit types are Stream Mitigation Credits (SMCs) (warm thermal regime) and Riparian Wetland
Mitigation Credits (WMCs). See Tables 8 and 9 for proposed credit summaries.
Table 8. Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits (SMCs)
Project Reach
Designation Type of Mitigation
Existing
Stream
Length (LF)
Proposed
Stream Length
(LF)
Ratio
Stream
Mitigation
Credits
(SMCs)
UT1-R1 Stream Restoration (HW/PI) 2,151 2,113 1:1 2,113
UT1-R2 Stream Restoration (PI) 1,777 2,007 1:1 2,007
UT2-R1
(upper) Stream Preservation 228 228 10:1 23
UT2-R1
(lower) Stream Restoration (HW/PI) 874 874 1:1 874
UT2-R2 Stream Restoration (PI/PII) 828 892 1:1 892
UT2-R3 Stream Enhancement Level II 1,950 1,923 2:1 961
UT2A Stream Restoration (HW/PI) 667 667 1:1 667
UT2B Stream Preservation 256 256 10:1 25
Totals 8,731 8,960 7,562
Note 1: No mitigation credits were calculated outside the conservation easement boundaries.
Note 2: Headwater (HW) stream credits calculated using valley length.

Table 9. Proposed Wetland Mitigation Credits (WMCs)
Project Wetland
Area Type of Mitigation
Proposed
Wetland Acreage
(AC)
Ratio
Riparian Wetland
Mitigation Credits
(WMCs)
W1 Wetland Preservation 2.30 10:1 0.23
W2 Wetland Preservation 2.49 10:1 0.25
W2a Wetland Re-establishment 1.59 1:1 1.59
W3 Wetland Enhancement 0.84 3:1 0.23
W3a Wetland Re-establishment 0.77 1:1 0.77
W4 Wetland Enhancement 0.90 3:1 0.30
W4a Wetland Re-establishment 1.63 1:1 1.63
Totals 10.52 5.05
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 26
5.2 Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases, except the initial release, will be based on the total number of mitigation credits
generated as reported in the approved mitigation plan and verified by the as-built survey. The initial credit
release will be based on the proposed stream mitigation credits (SMCs) and wetland mitigation credits
(WMCs) as approved in the final mitigation plan. The credit ledger will be managed by WLS and approved
by the USACE District Engineer (DE) and IRT. The estimated credits will be released following current
USACE guidance, as shown in Table 10 below. For example, 10% of SMCs will be withheld until four
bankfull events, in separate monitoring years, have been documented. For WMCs, the Project must meet
or exceed the percent saturation/hydroperiod thresholds for common wetland soil series in North
Carolina. Project process shall include: approval of UMBI, approval of final mitigation plan, securing the
Project site, financial assurances delivery, long-term protection mechanism delivery, title opinion delivery,
and issuance of any permits necessary for construction.
Table 10. Credit Release Schedule
Credit
Milestone Release Activity
SMCs:
Interim
Release
SMCs:
Total
Released
WMCs:
Interim
Release
WMCs:
Total
Released
1 Project Site Establishment (as defined above) 15% 15% 15% 15%
2
Completion of all initial physical and
biological improvements made pursuant to
the Mitigation Plan
15% 30% 15% 30%
3
Year 1 Monitoring Report demonstrates that
streams are stable and interim performance
standards have been met
10% 40% 10% 40%
4
Year 2 Monitoring Report demonstrates that
streams are stable and interim performance
standards have been met
10% 50% 10% 50%
5
Year 3 Monitoring Report demonstrates that
streams are stable and interim performance
standards have been met
10% 60% 15% 65%
6
Year 4 Monitoring Report demonstrates that
streams are stable and interim performance
standards have been met
5% 65%
(75%*) 5% 70%
7
Year 5 Monitoring Report demonstrates that
streams are stable and interim performance
standards have been met
10% 75%
(85%*) 15% 85%
8
Year 6 Monitoring Report demonstrates that
streams are stable and interim performance
standards have been met
5% 80%
(90%*) 5% 90%
9
Year 7 Monitoring Report demonstrates that
streams are stable and interim performance
standards have been met
10% 90%
(100%*) 10% 100%
Note: *10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.

DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 27
6 Mitigation Work Plan
The mitigation work plan will involve the restoration, enhancement, preservation and permanent
protection of approximately 8,960 linear feet of existing stream and 10.52 acres of existing wetlands. WLS’
comprehensive design approach utilizes common restoration practices and will appropriately address the
jurisdictional streams and wetlands, including protecting or enhancing riparian buffers along all of the
Project stream and wetlands, thus providing the maximum functional uplift with the goal of returning
natural/historic functions to a former degraded aquatic resource. The design approach and mitigation
work plan are described in the following subsections.
6.1 Design Approach
WLS used function-based assessment methods and data analyses to determine overall restoration
potential and functional uplift. The stream design approach generally followed the techniques and
methods outlined in the NRCS Stream Restoration Design-National Engineering Handbook (NRCS, 2007)
and Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects (USACE, 2001). In addition, the natural stable channel
design (NCD) procedures outlined in the Natural Channel Design Review Checklist (Harman and Starr,
2011) were applied to address specific stream functions lost across the Project site, while also minimizing
disturbances to existing wooded areas and higher functioning resources.
WLS first compiled and assessed watershed information such as drainage areas, historical land use,
geologic setting, soil types, sediment inputs and plant communities. WithersRavenel then performed
detailed existing conditions topographic and planimetric surveying of the Project, to produce 1-foot
contour mapping, and existing condition base mapping for the design plan sheets (See Appendix A).
Detailed geomorphic surveys were also conducted along the existing stream channels and floodplain to
determine valley slopes/widths, channel dimensions, longitudinal profile elevations, and to validate the
signatures shown on the LiDAR imagery (See Figure 4).
Project stream design criteria was developed using a combination of industry sources and applied
approaches, including a review of applicable reference reach data (analog), evaluation of published
regression equations and hydraulic geometry relationships (regional curves), monitoring results from
stable past projects (empirical), and building a hydraulic model using process-based equations (HEC-RAS)
to test design channel geometry and bed stability (analytical).
It should be mentioned, while analog and empirical form-based approaches have been proven effective
in designing stable stream systems, their application assumes quasi-equilibrium conditions and similar
watershed and boundary conditions (i.e. dominant discharge, flow regime, channel roughness, controlling
vegetation). Using a static design template that accounts for natural channel variability can be limited by
the regional data sets and overlook other local controlling factors such as flow impoundments, geology,
woody debris/abundance, and sediment supply (Skidmore, 2001).
Conversely, analytical or process-based approaches rely heavily upon precise data inputs and a more
robust level of effort may not be practical or even necessary to replicate channel geometry given the
model sensitivity and desired outcome. Designing dynamic threshold channels is an iterative process that
requires a detailed assessment of sediment continuity and predicted channel response for a range of
smaller flows. Although it is difficult to definitively predict long term hydrologic conditions in the upper
watershed, designing an appropriate stream channel for the valley characteristics (i.e. slope, width, and
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 28
confinement) is always the preferred design rationale. Therefore, best professional judgment must be
used when selecting appropriate design criteria for lifting the desired ecological functions.
6.2 Design Criteria Selection
A headwater valley restoration approach is proposed for UT1-R1, UT2-R1 and UT2A due to their smaller
drainage areas and flatter slopes. It is likely that prior to disturbed conditions, these systems existed as
lower gradient headwater stream and wetland complexes within the natural valley, exhibiting moderately
defined channels with diffuse flow paths and increased meander lengths before transitioning towards a
more well-defined channel with increased sinuosities and bed and bank formations. This restoration
approach is supported by on-site hydric soils investigation, surface flow observations, topography, and
comparing extensive reference site data. Hydric soils are mapped along the riparian corridors of the
proposed stream reaches. These shallow drainage ways are commonly observed in this area and typically
support headwater stream channels and wetland plant communities.
Headwater stream and wetland restoration activities will include excavating a broader floodplain above
the existing bed elevation and will seek to restore groundwater hydrology and connection of surface
flows. The design concept will address the current channel’s dimension, pattern, and profile to create
stable conditions. Appropriate use of in-stream structures will consist of hardwood logs and woody
materials to provide increased stability (both lateral and vertical) and aquatic habitat.
The design parameters for the headwater reaches are based on data reference reach data, monitoring
data, and conclusions developed from a study of functional riparian headwater stream system s in the
Coastal Plain setting. This study evaluated the conditions that determine channel formation in small
headwater systems, and developed relationships between drainage area and valley slope that correlate
to channel form. The information gathered from this study can be used to help predict if a natural stream
system will likely function as a single or multiple-thread channel (Tweedy, 2009). Under stable conditions
(dynamic equilibrium), these multi-thread stream systems are classified as Rosgen ‘DA’ stream types
(Rosgen, 1996). Nanson and Knighton characterized anastomosed channels by having low gradients and
low stream power (≤ 10 Wm-2). These flow regimes are often more aggradational, have channel slopes
flatter than 0.01 ft/ft, width/depth ratios higher than 20, however channel sinuosity or “transitional
patterns” can vary greatly from 1.1 to 1.5 (Nanson and Knighton, 1993).
WLS has implemented numerous successful projects in ungaged headwater drainages in the inner Coastal
Plain hydrophysiographic province of North Carolina. As noted above, monitoring data from these
restoration projects and reference information were evaluated and added to the original dataset as a
comparison. These data indicate that geomorphic conditions for the upper project reaches (UT1-R1, UT2-
R1, UT2A), prior to anthropogenic disturbance (ditching and agriculture), would have likely supported a
moderately defined headwater stream (with variable channel geometry and valley bottom widths), but
highly sinuous (K>1.5) well-defined single-thread meandering channels may not be entirely appropriate.
Providing additional data points for comparison through reference site surveys and literature research
also help develop these linear relationships. The data set on these small stream curves help reduce
uncertainty by providing additional reference points and supporting evidence for the selection of bankfull
indicators that produce slightly smaller dimensions and flow rates than the published regional curve data
set.
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 29
Table 11. Proposed Design Parameters
Parameter UT1-R1 UT1-R2 UT2-R1 UT2-R2 UT2A
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.194 0.388 0.067 0.247 0.108
Stream Type (Rosgen) DA/E5 E5/C5 DA/E5 E5/C5 DA
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 1.2 4.4 1.1 3.8 4.9
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/sec) 2.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 5.0
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 4.6 7.6 4.5 7.0 8.0
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.6
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 18.0 13.0 18.0 13.0 14.0
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 20 – 40 30 – 60 20 – 40 25 – 45 25 – 45
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 4.3 – 8.6 4.0 – 7.9 4.3 – 8.6 3.6 – 6.4 3.6 – 6.4
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf N/A 7.0 – 13.0 N/A 9.0 – 14.0 N/A
Radius of Curvature Ratio, Rc/Wbkf N/A 2.0 – 3.0 N/A 2.0 – 3.0 N/A
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf N/A 4.0 – 7.3 N/A 4.0 – 8.0 N/A
Channel Sinuosity, K ~1.03 ~1.18 ~1.07 ~1.25 ~1.02
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0035 0.0047 0.0054 0.007 0.007
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan 1.1 – 1.7 1.1 – 1.7 1.0 – 1.5 1.0 – 1.4 1.1 – 1.8
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.0 – 0.3 0.0 – 0.3 0.0 – 0.3 0.0 – 0.3 0.0 – 0.2
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.2 – 1.5 1.2 – 1.5 1.2 – 1.5 1.2 – 1.5 1.2 – 1.6

6.2.1 Stream Design Reach Summary
UT1-R1: The current channelized stream will be gradually filled and graded to the natural valley
topography prior to the pre-drained condition. The tributary has been channelized through an existing
riparian headwater system. The channelization has disrupted the historic flow and flooding patterns of
the site. Based on average valley slope (0.0038 ft/ft) and catchment area (184 ac), this area most likely
functioned prior to disturbance as a headwater stream and wetland system (Rosgen ‘DA’ stream type).
The valley bottom will be graded to restore the natural microtopographic variability that is common within
headwater systems. Shallow flow paths will be connected to allow initial flow of water toward reach UT1-
R2. The system will be allowed to form a small pilot channel or multi-thread channels and diffuse flow
paths on its own over time. The low flows through UT1-R1 will be allowed to follow historic flow patterns
and spread out through channel depressions, restoring a more natural hydrology function.
The restoration of UT1-R1 will end near field edge as the valley turns northeast towards the Neuse River.
At this location, the channel will gradually transition into single thread channel and the ditch that flows
offsite will be plugged up to the property line. The transition to a single thread channel will involve grading
shallow flow paths, which gradually merge into a broader swale that will connect to the constructed
design bankfull width and depth. The existing channel will be filled to an elevation sufficient to connect
the headwater channel to its historic floodplain using native woody material and suitable fill material from
overburden areas and remnant spoil piles. Any exotic species vegetation will be removed in this area and
native riparian species vegetation will be planted in the resulting disturbed areas. These proposed
restoration activities will reduce nutrient inputs and provide the maximum possible functional uplift.
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 30
UT1-R2: A stable stream and wetland system will be achieved by constructing a single-thread meandering
channel across the geomorphic floodplain, increasing the width/depth ratio, and raising the streambed
(Rosgen Priority Level I). Proposed grading activities will restore historic flow patterns and adjacent
wetland hydrology by removing berms and other agricultural land manipulations. The channel will be
restored to a Rosgen ‘C/E’ stream type, and the sinuosity will be increased by adding riffle-pool sequences
and improving bedform diversity. Minimal grade control will be required for the reach, due to the low
channel slope and low potential for channel incision.
In-stream wooden structures, such as log vanes, log weirs, rootwads, brush toe, and cover logs will be
included in the channel design to provide natural scour features and improved aquatic habitat. It is
expected that over time, these areas will stabilize as native vegetation becomes established along the
streambanks. This approach will also improve the hydrological function and hyporheic zone interaction
between the stream channel and riparian wetlands. Riparian buffers of at least 50 feet wide will be planted
along the entire reach.
UT2-R1 (upper): UT2-R1 is a perennial stream that begins at a spring head within a mature forested area.
Based on field investigations and site assessments, the stream and wetland complex flows continuously
and appears mostly stable throughout its length. Preservation is being proposed along this reach since the
existing headwater stream and wetland system is higher functioning with a mature riparian buffer due to
minimal historic impacts. The preservation area will be protected in perpetuity through a permanent
conservation easement. This approach will extend the wildlife corridor throughout the entire riparian
valley, while providing a hydrologic connection and critical habitat linkage within the catchment area.
UT2-R1 (lower): Similar to UT1-R1, the existing channelized stream will be graded to the natural valley
topography prior to the pre-drained condition. The channelization has disrupted the historic flow and
flooding patterns of the site. Based on average valley slope (0.00 77 ft/ft) and catchment area (256 ac),
this area most likely functioned prior to disturbance as a headwater stream and wetland system (Rosgen
‘DA’ stream type). The valley bottom will be graded to restore the natural microtopographic variability
that is common within headwater systems. The system will be allowed to form a small pilot channel or
multi-thread channels and diffuse flow paths on its own over time. The low flows through UT2-R1 will be
allowed to follow historic flow patterns and spread out through channel depressions, restoring a more
natural hydrology function.
UT2-R2: The restoration of UT2-R2 will tie into UT2-R3 as the valley turns to the north towards the Neuse
River. At this location, the channel will transition into single-thread channel and will involve grading
shallow flow paths, which gradually merge into a broader swale that will connect to the constructed
design bankfull width and depth. The existing channel will be filled to an elevation sufficient to connect
the headwater channel to its historic floodplain using native woody material and suitable fill material from
overburden areas and remnant spoil piles. Any exotic species vegetation will be removed in this area and
native riparian species vegetation will be planted in the resulting disturbed areas. These proposed
restoration activities will reduce nutrient inputs and provide the maximum possible functional uplift.
UT2-R3: Enhancement Level II is proposed along the downstream wooded section of UT2-R3. The riparian
buffer will planted along the left bank greater than 50 feet wide. Mussel assemblages were identified
along this reach during preliminary field assessments; therefore, stream enhancement is proposed for this
reach to improve in-stream habitat. UT2-R3 is relatively stable in its existing condition, although there are
a few minor headcuts towards the lower portion of the reach that will be stabilized to prevent future
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 31
incision and channel degradation. The stream channel appears to have been historically manipulated and
an abandoned culverted crossing will be removed to improve the natural flow path. Bioengineering, such
as live stakes, will be used along the stream banks to provide lateral bank stability and prevent further
bank erosion. In-stream grade control structures will be strategically placed along the lower portion to
help protect the existing mussel communities and maintain overbank flooding. This approach will extend
the riparian corridor while providing a natural hydrologic connection to adjacent wetlands and critical
habitat linkage within the entire catchment area.
UT2A: UT2A begins within a discernible headwater valley (See LiDAR Figure 4) and flows northeast
towards UT2-R1. The headwater stream and wetland system was historically ditched and piped under an
existing culvert crossing. Due to the past manipulation, channelization and degraded nature of UT2A, a
headwater valley restoration approach is proposed for the reach to improve stream functions and water
quality. The reach has a small catchment area (~69 acres, and flatter valley slope (0.0008 ft/ft), and
originates in a successional forested area that supports intermittent flow. The lower portion of the reach
has experienced historic floodplain alteration and is devoid of mature woody vegetation. The area will be
protected in perpetuity through a permanent conservation easement. This approach will extend the
riparian corridor while providing a natural hydrologic connection and habitat linkage within the catchment
area. The existing crossing will be improved outside of the easement to maintain long term site access.
UT2B: UT2B is perennial stream that begins near a man-made pond upstream of the property. Based on
field investigations and preliminary site assessments, the riparian corridor has remained relatively
undisturbed, although the catchment has experienced timbering and extensive agricultural activities.
Preservation is being proposed along this reach since the existing stream and wetland system is stable
with a mature riparian buffer due to minimal historic impacts. The preservation area will be protected in
perpetuity through a permanent conservation easement. This approach will extend the wildlife corridor
while providing a hydrologic connection and critical habitat linkage within the catchment area.
6.2.2 Riparian Buffer Restoration
Riparian buffers will be established a minimum of 50 feet from the top of the streambanks along each of
the Project stream reaches, as well as permanently protecting those buffers with a conservation
easement. For the Project stream reaches proposed for restoration and enhancement, the riparian buffers
will be restored through reforestation. Many of the proposed riparian buffer widths within the
conservation easement are greater than 50 feet along one or both streambanks to provide additional
functional uplift potential, such as encompassing adjacent wetland areas. The conservation easement
areas also may include areas outside of the riparian buffer zone that will be revegetated, including areas
that lack vegetation species diversity, or areas otherwise disturbed or adversely impacted by construction.

Proposed plantings will be conducted using native tree and shrub species, in the form of live stakes and
seedlings. Proposed plantings will predominantly consist of bare root vegetation and will generally be
planted at a total target density of 680 stems per acre. This planting density has proven successful with
the reforestation of past completed mitigation projects, based on successful regulatory project closeout,
and including the current USACE regulatory guidelines requiring levels of woody stem survival throughout
the monitoring period, with a Year 7 final survival rate of 210 stems per ac re. In addition, this planting
density is intended to also satisfy the final performance standard for generating riparian buffer mitigation
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 32
credits within riparian buffer restoration and enhancement areas, which is the survival rate of 260 stems
per acre at the completion of Year 5 Monitoring.

The Project planting strategy also includes early successional, as well as climax species. The vegetation
selections will be mixed throughout the Project planting areas so that the early successional species will
give way to climax species as they mature over time. The understory and shrub layer species are all
considered to be climax species in the riparian buffer community.

The proposed plant selection will help to establish a natural vegetation community that will include
appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous species) based on an appropriate
reference community. Schafale’s (2012) guidance on vegetation communities for Cypress-Gum Swamp
Type and Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp, the USACE Wetland Research Program (WRP) Technical Note
VN-RS-4.1 (USACE, 1997), as well as existing mature species identified throughout the Project area, were
referenced during the development of riparian buffer and adjacent riparian wetland plants for the Project.
The proposed natural vegetation community will include appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub,
and herbaceous species) based on the appropriate reference community. Within each of the four strata,
a variety of species will be planted to ensure an appropriate and diverse plant community. Species
proposed for revegetation planting are presented in Table 12.
Table 12. Proposed Riparian Buffer Bare Root and Live Stake Plantings
Scientific Name Common Name % Proposed for Planting
by Species
Wetland Tolerance
Riparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings – Overstory
(Proposed 8’ x 8’ Planting Spacing @ 680 Stems/Acre)
Betula nigra River birch 7% FACW
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash 7% FACW
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 7% FACW
Quercus nigra Water oak 5% FAC
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip-poplar 7% FACU
Quercus alba White oak 5% FACU
Nyssa biflora Swamp black gum 5% OBL
Quercus bicolor Swamp white oak 5% FACW
Taxodium distichum Bald cypress 5% OBL
Quercus phellos Willow oak 5% FACW
Riparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings – Understory
(Proposed 8’ x 8’ Planting Spacing @ 680 Stems/Acre)
Clethra alnifolia Sweet pepperbush 6% FACW
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood 6% FAC
Persea palustris Red bay 6% FACW
Eubotrys racemosus Swamp doghobble 6% FACW
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay magnolia 6% FACW
Cyrilla racimiflora Titi 6% FACW
Itea virginica Sweetspire 6% FACW
Riparian Buffer Live Stake Plantings – Streambanks
(Proposed 2’-3’ Spacing @ Meander Bends and 6’-8’ Spacing @ Riffle Sections)
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 20% OBL
Salix sericea Silky willow 30% OBL
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 33
Salix nigra Black willow 20% OBL
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 30% FACW-
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. Species
substitutions will be coordinated between WLS and planting contractor prior to the procurement of plant stock.
6.2.3 Planting Materials and Methods
Planting will be conducted during the dormant season, with all trees installed between Mid-November
and early March if possible. However, trees must be installed by the end of May to have the first year of
monitoring in that year. Observations will be made during construction of the Project regarding the
relative wetness of areas to be planted as compared to the revegetation plan. The final planting zone
limits may be modified based on these observations and comparisons, and the final selection of the
location of the planted species will be matched according the specie s wetness tolerance and the
anticipated wetness of the planting area.
Plant stock delivery, handling, and installation procedures will be coordinated and scheduled to ensure
that woody vegetation can be planted within two days of being delivered to the Project site. Soils at the
areas proposed for planting will be prepared by sufficiently loosening prior to planting. Bare root seedlings
will be manually planted using a dibble bar, mattock, planting bar, or other approved method. Planting
holes prepared for the bare root seedlings will be sufficiently deep to allow the roots to spread outward
and downward without “J-rooting.” Soil will be loosely re-compacted around each planting, as the last
step, to prevent roots from drying out.
Live Staking and Live Branch Cuttings: Where live staking is proposed, live stakes will typically be installed
at a minimum of 40 stakes per 1,000 square feet and the stakes will be spaced approximately two to three
feet apart in meander bends and six to eight feet apart in the riffle sections, using a triangular spacing
pattern along the streambanks, between the toe of the streambank and bankfull elevation. When
bioengineering is proposed, live branch cutting bundles comprised of similar live stake species, shall be
installed at five linear feet per bundle approximately two to three branches thick. The basal ends of the
live branch cuttings, or whips, shall contact the back of the excavated slope and shall extend six inches
from the slope face.
Permanent Seeding: Permanent seed mixtures of native species herbaceous vegetation and temporary
herbaceous vegetation seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the Project. The individual
species were specifically selected due to their native occurrence in Wayne County, NC. Temporary and
permanent seeding will be conducted simultaneously at all disturbed areas of the Project during
construction and will conducted with mechanical broadcast spreaders. Simultaneous permanent and
temporary seeding activities helps to ensure rapid growth and establishment of herbaceous ground cover
and promotes soil stability and riparian habitat uplift.
Table 13 lists the proposed species, mixtures, and application rates for permanent seeding. The vegetation
species proposed for permanent seeding are deep-rooted and have been shown to proliferate along
restored stream channels, providing long-term stability. The vegetation species proposed for temporary
seeding germinate quickly to swiftly establish vegetative ground cover and thus, short term stability. The
permanent seed mixture proposed is suitable for streambank, floodplain, and adjacent riparian wetland
areas, and the upland transitional areas in the riparian buffer. Beyond the riparian buffer areas, temporary
and permanent seeding will also be conducted at all other disturbed areas of the Project that are
susceptible to erosion. These areas include constructed streambanks, access roads, side slopes, and spoil
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 34
piles. If temporary seeding is applied from November through April, rye grain will be used and applied at
a rate of 130 pounds per acre. If applied from May through October, temporary seeding will consist of
browntop millet, applied at a rate of 40 pounds per acre.
Table 13. Proposed Riparian Buffer Permanent Seeding
Scientific Name Common Name % Proposed for
Planting by
Species
Seeding Rate
(lb/acre)
Wetland
Tolerance
Andropogon gerardii Big blue stem 10% 1.5 FAC
Dichanthelium
clandestinum
Deer tongue 15% 1.5 FACW
Carex vulpinoidea Fox sedge 10% 2.25 OBL
Carex lupulina Hop sedge 5% 2.25 OBL
Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye 15% 1.5 FAC
Juncus effusus Soft rush 10% 2.25 FACW+
Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 5% 1.5 FACW+
Schizachyrium scoparium Little blue stem 10% 0.75 FACU
Tripsacum dactyloides Eastern gamagrass 5% 0.75 FAC+
Sorghastrum nutans Indiangrass 10% 0.75 FACU
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. Species
substitutions will be coordinated between WLS and planting contractor prior to the procurement of seeding
stock.

Invasive species vegetation, such as Chinese privet will be treated to allow native plants to become
established within the conservation easement. During the project implementation, invasive species exotic
vegetation will be treated both to control its presence and reduce its spread within the conservation
easement areas.
6.2.4 Riparian Wetland Restoration
W2a and W4a: Wetland areas W2a and W4a contain soil conditions that are favorable for both
rehabilitating degraded (poorly functioning) riparian wetlands and re-establishing historic wetlands. It is
anticipated that as a direct result of implementing a Priority Level I restoration, ditch plugging, limited soil
manipulation (less than 1 foot depth), and revegetation, the natural hydrology will be restored and allow
the wetland areas to regain its normal/historic functions. An overbank flooding regime will be restored
throughout these areas by plugging the existing ditches and raising the stream bed elevation to reconnect
the channels to their active floodplain. WLS has compared monitoring data from successful stream and
wetland restoration projects in similar headwater valleys within the same or similar soil types over the
past decade, and expects these areas will likely experience seasonal wetness for prolonged periods and
conditions are favorable to support appropriate wetland hydrology.
Based on the 2016 NCIRT guidance, WLS expects an appropriate wetland saturation range and
hydroperiod for the mapped soil series or with similar taxonomy to be 12-16% of the growing season
(USACE, 2016). As described in the reach summary, portions of the existing streams have been
channelized to the toe of the adjacent hillslope. As a result, many toe-of-slope seepage wetlands that may
have once existed on the Project site have been drained and lost. Restoration of the stream channels
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 35
within the natural topography and adjacent floodplain crenulations will also reconnect many of these
small seepage and seasonally saturated wetlands when the channelized stream segments are filled back
in as part of the proposed restoration practices.
6.2.5 Riparian Wetland Enhancement
W3 and W4: As described above, restoration activities including ditch plugging, minimal grading and
blending of microtopography, will provide significant functional uplift across the project area. This
approach will also improve and enhance the hyporheic zone interaction and hydrology to existing wetland
areas W3 and W4. Wetland enhancement areas will be planted with native wet tolerant species.
Restoration of a natural stream system requires that the new channel be restored to the lowest part of
the valley, which may result in a temporary disturbance of existing marginal wetlands. However,
restoration of the stream channels will also improve areas of adjacent wetlands through higher water
table conditions (elevated stream profile) and a more frequent over-bank flooding regime. All wetland
enhancement areas within the conservation easement will be planted with native tree species and
protected in perpetuity.
6.2.6 Riparian Wetland Preservation
W1 and W2: W2 is an existing riparian wetland system that begins at a spring head within a mature
forested area and W1 is a jurisdictional wetland in a mature forested area adjacent to Reach UT2-R3.
Based on field investigations and site assessments, the existing stream and wetland complex is forested
and appears mostly stable and undisturbed. Preservation is being proposed in these areas since the
existing headwater stream and wetland system is higher functioning with a mature riparian buffer due to
minimal historic impacts. The wetland preservation area will be protected in perpetuity through a
permanent conservation easement. This approach will extend the wildlife corridor throughout the entire
riparian valley, while providing a hydrologic connection and critical habitat linkage within the catchment
area.
6.3 Flow Regime
Extensive research has demonstrated that a wide range of flows are essential to maintain stable and high
functioning habitat across ecological systems. The flow regime has been identified as the primary factor
in sustaining the ecological integrity of riparian systems (Poff et al. 1997) and is a key variable in
determining the abundance, distribution, and evolution of aquatic and riparian species (Schlosser 1985,
Resh et al. 1988, Power et al. 1995, Doyle et al. 2005). The ecological significance of variable stream flows
is more relative to flow duration, not necessarily just the flow recurrence interval. Seasonal flow variations
correlate to biological relationships and habitat response. The flow conditions can generally be
categorized as low flow, channel-forming flow, or flood flows, each with specific ecological significance
(Postel and Richter, 2003).
A majority of stream miles (>80 percent) in North Carolina are classified as headwater streams (drainage
area <3.9 mi2); however, less than 10 percent of the 284 USGS stream gages in North Carolina are located
on headwater streams (EFSAB, 2013). WLS recognizes the importance of these stream flow variables and
the ecological role they play in supporting high functioning headwater steam and wetland systems. As
such, flow monitoring will be conducted to demonstrate that the restored headwater stream systems
exhibit seasonal base flow during a year with normal rainfall conditions. The stream surface flow
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 36
documentation methods are further described in Section 9. Table 14 summarizes the basic flow levels and
ecological roles the restoration design will provide after Project implementation.
Table 14. Flow Level and Ecological Role
Low Flow (Base Flow):
occurs most
frequently/seasonally
-Provide year-round habitat for aquatic organisms (drying/inundation pattern)
-Maintain suitable conditions for water temperature and dissolved oxygen
-Provide water source for riparian plants and animals
-Enable movement through stream corridor and refuge from predators
-Support hyporheic functions and aquatic organisms

Channel-forming Flow:
infrequent, flow duration of
a few days per year
-Shape and maintain physical stream channel form
-Create and maintain pools, in-stream and refuge habitat
-Redistribute and sort fine and coarse sediments
-Reduce encroachment of vegetation in channel and establishment of exotic
species
-Maintain water quality by flushing pollutants
-Maintain hyporheic connection by mobilizing bed and fine material
-Create in-channel bars for seed colonization of native riparian plants

Flood Flow: very infrequent,
flow duration of a few days
per decade or century
-Deposition of fine sediment and nutrients on floodplain
-Maintain diversity, function, and health of riparian floodplain vegetation
-Create streamside habitat, new channels, sloughs, and off-channel rearing
habitat through lateral channel migration and avulsion
-Recharge floodplain and storage processes
-Recruitment of native wood and organic material into channel
6.3.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge
Bankfull stage and its corresponding discharge are the primary variables used to develop a natural stable
channel design. However, the correct identification of the bankfull stage in the field can be difficult and
also subjective (Williams, 1978; Knighton, 1988; and Johnson and Heil, 1996). Numerous definitions exist
of bankfull stage and methods for its identification in the field (Wolman and Leopold, 1957; Nixon, 1959;
Schumm, 1960; Kilpatrick and Barnes, 1964; and Williams, 1978). The identification of bankfull stage in
the humid Southeast can be especially challenging because of dense understory vegetation and extensive
channel modification and subsequent adjustment in channel morphology.
It is generally understood that bankfull stage corresponds with the discharge that fills a channel to the
elevation of the active floodplain and represents a breakpoint between processes of channel formation
and floodplain development. The bankfull discharge, which also corresponds with the dominant discharge
or effective discharge, is the flow that moves the most sediment over time in stable alluvial channels.
Field indicators include the back of point bars, significant breaks in slope, changes in vegetation, the
highest scour line, or the top of the streambank (Leopold, 1994).
Upon completion of the field survey and geomorphic assessment, accurate identification of bankfull stage
could not be made in all reach sections throughout the reaches due to incised and channelized/ditched
conditions. Although some field indicators were apparent in segments with lower streambank heights and
discernible scour features in UT2-R3 and UT2B, the reliability of the indicators was inconsistent due to the
altered condition of the stream channels. For this reason, the bankfull stage and discharge were estimated
using published regional curve information.
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 37
6.3.2 Regional Curve Comparison
Regional curves developed by Dunne and Leopold (1978) relate bankfull channel dimensions to drainage
area and are based on the channel forming discharge theory, which states that one unique flow can yield
the same channel morphology as the full range of flows. A primary purpose for developing regional curves
is to aid in identifying bankfull stage and dimension in un-gaged watersheds, as well as to help predict the
bankfull dimension and discharge for natural channel designs (Rosgen, 1994). Gage station analyses
throughout the United States have shown that the bankfull discharge has an average return interval of
1.5 years or 66.7% annual exceedance probability on the maximum annual series (Dunne and Leopold,
1978; Leopold, 1994).
Hydraulic geometry relationships are empirically derived and can be developed for a specific river or
extrapolated to a watershed in the same physiographic region with similar rainfall/runoff relationships
(FISRWG, 1998). Published bankfull regional curves are available for a range of stream types and
physiographic provinces. The NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (Sweet and Geratz, 2003) and NC State
University Coastal Plan Regional Curve (Doll et al., 2003) were used for comparison when estimating
bankfull discharge. The NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve and bankfull hydraulic geometry equations are
shown in Table 15.
It’s important to note these tributaries are classified as zero and first order streams, and generally smaller
headwater streams can be poorly represented on the regional curves. Based on our experience, the
published NC Rural Coastal Plain Regional Curve Equations can slightly overestimate discharge and
channel dimensions for smaller ungaged streams. Furthermore, estimating bankfull parameters
subjectively rather than using deterministic values may encourage designers to make decisions on a range
of values and beliefs that the bankfull depths must inherently be within that range (Johnson and Heil,
1996).
Table 15. North Carolina Coastal Plain Regional Curve Equations
NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve Equations
EcoScience (Sweet and Geratz, 2003)
NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve Equations
NCSU (Doll et al., 2003)
Qbkf = 8.79 Aw 0.76 R2=0.92 Qbkf = 16.56 Aw 0.72 R2=0.90
Abkf = 9.43 Aw 0.74 R2=0.96 Abkf = 14.52 Aw 0.66 R2=0.88
Wbkf = 9.64 Aw 0.38 R2=0.95 Wbkf = 10.97 Aw 0.36 R2=0.87
Dbkf = 0.98 Aw 0.36 R2=0.92 Dbkf = 1.29 Aw 0.30 R2=0.74
6.3.3 Channel Forming Discharge
A hydrologic analysis was completed to estimate and validate the design discharge and channel geometry
required to provide more frequent overbank flows and floodplain inundation. WLS used multiple methods
for evaluating the bankfull stage and dominant discharge for the Project reaches. Cross-sections were
identified and surveyed to represent reach-wide conditions. Additional bankfull estimation methods, such
as the commonly accepted Manning’s equation, were compared to help interpret and adjust field
observations to select the appropriate design criteria and justification for the design approach.
The bankfull flows in gaged watersheds within the NC Rural Coastal Plain study documented return
intervals (RI) that range from <1.0 to 1.3, with a mean of 1.2 years (Sweet and Geratz, 2003). WLS then
compared lower flow frequencies in the 1.2-yr to 1.5-yr RI range versus survey data, field measurements,
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 38
and discharge analysis (See Appendix B). It should be noted that this best fit approach does not always
match the dataset, since it falls at the low end of the curve. Therefore, caution should be used when
comparing these lower RIs with additional data sets. Using the rationale described above, the bankfull
discharge analyses compared NC Rural Coastal Plain regional curves, Manning’s equation discharges
calculated from the representative cross-section geometry and USGS regional regression equations.
Table 16. Design Discharge Analysis Summary
Project
Reach
Designation
Watershed
Drainage
Area (Ac)
EcoScience NC
CP Regional
Curve (cfs) 1
NCSU
NC CP
Regional
Curve (cfs) 2
Manning’s
Equation
(cfs) 3
USGS Regression
Equation for 1.5-
year Recurrence
Interval (cfs) 4
Design
Discharge
Estimate
(cfs)
UT1-R1 184 2.5 5.0 1.4 3.5 2.7
UT1-R2 260 4.3 8.3 7.5 4.3 4.3
UT2-R1 45 1.1 2.3 1.3 1.5 1.4
UT2-R2 256 3.0 6.1 7.2 4.2 3.0
UT2-R3 512 7.4 14.1 6.1 6.4 7.5
UT2A 69 1.6 3.4 1.4 2.0 1.8
UT2B 306 5.0 9.7 8.6 4.7 5.1
Note 1: Published NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve (Sweet and Geratz , 2003).
Note 2: Published NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve (NCSU, 2003).
Note 3: Bankfull discharge estimates vary based on Manning’s Equation for the representative riffle cross -
sections. Bankfull stage roughness estimates (n-values) ranged from approximately 0.035 to 0.06 based on
channel slopes, depth, bed material size, and vegetation influence.
Note 4: NC USGS rural regression equation extrapolated for 1.5-year flood recurrence interval (USGS, 2011)

After considering these estimation methods and results (geometry measurements, published regional
curves, flow frequency and USGS regional regression equations), WLS estimated the design discharge
using values nearest to the published NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve (Sweet and Geratz, 2003) to select
the appropriate design dimensions and flows rates that best correspond to the design channel that will
convey the 1.2-yr RI. The design discharge analysis summary is provided in Appendix B.
6.3.4 Channel Stability and Sediment Transport Analysis
To evaluate channel stability and sediment transport relationships; shear stress, stream power, and width-
to-depth (W/D) values were plotted against comparable Coastal Plain sand-bed reference stream data.
(See Appendix C). The design shear stress and stream power values plot within the scatter of data points
collected from multiple stable reference reaches. This analysis provides a basic relationship that the shear
stresses and stream power predicted for the design channels are within the range of stable values.
Therefore, excessive scour of the design channel is not expected once the vegetation becomes established
and W/D decreases.
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 39
Alluvial sand bed channels in small Coastal Plain headwater stream systems typically have a relatively low
sediment supply with finer grained material (D50 < 2mm), therefore a more complex sediment budget or
rating curve is not necessary. Sediment transport analyses as described above were not applied to the
headwater design reaches UT1-R1, UT2-R1 and UT2A. The design for these headwater reaches involve the
construction of a broad/shallow flow path along the valley bottom the system to form as a single or multi-
thread channel; Under natural stable conditions, sediment deposits in these headwater stream systems
are more aggradational, due to low flow velocities and scour stresses.
Furthermore, sediment supply is typically limited, such that over time, these systems remain stable and
deposited sediment and sorting becomes encourages soil formation. For this reason, excessive scour or
aggradation of the design channel is not anticipated, additional sediment transport calculations and
stream power analyses utilizing HEC-RAS may be performed for the existing channels as compared to the
final design channel geometry.
As a design consideration, the proposed design riffle slopes greater than 0.001 ft/ft will be constructed in
transitional areas using larger particle sizes (gravel) and wood material to provide additional grade control
and bed stability. Any concerns regarding channel degradation and stability will be addressed by installing
a combination of grade control structures, such as constructed log riffles and step-pools in the straighter
channel segments (vertical stability) and brush toe and bioengineering in meander bends (vertical
stability). In addition, improving the existing stream crossings and restoring a more natural flow regime
will facilitate positive adjustments to sediment routing and storage across the reconnected floodplains.
Table 17 represents the boundary shear stress and stream power values under proposed design
conditions for Project reaches UT1-R2 and UT2-R2.
Table 17. Bankfull Shear Stress and Stream Power
Project
Reach
Designation
Watershed
Drainage
Area (Ac)
Bankfull Q
NC CP
Regional
Curve
(cfs) 1
Bankfull Q
Manning’s
Equation
(cfs) 2
Bankfull
Velocity
(ft/sec)
Shear Stress
(lbs/ft2 )
Stream Power
(W/m2 )
UT1-R2 184 4.3 6.4 1.47 0.122 3.00
UT2-R2 260 3.8 5.5 1.43 0.119 2.82
Note 1: Published NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve (Sweet and Geratz , 2003).
Note 2: Manning’s Equation for the representative riffle cross-sections. Predicted roughness estimates
(n-value = 0.04) was based on channel slopes, depth, bed material size, and vegetation influence.
Note 3: Boundary shear stress and stream power for preservation and enhancement r eaches are not included in
this table.

6.4 Reference Sites
6.4.1 Reference Streams
The morphologic data obtained from reference reach surveys can be a valuable tool for comparison and
used as a template for analog design of a stable stream in a similar valley type, drainage area, valley slope
and sand bed material. To obtain the morphological relationships observed in a stable stream system,
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 40
dimensionless ratios were compared from the selected reference reaches. These ratios were applied to
the stream design to ‘mimic’ the natural, stable form of the target channel type. While reference reach
data can be a useful aid in analog design, they are not always necessary and can have limitations in smaller
headwater stream systems (Hey, 2006). The flow patterns and channel formation for many reference
reach quality streams are often controlled by slope, bed material, drainage areas and larger trees and/or
other deep-rooted vegetation. Some meander geometry parameters, such as radius of curvature, are
particularly affected by vegetation control. Pattern ratios observed in reference reaches may not be
applicable or are often adjusted in the design criteria to create more conservative designs that are less
likely to erode after construction, before the permanent vegetation is established. Often the best
reference data is from adjacent stable stream reaches or reaches within the same watershed.
For comparison purposes, WLS selected local reference reach data and monitoring data from projects in
similar watersheds and compared them with composite CP reference data. The reference reach data
represents small headwater CP streams and falls within the same climatic, hydrophysiographic and
ecological region as that for the Project site. The reference reach data shown on Table 18 helped to
determine the design approach for the project reaches proposed for single thread channel restoration.
Figure 11 shows the reference site locations as compared to the Project reaches. Additional CP headwater
stream comparisons data is provided in Appendix C.
Table 18. Reference Reach Data Comparison
Parameter Beaverdam Branch Composite Reference Data
Stream Type (Rosgen) C5 C5 / E5
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 1.5 1.0 – 1.4
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 11.0 – 17.0 8.0 – 14.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 10 – 11 4 – 13
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.5 – 1.7 1.2 – 1.7
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 – 1.3 1.0 – 1.3
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf 4.9 – 6.7 9.0 - 15.0
Radius of Curvature Ratio, Rc/Wbkf 1.8 – 2.4 1.5 – 3.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf 2.9 – 6.3 2.0 – 7.0
Sinuosity, K 1.6 1.2 - 1.7
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.001 0.001 – 0.004
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.004 0.001 – 0.002
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.1 – 2.4 1.8 – 2.4
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 0.8 – 1.0 0.8 – 1.4
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 2.5 – 3.4 3.5 – 7.0
Note 1: Composite CP sand bed reference reach values and ratios were compared using stable stream restoration
projects surveyed and monitored in NC. (Harman, 2011).
Note 2: Example reference reach data from the Beaverdam Branch project site.

6.4.2 Reference Wetlands
An existing wetland complex that is representative of the riparian wetland system to be restored at the
Project site was identified within the project area along upper UT2-R1 and UT2-R3 (see Figure 11). The
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 41
reference riparian wetlands are an examples of a Headwater Forest/Bottomland Hardwood Forest (NC
WAM, 2016) and a “Coastal Plain small stream swamp,” as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
These headwater systems exist along the zero- or first-order streams (UT2-R1) and floodplains of small
brownwater (or blackwater) streams in which separate or consistent fluvial features and associated
vegetation are poorly developed to distinguish. Hydrology of these systems is palustrine – intermittently,
temporarily, or seasonally flooded. Stream flows tend to be highly variable, with floods of short duration,
and periods of very low flow. Bottomland Hardwood Forests exist in geomorphic floodplains along second-
order and larger streams (UT2-R3). These wetlands are generally intermittently to seasonally inundated
and overbank flooding is the source of groundwater and surface runoff. The reference site has
experienced minimal disturbances in the past, primarily due to timber harvest; however, cutting of timber
occurred long ago, and a mature canopy of vegetation exists across wetland area. Evidence also suggests
that the hydrology and soils were minimally affected by timber harvest. Groundwater monitoring wells
were installed in March 2019 to document hydrology during the growing season prior to restoration
activities.
6.5 Water Quality Treatment Features
Water quality treatment features in the form of small basins or impoundments designed to treat runoff
from the surrounding agricultural fields are proposed in multiple locations adjacent to the restored
riparian buffer corridor. These small basins will capture overland flow, increase infiltration and
groundwater recharge, diffuse flow energies, and allow nutrient uptake within the extended riparian
buffer area. These features are sized to treat storage volumes, which have been calculated by comparing
the SCS Curve Number Method and Simple Method. The features are intended to function most similar
to a stormwater wetland to temporarily store surface runoff in shallow pools that support emergent and
native riparian vegetation. They will be designed and constructed such that they do not require any long-
term maintenance and will be sited inside the conservation easement boundary.

The features will be excavated along non-jurisdictional flat or depressional areas where ephemeral
drainages intersect with the restored stream corridor. The areas will be improved by grading flatter side
slopes (>3H:1V) and planting appropriate wetland vegetation. Over time, as vegetation becomes
established, the areas will function as shallow wetland complexes or depressions. The outlets will be
constructed with suitable material and stabilized with permanent vegetation or stone that will prevent
headcut migration or erosion into the newly constructed areas. The basins have been designed with low-
maintenance weir outlets. This strategy will allow these features to function properly with minimal risk
and without long term maintenance requirements. A stable outlet channel will be constructed to deliver
runoff to the receiving restored stream reach. See Appendix ‘A’ design plan sheets for details and feature
locations.
6.6 Site Construction Methods
6.6.1 Site Grading and Construction Elements
Following initial evaluation of the design criteria, detailed refinements were made to the design plans in
the field to accommodate the existing valley characteristics, vegetation influences and channel
morphology. This was done to minimize unnecessary disturbance of the riparian area, and to allow for
some natural channel adjustments following construction. The design plans and construction elements
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 42
have been tailored to produce a cost and resource efficient design that is constructible, using a level of
detail that corresponds to the tools of construction. A general construction sequence is included on the
design plan sheets located in Appendix A.
Much of the grading across the Project will be conducted within the existing riparian corridor. The restored
streams and wetlands will be excavated within the existing headwater valley. Suitable fill material will be
generated from new channel excavation and adjacent upland areas and hauled to ditch fill/plugs or
stockpile locations as necessary. Portions of the existing, unstable channels will be partially to completely
filled in along their length using compactable material excavated from construction of the restored
channels.
Wetland and floodplain grading activities will focus on restoring pre-disturbance valley topography by
removing field crowns, overburden/spoil, surface drains, and legacy pond sediments that were imposed
during conversion of the land for agriculture. In general, floodplain grading activities will be minor, with
the primary goal of soil scarification in compacted areas, creating depressional areas, water quality and
habitat features, and microtopographic crenulations by filling the drainage features at the Project site
back to natural ground elevations (Scherrer, 1999). Any excess material not used for ditch plugging or
suitable as a soil base for vegetation will be spread across upland areas outside of the easement boundary
and jurisdictional WOTUS.
6.6.2 Stream and Floodplain Improvement Features
Stream improvement features such as in-stream structures and bioengineering or bioremediation
techniques are proposed for grade control, streambank protection, and improving bedform diversity and
habitat. All in-stream structures will be constructed from materials naturally found in the region such as
hardwood trees, trunks/logs, brush/branches, and gravel stone materials. In order to ensure sustainability
of those structures, WLS will use design and construction methods that have been successful on numerous
past projects in the same geographic region and similar site conditions. WLS will also incorporate
bioengineering practices, when appropriate, that use biodegradable materials and fabrics, uncompacted
soils, live plant cuttings, and native species vegetation to stabilize streambanks.
Bioengineering treatments will provide initial bank stability that allows for the quick establishment of
deep-rooted vegetation along the newly restored streambanks. Once established, these live, dormant
plant cuttings will provide long-term bank stability to the treated areas and prevent further bank erosion
and sedimentation. Floodplain improvement features such as small sloughs, meander scars, vernal pools,
and tree throws are commonly found in natural riparian systems. These floodplain improvement features
will be added to provide habitat and serve as water storage and sediment sinks throughout the corridor
to improve wetland functions.
6.6.3 Construction Feasibility
WLS has field verified that the Project site has adequate, viable construction access, staging, and stockpile
areas. Physical constraints or barriers, such as stream crossings and pond dams, account for only a small
percentage of the proposed total stream reach length within the Project boundary. Existing Project access
points and features will be used for future access after the completion of construction.

DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 43
7 Maintenance Plan
The Project will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the Project will take place at
least twice a year throughout the post-construction monitoring period until performance standards are
met. These inspections may identify Project components and features that require routine maintenance.
Routine maintenance is anticipated in the years following Project construction and may include the
following components as described in Table 19.

Table 19. Routine Maintenance Components
Feature Maintenance Activity Through Close -out
Stream Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include modifying in-stream
structures to prevent piping, securing loose coir matting, and supplemental
installation of live stakes and other target vegetation along the Project reaches. Areas
of concentrated stormwater and floodplain flows that intercept the channel may also
require maintenance.
Wetland Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose coir matting
and supplemental installations of target vegetation within the wetland. Areas of concentrated
storm flows that intercept the wetland may also require maintenance to prevent excess scour.

Vegetation Vegetation will be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include
supplemental planting, pruning, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species will
treated by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any invasive plant species control
requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NCDA rules and
regulations.
Project Site
Boundary
Project boundaries will be demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
Project site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence,
marker, bollard, post, or other means as allowed by Project conditions and/or
conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be
repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis.
Stream Crossing The stream crossing(s) within the Project may be maintained only as allowed by the
recorded Conservation Easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements.
Beaver
Management
Routine maintenance and repair activities caused by beaver activity may include
supplemental planting, pruning, and dewatering/dam removal. Beaver management will be
implemented using accepted trapping and removal methods only within the
conservation easement boundary.

8 Performance Standards
The success criteria for the Project will follow the approved performance standards and monitoring
protocols presented in this mitigation plan which have been developed in compliance with the USACE
October 2016 Guidance, as well as the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 and
October 2005, and Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule, issued in 2008.
Monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of seven years with the final duration dependent upon
performance trends toward achieving the Project goals and objectives. Specific success criteria
components and evaluation methods are described below.
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 44
8.1 Single-Thread Streams
Stream Hydrology: Four (4) separate bankfull or over bank events must be documented within the seven-
year monitoring period. At least two (2) bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the
stream monitoring will continue until four (4) bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
Stream Profiles, Vertical Stability, and Floodplain Access: Stream profiles, as a measure of vertical stability
and floodplain access will be evaluated by looking at Bank Height Ratios (BHR). In addition, observed
bedforms should be consistent with those observed for channels of the design stream type(s). The BHR
shall not exceed 1.5 along the restored Project stream reaches. This standard only applies to restored
reaches of the channel where BHRs were corrected through design and construction.
Stream Horizontal Stability: Cross-sections will be used to evaluate horizontal stream stability. There
should be little change expected in as-built restoration cross-sections. If measurable changes do occur, they
should be evaluated to determine if the changes represent a movement toward a more unstable condition
(e.g., downcutting, erosion) or a movement towards increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetation
establishment, deposition along the streambanks, decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-sections shall be
classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification method and all monitored cross-sections should fall within
the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
Streambed Material Condition and Stability: After construction, there should be minimal change in the
particle size distribution of the streambed materials, over time, given the current watershed conditions
and future upstream sediment supply regime. Since the stream substrate is predominantly gravel-bed
systems with minimal sand, significant changes in particle size distribution are not expected.
Jurisdictional Stream Flow: The restored stream systems must be classified as at least intermittent, and
therefore must exhibit base flow for some portion of the year during a year with normal rainfall conditions.
8.2 Headwater Streams
Continuous Flow: Surface flow must be documented using gages or automated photo loggers.
Channel Formation: Channel formation within the valley or crenulation must be documented through
identification of field indicators consistent with those listed in Section 9.
8.3 Wetlands
Wetland Hydrology: The performance standard for wetland hydrology will range from 12 to 16 percent
based on the suggested wetland saturation thresholds for soils taxonomic subgroups provided by the IRT
and on-site wetland reference data. The proposed success criteria for wetland hydrology will be when the
soils are saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface for 12 to 16 percent (27 to 36 days) of the growing
season (March through November) based on WETS data table for Wayne County, NC. The saturated
conditions should occur during a period when antecedent precipitation has been normal or drier than
normal for a minimum frequency of 5 years in 10 (USACE, 2005 and 2010b). Precipitation data will be
obtained from the Cherry Research Station near Goldsboro (GOLD), which is approximately 4 miles east
from the Project site and a rain gauge will be installed on site. If a normal year of precipitation does not
occur during the first seven years of monitoring, WLS will continue to monitor the Project hydrology until
the Project site has been saturated for the appropriate hydroperiod. If rainfall amounts for any given year
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 45
during the monitoring period are abnormally low, reference wetland hydrology data will be compared to
determine if there is a correlation with the weather conditions and site variability.
8.4 Vegetation
Vegetative restoration success for the Project during the intermediate monitoring years will be based the
survival of at least 320, three-year-old planted trees per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period;
and at least 260, five-year-old, planted trees per acre that must average 7 feet in height at the end of Year
5 of the monitoring period. The final vegetative restoration success criteria will be achieving a density of
no less than 210, seven-year-old planted stems per acre that must average 10 feet in height in Year 7 of
monitoring.
9 Monitoring Plan
In accordance with the approved mitigation plan, the baseline monitoring document and as-built report
documenting the mitigation activities will be developed within 60 days of the completion of planting and
monitoring device installation at the restored Project. In addition, a period of at least six months will
separate the as-built baseline measurements and the first-year monitoring measurements. The baseline
monitoring document and as-built monitoring report will include all information required by the USACE
Stream Mitigation Guidelines, issued in April 2003 and USACE Guidance for Compensatory Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District dated October 2016, including planimetric (plan
view) and elevation (profile view) information, photographs, sampling plot locations, a description of
initial vegetation species composition by community type, and location of monitoring stations. The report
will include a list of the vegetation species planted, along with the associated planting densities.
WLS will conduct mitigation performance monitoring based on these methods and will submit annual
monitoring reports to IRT by December 31st of each monitoring year during which required monitoring is
conducted. The annual monitoring reports will organize and present the information resulting from the
methods described in detail below. The annual monitoring reports will provide a project data chronology
for IRT to document the Project status and trends, and to assist in decision making regarding project close-
out. Project success criteria must be met by the final monitoring year prior to project closeout, or
monitoring will continue until unmet criteria are successfully met. The following subsections summarize
the monitoring methods and linkage between the goals, parameters, and expected functional lift
outcomes. Figure 10 illustrates the pre- and post-construction monitoring feature types and location.
9.1 Stream Monitoring
Based on the stream design approaches, different monitoring methods are proposed for the various
Project reaches. Hydrologic monitoring will be conducted for all of the Project stream reaches. For reaches
that involve a combination of traditional Restoration (Rosgen Priority Level I and II) and Enhancement
Level I (bed/bank stabilization) approaches, geomorphic monitoring methods will be employed to
evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices. Visual monitoring will be conducted along these
reaches as described herein. For the Project reaches involving an Enhancement Level II approach,
monitoring efforts will focus primarily on visual inspections, photo documentation, and vegetation
assessments, each as described herein. For Project reaches involving headwater stream restoration,
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 46
surface water flow and channel formation will be documented. The monitoring of these Project reaches
will utilize the methods described under visual monitoring. Each of the proposed stream monitoring
methods are described in detail below.
9.1.1 Hydrologic Monitoring
The occurrence of four required bankfull events (overbank flows) within the monitoring period, along with
floodplain access by flood flows, will be documented using crest gauges and automated photography. The
crest gages will be installed on the floodplain of and across the dimension of the restored channels as
needed for monitoring. The crest gages will record the watermark associated with the highest flood stage
between monitoring site visits. The gages will be used to determine if a bankfull or significant flow event
has occurred since the previous gage check. Corresponding photographs will be used to document the
occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during monitoring site visits. This
hydrologic monitoring will help establish that the restoration objectives of restoring floodplain functions
and promoting more natural flood processes are being met.
9.1.2 Geomorphic Monitoring
Pattern: A planimetric survey will be conducted for the entire length of restored channel immediately after
construction to document as-built baseline conditions (Monitoring Year 0). The survey will be tied to a
permanent benchmark and measurements will include thalweg, bankfull, and top of banks. The plan view
measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, and meander width ratio will be taken on newly
constructed meanders during baseline documentation (Monitoring Year 0) only. The described visual
monitoring will also document any changes or excessive lateral movement in the plan view of the restored
channel. The results of the planimetric survey should show that the restored horizontal geometry is
consistent with intended design stream type. These measurements will demonstrate that the restored
stream channel pattern provides more stable planform and associated features than the old channel, which
provide improved aquatic habitat and geomorphic function, as per the restoration objectives.
Dimension: Permanent cross-sections will be installed and surveyed at an approximate rate of one cross-
section per 20 bankfull widths or an average distance interval (not to exceed 500 LF) of restored stream,
with approximately 50% cross-sections located at riffles, and 50% located at pools. Each cross-section will
be monumented on both streambanks to establish the exact transect used and to facilitate repetition each
year and easy comparison of year-to-year data. The cross-section surveys will occur in years 0 (as-built), 1,
2, 3, 5, and 7, and will include measurements of bankfull cross-sectional area (Abkf) at low bank height,
Bank Height Ratio (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring survey will include points measured
at all breaks in slope, including top of streambanks, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the
features are present.
There should be minimal change in as-built cross-sections. Stable cross-sections will establish that the
restoration goal of creating geomorphically stable stream conditions has been met. If changes do take
place, they will be documented in the survey data and evaluated to determine if they represent a
movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down-cutting or erosion) or a movement toward
increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the streambanks, or decrease in
width-to-depth ratio). Using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, all monitored cross-sections should
fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Given the smaller
channel sizes and meander geometry of the proposed steams, bank pin arrays will not be installed unless
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 47
monitoring results indicate active lateral erosion at cross-sections occurring in meander bends or an
increase of greater than 15% in cross-sectional area, or when visual monitoring indicates potential bank
instability.
Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross-section. Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the streambanks. Photographs will be taken of both
streambanks at each cross-section. A survey tape stretched between the permanent cross-section
monuments/pins will be centered in each of the streambank photographs. The water elevation will be
shown in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of the streambank as possible will be included in each
photo. Photographers should attempt to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Profile: A longitudinal profile will be surveyed for the entire length of restored channel immediately after
construction (Monitoring Year 0) to document as-built baseline conditions. The survey will be tied to a
permanent benchmark and measurements will include thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low
bank. Each of these measurements will be taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the
maximum pool depth. The longitudinal profile should show that the bedform features installed are
consistent with intended design stream type. The longitudinal profiles will not be taken during subsequent
monitoring years unless vertical channel instability has been documented or remedial actions/repairs are
deemed necessary. These measurements will demonstrate that the restored stream profile provides more
bedform diversity than the old channel with multiple facet features (such as scour pools and riffles) that
provide improved aquatic habitat, as per the restoration objectives. BHRs will be measured along each of
the restored reaches using the results of the longitudinal profile.
9.1.3 Flow Duration Monitoring
Jurisdictional Stream Flow Documentation: Monitoring of stream flow will be conducted to demonstrate
that the restored stream systems classified as intermittent exhibit surface flow for a minimum of 30
consecutive days throughout some portion of the year during a year with normal rainfall conditions. To
determine if rainfall amounts are normal for the given year, precipitation amounts using tallied data
obtained from the Cherry Research Station near Goldsboro (GOLD), which is approximately four miles east
from the Project site, can be obtained from the CRONOS Database located on the State Climate Office of
North Carolina’s website. If a normal year of precipitation does not occur during the first seven years of
monitoring, monitoring of flow conditions at the Project site will continue until it documents that the
intermittent streams have been flowing during the appropriate times of the year.
The proposed monitoring of restored intermittent reaches will include the installation of groundwater
monitoring wells within the thalweg (bottom) of the channel towards the middle portion of the reach. In
addition, photographic documentation using a continuous series of remote photos over time will be used
to subjectively evaluate and document channel flow conditions throughout the year. More specifically, the
longitudinal photos should indicate the presence of flow within the channel to illustrate water levels within
the pools and riffles. The photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five feet to ensure that
the same locations (and view directions) at the Project site are documented in each monitoring period and
will be shown on a plan view map. Flow Gages (continuous-read pressure transducers) will be installed
towards the middle portion of restored intermittent reaches. The devices will be inspected on a quarterly
basis to document surface hydrology and provide a basis for evaluating flow response to rainfall events and
surface runoff during various water tables levels throughout the monitoring period.
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 48
9.1.4 Headwater Stream Monitoring
Continuous Surface Flow: Continuous surface water flow within the valley or crenulation must be
documented to occur every year for at least 30 consecutive days during the prescribed monitoring period.
Channel Formation: During monitoring years 1 through 4, the preponderance of evidence must
demonstrate a concentration of flow indicative of channel formation within the topographic low-point of
the valley or crenulation as documented by the following indicators:
 Scour (indicating sediment transport by flowing water)
 Sediment deposition (accumulations of sediment and/or formation ripples)
 Sediment sorting (sediment sorting indicated by grain-size distribution with the primary path of
flow)
 Multiple observed flow events (must be documents by gage data and/or photographs)
 Destruction of terrestrial vegetation
 Presence of litter and debris
 Wracking (deposits of drift material indicating surface water flow)
 Vegetation matted down, bent, or absent (herbaceous or otherwise)
 Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
During monitoring years 5 through 7, the stream must successfully meet the requirements above and the
preponderance of evidence must demonstrate the development of stream bed and banks as documented
by the following indicators:
 Bed and banks (may include the formation of stream bed and banks, development of channel
pattern such as meander bends and/or braiding at natural topographic breaks, woody debris, or
plant root systems)
 Natural line impressed on the bank (visible high water mark)
 Shelving (shelving of sediment depositions indicating transport)
 Water staining (staining of rooted vegetation)
 Change in plant community (transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long
duration, including hydrophytes)
Changes in character of soil (texture and/or chroma changes when compared to the soils abutting the
primary path of flow)
9.2 Wetland Monitoring
Hydrology: Automated groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to document hydrologic conditions
of the restored wetland areas to determine hydrologic success criteria are achieved. An additional gage
will be installed in an on-site reference wetland area and used to compare the hydrologic response within
the restored wetland area. Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to record daily groundwater
levels in accordance with the USACE standard methods described in “Technical Standard for Water Table
Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites” (ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2, June 2005). The objective for the
monitoring well data is to demonstrate that the Project site exhibits an increased flood frequency as
compared to pre-restoration conditions and on-site reference conditions.
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 49
9.3 Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation at the Project is dependent upon successful hydrologic
restoration, active establishment and survival of the planted preferred canopy vegetation species, and
volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. To determine if these criteria are successfully
achieved, vegetation-monitoring quadrants or plots will be installed and monitored across the Project in
accordance with the CVS-EEP Level I & II Monitoring Protocol (CVS, 2008). The vegetation monitoring plots
shall be approximately 2% of the planted portion of the Project site with approximately 24 plots
established randomly within the planted riparian buffer areas for stream and wetland mitigation. All of
these plots will also be used for monitoring vegetation success for nutrient/buffer crediting areas through
DWR. Planted nutrient and riparian buffer areas will have an additional 14 vegetation plots for a total of
38 vegetation plots for DWR. The sampling may employ quasi-random plot locations which may vary upon
approval from IRT. Any random plots should comprise no more than 50% of the total required plots, and
the location (GPS coordinates and orientation) will identified in the monitoring reports.
No monitoring quadrants will be established within undisturbed wooded preservation areas, however
visual observations will be documented in the annual monitoring reports to describe any changes to the
existing vegetation community. The size and location of individual quadrants will be 100 square meters
(i.e., 10m X 10m or 5m X 20M) for woody tree species and may be adjusted based on site conditions after
construction activities have been completed.
Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall each required monitoring year, prior to the loss of leaves.
Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings
and the current year's living, planted seedlings. Data will be collected at each individual quadrant and will
include specific data for monitored stems on diameter, height, species, date planted, and grid location, as
well as a collective determination of the survival density within that quadrant. Relative values will be
calculated, and importance values will be determined. Individual planted seedlings will be marked at
planting or monitoring baseline setup so that those stems can be found and identified consistently each
successive monitoring year. Volunteer species will be noted and their inclusion in quadrant data will be
evaluated with IRT on a case-by-case basis. The presence of invasive species vegetation within the
monitoring quadrants will also be noted, as will any wildlife effects. At the end of the first full growing
season (from baseline/year 0) or after 180 days, species composition, stem density and survival will be
evaluated. For each subsequent year, vegetation plots shall be monitored for seven years in years 1, 2, 3,
5 and 7, and visual monitoring in years 4 and 6, or until the final success criteria are achieved.
While measuring species density is the current accepted methodology for evaluating vegetation success
on mitigation projects, species density alone may be inadequate for assessing plant community health.
For this reason, the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate the evaluation of native volunteer species
and the presence of invasive species vegetation to assess overall vegetative success. WLS will perform
remedial action on a case-by-case basis, such as replanting more wet/drought tolerant species vegetation,
mowing between planted species, soil amendments, conducting beaver dam management/removal, and
removing undesirable/invasive species vegetation, and will continue to monitor vegetation performance
until the corrective actions demonstrate that the Project is trending towards or meeting the standard
requirement. Existing mature woody vegetation will be visually monitored during annual site visits to
document any mortality, due to construction activities or changes to the water table, that negatively
impact existing forest cover or favorable buffer vegetation.
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 50
9.4 Visual Assessment Monitoring
WLS will conduct visual assessments in support of mitigation performance monitoring. Visual assessments
of all stream reaches will be conducted at least twice per monitoring year with a minimum of five months
in between each site visit throughout the monitoring period. Photographs will be used to visually document
system performance and any areas of concern related to streambank and bed stability, condition of in-
stream structures, channel migration, active headcuts, live stake mortality, impacts from invasive plant
species or animal browsing, easement boundary encroachments, cattle exclusion fence damage, and the
general condition of pools and riffles. The monitoring activities will document and quantify the visual
assessment throughout the monitoring period.
A series of photographs over time will be also be compared to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation
(bar formations) or degradation, streambank erosion, successful maturation of riparian vegetation, and
effectiveness of sedimentation and erosion control measures. More specifically, the longitudinal profile
photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or excessive increase in channel
depth, while lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks.
The photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five feet to ensure that the same locations
(and view directions) at the Project site are documented in each monitoring period and will be shown on a
plan view map. The results of the visual monitoring assessments will be used to support the development
of the annual monitoring document that provides the visual assessment metrics.
Table 20. Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary
Functional
Category
(Level)
Project Goal /
Parameter
Measurement
Method Performance Standard Potential Functional
Uplift
Hydrology
(Level 1)
Improve Base Flow
Duration and
Overbank Flows (i.e.
channel forming
discharge)
Well device (pressure
transducer), regional
curve, regression
equations,
catchment
assessment
Maintain seasonal flow for a
minimum of 30 consecutive
days during normal annual
rainfall.
Create a more natural
and higher functioning
headwater flow regime
and provide aquatic
passage.

Hydraulics
(Level 2)
Reconnect
Floodplain / Increase
Floodprone Area
Widths
Bank Height Ratio,
Entrenchment Ratio,
crest gauge
Maintain average BHRs less
than 1.5 and ERs at 2.2 or
greater and document out of
bank and/or geomorphically
significant flow events.
Provide temporary
water storage and
reduce erosive forces
(shear stress) in
channel during larger
flow events.

Geomorphology
(Level 3)
Improve Bedform
Diversity
Pool to pool spacing,
riffle-pool sequence,
pool max depth ratio,
Longitudinal Profile
Increase riffle/pool
percentage and pool-to-pool
spacing ratios compared to
reference reach conditions.
Provide a more natural
stream morphology,
energy dissipation and
aquatic habitat/refugia.

Increase Vertical and
Lateral Stability
Cross-sections and
Longitudinal Profile
Surveys, visual
assessment
Decrease streambank erosion
rates comparable to
reference condition cross-
section, pattern and vertical
profile values.
Reduce sedimentation,
excessive aggradation,
and embeddedness to
allow for interstitial
flow habitat.
Establish Riparian
Buffer Vegetation
CVS Level I & II
Protocol Tree Veg
Plots (Strata
Composition and
Within planted portions of
the Project site, a minimum
of 320 stems per acre must
be present at year three; a
Increase woody and
herbaceous vegetation
will provide channel
stability and reduce
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 51
Density), visual
assessment
minimum of 260 stems per
acre must be present at year
five; and a minimum of 210
stems per acre must be
present at year seven.
streambank erosion,
runoff rates and exotic
species vegetation.
Physiochemical
(Level 4)
Improve Water
Quality N/A N/A
Removal of excess
nutrients and organic
pollutants will increase
the hyporheic
exchange and dissolved
oxygen (DO) levels.
Biology
(Level 5)
Improve Benthic
Macroinvertebrate
Communities and
Aquatic Health
DWR Small Stream/
Benthic sampling, IBI N/A
Increase leaf litter and
organic matter critical
to provide in-stream
cover/shade, wood
recruitment, and
carbon sourcing.
Note: Level 4 and 5 project parameters and monitoring activities will not be tied to performance standards nor
required to demonstrate success for credit release.

10 Long-Term Management Plan
The Project will be protected in perpetuity by a recorded conservation easement. The conservation
easement will allow for annual monitoring and maintenance of the Project during the monitoring phase.
Upon final site approval and project closeout, the Project stewardship will be transferred to an approved
long-term stewardship program. WLS has partnered with Unique Places To Save (UP2Save) as the long-
term steward for the Project site (See Appendix D for conservation easement and engagement letter).
Unique Places To Save
Attn: David Harper
PO Box 1183
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
803-553-1644
[e-mail]

This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will
conduct periodic inspection of the Project to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation
easement are upheld. Any endowment funds for the conservation easement and deed restrictions shall
be negotiated prior to transfer to the responsible party. The use of funds from the Endowment Account
is governed by NC General Statue GS 113A-232(d) (3). Payments and interest gained by the endowment
fund may be used only for stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction
costs, if applicable. The management activities will be conducted in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the approved UMBI as agreed to by WLS, USACE, and the IRT.

DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 52
11 Adaptive Management Plan
The Sponsor will conduct post‐construction monitoring activities and routine maintenance as needed for
the duration of the monitoring period. The Sponsor will notify the USACE immediately if monitoring results
or visual observations demonstrate that performance standards cannot be achieved. In the event the
Project or a specific component of the Project fails to achieve the performance standards as specified in
the mitigation plan, the sponsor shall notify the IRT and develop a corrective action plan and facilitate
remedial actions. The Sponsor is responsible for providing any necessary permits to implement the
corrective action plan that describes the extent and nature of the work to be 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: holding
credit sales, utilizing financial assurances, and/or terminating the instrument.
12 Financial Assurances
CONFIDENTIAL
The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of casualty insurance or a performance bond
that is acceptable to the USACE and sufficient to assure successful completion of all mitigation bank
activities, reporting and monitoring, and any remedial work required pursuant to the approved Mitigation
Plan and/or UMBI. The insurance policy or performance bond will be submitted for review and approval
by the USACE. The financial assurance will cover the cost estimates for providing the mitigation bank
activities such as site mobilization and construction, annual monitoring, and reporting as outlined in Table
21. There will be a financial assurance for the construction phase in the amount of $874,000 and that
financial assurance will be retired following completion of construction and planting. Then a monitoring
financial assurance in the amount of $210,000 will be provided to assure completion of seven years of
monitoring and reporting, and any remedial work required during the monitoring period.
The monitoring financial assurance will be reduced by $30,000 following approval of each annual
monitoring report. The monitoring financial assurance will be retired in total following official notice of
site close-out from the IRT. Financial assurances shall be payable to a standby trust or other designee at
the direction of the obligee. Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the USACE in the event
of default by the Bank Sponsor are not acceptable. The USACE shall receive notification at least 120 days
in advance of any termination or revocation. In the event of Sponsor default, UP2S has agreed to receive
the endowment funds and will ensure the mitigation work is successfully completed.
Table 21. Financial Assurances
Category Item Estimated Cost
Construction
Site Earthwork, Amenities, & Planting $799,000
Site Planting $75,000
Monitoring
Monitoring Activities and
Annual Reports through 7 years $140,000
Land Management and Routine Maintenance $35,000
Contingency / Remedial Action $35,000

DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions Page 53
13 References
Griffith, G.E., et al. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina. Reston, VA. United States Geological Survey.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A function based
framework for developing stream assessments, restoration goals, performance standards and
standard operating procedures. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, D.C.
Hey. 2007. Fluvial geomorphological methodology for natural stable channel design. JAWRA, Vol 42: 357-
386.
NC Wetland Functional Assessment Team, 2016. “NC Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) User
Manual”. Version 5.0, October 2016.
Nanson and Knighton, 1993. Anastomosis and the continuum of channel pattern.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS), 2018. “Neuse River Basin Documents.”
Accessed via:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Neuse_River_Basin/R
RP-Neuse-201807-.pdf
NC Stream Functional Assessment Team, 2015. “NC Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) User Manual”.
Version 2.1, August 2015.
NC Wetland Functional Assessment Team, 2016. “NC Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) User
Manual”. Version 5.0, October 2016.
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Field Survey Procedures for Characterization of River Morphology.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Agricultural Handbook
Number 590. Ponds – Planning, Design, Construction. 1997.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Division.
1974. Soil Survey, Wayne County, NC.
United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Threatened and Endangered
Species in North Carolina (County Listing). Wayne County. 2017.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manua l.
Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Vicksburg, MS.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical
Note VN-RS-4.1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, MS.
DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Hollowell Mitigation Project
Page 54
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Wilmington District.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Notification of Issuance of Guidance for Compensatory
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District, October 2016, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources;
Final Rule dated April 10, 2009 of the Federal Register Vol. 73, No. 70.
Scherrer, E. 1999. Using Microtopography to Restore Wetland Plant Communities in Eastern North
Carolina.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms.
Skidmore, P. 2001. A Categorization of Approaches to Natural Channel Design.
Tweedy, K. 2008. A Methodology for Predicting Channel Form in Coastal Plain Headwater Systems .
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Williams, G. P. 1978. “Bankfull discharge of rivers,” Water Resources Research, 14(6), 1141-1154.

Figures

WLS Neuse 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Hollowell Mitigation Project
Figure 1 – Project Location
Figure 1a – Geographic Service Area Map
Figure 2 – USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3 – NRCS Soils Map
Figure 4 – LiDAR Map
Figure 5 – Floodplain Map
Figure 6a – 1993 Aerial Photograph
Figure 6b – 2004 Aerial Photograph
Figure 6c – 2013 Aerial Photograph
Figure 7 – Existing Hydrography
Figure 8 – Channel Stability & Pre-Monitoring Features
Figure 9 – Water Quality Stressors
Figure 10 – Proposed Mitigation Features
Figure 11 – Reference Site Locations Map

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunity
0 0.5 1Miles
FIGURE1HollowellMitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Project LocationMap
Johnston County
Wayne County
Goldsboro
Smithfield
Legend
Project Location
HUC-12HUC-8 (Upper Neuse)Wayne CountyNC Cities
Wayne Co. HydrographyNC CountiesConservation Easement
0 3.5 7Miles050100Miles
Project is located in HUC-8: 03020201Upper Neuse Subbasin
Location: 35.354143°-78.115899°
Location: 35.354771°-78.128593°
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMEN T P, NRC an, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS User Community
Leg en d
Hollo well Mitigatio n Project
Upper Neuse: 03020201
0 15 30Miles
FIGUREHollowellMitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Service Area Map 1a
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Leg en d
Conservation EasementCatchment Are a: 42 acres
Catch me nt Are a: 29 acresCatchment Are a: 69 acres
Catch me nt Are a: 512 acresCatchment Are a: 184 acres
Catch me nt Are a: 260 acres
Catch me nt Are a: 306 acres
FIGUREHollowellMitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
USGS TopographicMap 2
0 0.2 0.40.1 Miles
We
NoB
Po
Bb
Lv
AyACh
Ch
KaA
NoC
w
Ke
Tr
Ke
CrC2
Ke
WaB
To
NoC
Kn
To
Na
Ra
Bb
KaD
NoB
WaB
Ex
WaD
Le
Ke
CrC2
NoB
Jo
Po
RuB
Dr
Kn
WhA
w
NoC
Jo
WaC
WhA
Kn
Rm NoC
NoB
NoA
WaC
CrC2 NoB RuB
Jo
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID , IGN, and the GIS User Community
FIGUREHollowellMitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
NRCS SoilsMap 3
0 550 1,100275Feet
Legend
Conservation EasementExisting StreamFlowlines
Soil Map U nits (N RCS Data from Web Soil Survey)Aya: Aycock very fine sandy loam, 0-2% slopesBb: Bibb sandy loam
Ch: C hewacla loamCrC2: Craven sandy loam, 6-10% slopes, erodedDr: Dragston loamy sand
Ex: Exum very fine sandy loamJo: Johns sandy loam
KaA: Kalmia loamy sand, 0-2% slopesKaD: Kalmia loamy sand,10-15% slopesKe: Kenansville loamy sand
Kn: Kinston loamKe: Leaf loamLn: Leon sand
Lv: Lumbee sandy loamNa: N ahunta very find sandy loamNoB: Norfolk loamy sand, 2-6% slopes
NoC : Norfolk loamy sand, 6-10% slopesPo: Pantego loam
Ra: R ains sandy loamRuA: Ruston loamy sand, 0-2% slopesRuB: Ruston loamy sand, 2-6% slopes
To: Torhunta loamTr: Troup sandWaB: Wagram loamy sand, 0-6% slopes
WaC: Wagram loamy sand, 6-10% slopesWaD: Wagram loamy sand, 10-15% slopesWe: Weston loamy sand
WhA: Whickham loamy sand, 0-2% slopesw: Water
UT2-R1 (up per)
UT2A
UT2-R2
UT2B
UT2-R3
UT1-R1
UT1-R2
UT2-R1 (lo wer)
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID , IGN, and the GIS User Community
FIGUREHollowellMitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
LiDARMap 4
0 700 1,400350Feet
Legend
Conservation Easement NC Floo dplain M ap ping Program LiDAR
Window Size: 24.000Elevation
173.009 - 176.46169.559 - 173.009166.108 - 169.559
162.658 - 166.108159.207 - 162.658155.756 - 159.207
152.306 - 155.756148.855 - 152.306
145.404 - 148.855
141.954 - 145.404138.503 - 141.954135.053 - 138.503
131.602 - 135.053128.151 - 131.602
124.701 - 128.151121.25 - 124.701117.799 - 121.25
114.349 - 117.799110.898 - 114.349107.448 - 110.898
103.997 - 107.448
100.546 - 103.99797.096 - 100.54693.645 - 97.096
90.194 - 93.64586.744 - 90.194
83.293 - 86.74479.843 - 83.29376.392 - 79.843
72.941 - 76.39269.491 - 72.94166.04 - 69.491
UT2-R1 (up per)
UT2A
UT2-R2
UT2B
UT2-R3
UT1-R1
UT1-R2
UT2-R1 (lo wer)
82
909864929666102 1001
1
2
108
1 2 6 1141 3 0
13411668
1 3 6
1
1
8
1
2
0 122701101048884128768010672
13278941248674767
6 781108012070747 676 761188410812211274841
2
476
11072 8 4
1
1
46610670 76
721101 1 472
809
27278 116
88 74747810674
1067274 7696120124887486
7 0
11 6 861101221027070681147211212878681 1 870104767672707076708472
1 1 672 86 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID , IGN, and the GIS User Community
FIGUREHollowellMitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
FloodplainMap 5
0 500 1,000250Feet
Legend
Conservation EasementExisting Streams2ft ContoursMajorMinorFEMA FloodzoneAE0.2 PCT A NNUA L CH ANCE FLOOD HAZARD
UT2-R1 (up per)
UT2A
UT2-R2
UT2B
UT2-R3
UT1-R1
UT1-R2
UT2-R1 (lo wer)
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID , IGN, and the GIS User Community
FIGUREHollowellMitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
1993 AerialPhotograph 6a
0 500 1,000250Feet
Legend
Conservation Easement
So urce: Go ogle Earth
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID , IGN, and the GIS User Community
FIGUREHollowellMitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
2004 AerialPhotograph 6b
0 500 1,000250Feet
Legend
Conservation Easement
So urce: Go ogle Earth
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID , IGN, and the GIS User Community
FIGUREHollowellMitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
2013 AerialPhotograph 6c
0 500 1,000250Feet
Legend
Conservation Easement
So urce: Go ogle Earth
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
FIGUREHollowellMitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Existing Hydrography Map 7
0 500 1,000250Feet
Lege nd
Conservation EasementExisting StreamUnverified WetlandsHydric Soils (LSS determined)
UT2-R1 (u pper)
UT2A
UT2-R2
UT2B
UT2-R3
UT1-R1
UT1-R2
UT2-R1 (lower)
W1
W2
W5
W4
W3
CS-6
CS-5
CS-7
CS-8
CS-1
CS-2
CS-3
CS-4
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID , IGN, and the GIS User Community
FIGUREHollowellMitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Channel Stability & Pre-Monitoring FeaturesMap 8
0 500 1,000250Feet
Legend
Conservation EasementExisting Stream
Cross Section Locations
Existing Flow Gages
Existing Groundwater Gages
UT1-R2 (up per)
UT2A
UT2-R2
UT2B
UT2-R3
UT1-R1
UT1-R2
UT1-R2 (lo wer)
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
FIGUREHollowellMitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Water Quality StressorsMap 9
0 500 1,000250Feet
Lege nd
Conservation EasementWater Q ua lity Stre ssorsBuffer (<30 '), Excess Nu trien t an d Sedime nt In putsBuffer (>30 '), Excess Nu trien t an d Sedime nt In putsNo Buffer, Excess Nu trient an d Sedime nt In putsNo Stre ssors
UT1-R2 (lower)UT2A
UT2-R2
UT2B
UT2-R3
UT1-R1
UT1-R2
UT1-R2 (u pper)
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
FIGUREHollowellMitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Proposed Mitigation FeaturesMap 10
0 500 1,000250Feet
Legend
Conservation EasementBuffer CreditsNutrient CreditsSoil SamplesFlow GagesGroundwater GagesVegetation PlotAdditional DWR Vegetation Plot
Stream Mitigation TypesRestoration (H W/PI)Restoration (PI)Restoration (PI/PII)Enhancement IIPreservation
Cross SectionPoolRiffleValley
Wetland Mitigation TypeRe-establishmentEnhancementPreservation
UT2-R1 (lower)
UT2A
UT2-R2
UT2B
UT2-R3
UT1-R1
UT1-R2
UT2-R1 (u pper)
W1
W2
W2a
W4
W4a
W3a
W3
UT1-R1 HW/Restoration 2,113 1:1 2,113
UT2-R1 (upper)Preservation 228 10:1 23
UT2-R1 (lower)HW/Restoration 874 1:1 874
UT2-R2 Restoration
(PI/PII)892 1:1 892
UT2-R3 Enhancement II 1923 2:1 961UT2AHW/Restoration 667 1:1 667UT2BPreservation25610:1 25Totals8,960 7,562
Reach Mitigation Type Length (LF)Ratio SMCs
UT1-R2 Restoration (PI)2007 1:1 2007
W1 Preservation 2.30 10:1 0.23
Wa Re-establishment 1.59 1:1 1.59W3Enhancement0.84 3:1 0.28W3aRe-establishment 0.77 1:1 0.77W4Enhancement0.90 3:1 0.30W4aRe-establishment 1.63 1:1 1.63Totals10.52 5.05
Wetland Mitigation Type Acreage (AC)Ratio WMCs
W2 Preservation 2.49 10:1 0.25
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
FIGUREHollowellMitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Reference SiteLocationsMap 11
0 500 1,000250Feet
Lege nd
Conservation Easement
Reference Site Locations
Existing StreamUnverified Wetlands
Headwater Strea m/Wetland Reference
Wetland Reference

Appendix A - Design Plan Sheets

WLS Neuse 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Hollowell Mitigation Project

APPROXIMATE PROJECTCENTER35.35814° N-78.116420° WCE
CECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECEC
E
CECECECECECECECECECECE CECE
CECECECE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECESHEET 24SHEET 25SHEET 26SHEET 28SHEET 27SHEET 29SHEET 31SHEET 30SHEET 32SHEET 33SHEET 8SHEET 9SHEET 10SHEET 11SHEET 12SHEET 13SHEET 14SHEET 15SHEET 16SHEET 17SHEET 18SHEET 19SHEET 20SHEET 21SHEET 22SHEET 22DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SCOVERSHEETN/AHOLLOWELL MITIGATION PROJECTWAYNE COUNTY, NCSHEET INDEX1234-78-2223-3334-43COVER SHEETLEGEND/CONSTRUCTIONSEQUENCE /GENERALNOTESTYPICAL SECTIONSDETAILSPLAN AND PROFILEREVEGETATION PLANGRADING PLANNEUSE RIVER BASIN (CU 03020201)USACE ACTION ID # SAW-2017-00159TYPE OF WORK : STREAM, WETLAND, NUTRIENT ANDBUFFER MITIGATIONPROJECT SUMMARY01_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION_COVER.DWGBEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT1-R1STATION 10+00.00VICINITY MAPN.T.S.11"=800'FERRY BRIDGE ROADSTEVENS MILL ROADSTEVENS MILL ROADJAMES HINSON ROADFALLING CREEKCHURCH ROAD PROJECTLOCATIONEND CONSTRUCTION UT1-R1BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT1-R2STA. 32+80.65END CONSTRUCTION UT1-R2STA. 53+28.10BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2ASTATION 10+00.00BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2BSTA. 10+00.00END CONSTRUCTION UT2BSTA. 12+56.50BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2-R1STATION 12+28.21END CONSTRUCTION UT2-R1BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2-R2STATION 18+42.94END CONSTRUCTION UT2ASTATION 16+67.08END CONSTRUCTION UT2-R2BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2-R3STATION 30+26.97END CONSTRUCTION UT2-R3STATION 49+50.03
DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480N.T.S.MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SN/AGENERAL NOTESLEGEND/CONSTRUCTIONSEQUENCE/GENERAL NOTESCONSTRUCTION SEQUENCEGRADING NOTESLEGENDROOTWADLOG VANELOG WEIRLOG STEP-POOLPROPOSED CONSERVATIONCECE100EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR101EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR100PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR101PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUREXISTING TREECHANNEL BLOCKCHANNEL FILLLDLDLIMITS OF DISTURBANCEPROPOSED TOP OF STREAM BANKEXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARYTEMPORARY STREAM CROSSINGPERMANENT STREAM CROSSINGPROPOSED CENTERLINE (THALWEG)GEOLIFT W/ TOEWOOD100 YEAR FLOOD PLAINC/FC/FCUT/FILL LIMITSWLBWLBEXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARYPROPOSED WATER QUALITYXXPROPOSED FIELD FENCETPTPPROPOSED TREE PROTECTION FENCECONSTRUCTED STONE RIFFLEPROPOSED OUTLET CHANNELCONSTRUCTED LOG RIFFLEEXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICFPFPOHPLEXISTING WOODLINE15+00EXISTING FENCEPROPOSED FARM PATHEXISTING FARM PATH02_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GENERAL NOTES.DWGXPROPOSED GATEEXISTING STRUCTURE202_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GENERAL NOTES.DWGEXISTING WETLAND AREAWLBWLBWLBWLBTHE ENGINEER WILL PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OFTHIS PROJECT. THE FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE SHALL BE USED DURING PROJECTCONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTATION. PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES,NOTIFICATION OF AND RECEIPT OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL MUST BE RECEIVED FROM NCDEQ -LAND QUALITY SECTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL NC DEQ LQS AT 919-791-4200 TO SCHEDULE APRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AT LEAST 72 HOURS PRIOR TO PROJECT ACTIVATION. THECONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PERMIT ANDCORRESPONDING PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTIONSEQUENCING ITEMS AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FOLLOWING THE APPROVED PLANS AND PERMITCONDITIONS.1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY (NC 811) (1-800-632-4949) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION BEGINS.ANY UTILITIES AND RESPECTIVE EASEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS ARE CONSIDEREDAPPROXIMATE AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UTILITIES AND ADJOINING EASEMENTSAND SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY DAMAGED UTILITIES AT HIS/HER OWN EXPENSE.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES, HAUL ROADSAND SHALL MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, PREPARE STAGING AREA(S) AND STOCKPILEAREA(S) AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. HAUL ROADS SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED AT ALLTIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION.3.CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE AREA DENOTED AS ?LIMITS OFDISTURBANCE? OR ?HAUL ROADS? AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL TEMPORARY ROCK DAMS AT LOCATIONS INDICATED ON THEPLANS.5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL TEMPORARY SILT FENCE AROUND THE STAGING AREA(S).TEMPORARY SILT FENCING WILL ALSO BE PLACED AROUND THE TEMPORARY STOCKPILEAREAS AS MATERIAL IS STOCKPILED THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STREAM CROSSINGS ASSHOWN ON THE PLANS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED SEDIMENTATION AND EROSIONCONTROL PERMIT. THE EXISTING CHANNEL AND DITCHES ON SITE WILL REMAIN OPEN DURINGTHE INITIAL STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION TO ALLOW FOR DRAINAGE AND TO MAINTAIN SITEACCESSIBILITY.7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT ONLY THE PORTION OF CHANNEL THAT CAN BECOMPLETED AND STABILIZED WITHIN THE SAME DAY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLYTEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEED AND MULCH TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS AT THE END OFEACH WORK DAY, WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF ESTABLISHING TEMPORARY AND PERMANENTGROUND COVER THROUGH VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT.8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAR AND GRUB AN AREA ADEQUATE TO CONSTRUCT THE STREAMCHANNEL AND GRADING OPERATIONS AFTER ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEASURESHAVE BEEN INSTALLED AND APPROVED. IN GENERAL, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK FROMUPSTREAM TO DOWNSTREAM AND IN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND CHANNEL FILL MATERIALSHALL BE INSTALLED USING A PUMP-AROUND OR FLOW DIVERSION MEASURE AS SHOWN ONTHE PLANS.9.CONTRACTOR SHALL BEGIN CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION AT STATION 10+00 AND PROCEED IN ADOWNSTREAM DIRECTION WITH CONSTRUCTION. THE DESIGN CHANNEL SHOULD BECONSTRUCTED OFFLINE AND/OR IN THE DRY WHENEVER POSSIBLE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLEXCAVATE AND CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED CHANNEL TO PROPOSED DESIGN GRADES ANDSHALL NOT EXTEND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES ANY CLOSER THAN WITHIN 10 FEET(HORIZONTALLY) OF THE TOP OF EXISTING STREAM BANKS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEINTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING STREAM CHANNEL UNTIL ABANDONMENT.10.THE CONTRACTOR WILL CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION BY EXCAVATING CHANNEL FILL MATERIAL.THE CONTRACTOR MAY FILL NON JURISDITRIONAL DITCHES WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN ANYWATER DURING THE GRADING OPERATIONS. ALONG STREAM REACHES EXCAVATED MATERIALSHOULD BE STOCKPILED IN AREAS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. IN ANY AREAS WHERE EXCAVATIONDEPTHS WILL EXCEED 10 INCHES, TOPSOIL SHALL BE HARVESTED, STOCKPILED AND PLACEDBACK OVER THESE AREAS TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 8 INCHES TO ACHIEVE DESIGN GRADESAND CREATE A SOIL BASE FOR VEGETATION PLANTING ACCORDING TO THE DESIGN PLANS ANDCONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS.11.AFTER EXCAVATING AND CONSTRUCTING THE PROPOSED CHANNEL TO PROPOSED DESIGNGRADES, INSTALL IN-STREAM STRUCTURES, BIOENGINEERING MEASURES, PERMANENT ANDTEMPORARY SEEDING AND ALL REQUIRED AMENDMENTS, MULCHING, VEGETATIONTRANSPLANTS, TO COMPLETE CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION AND READY THE CHANNEL TO ACCEPTFLOW PER APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER.12.STREAM FLOW WILL BE DIVERTED BACK INTO THE CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL ONCE THERESTORED STREAM CHANNEL AND ASSOCIATED RIPARIAN AREA HAS BEEN STABILIZED, ASDETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVED PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.ONCE STREAM FLOW IS RETURNED TO A RESTORED STREAM CHANNEL REACH, THECONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY BEGIN PLUGGING, FILLING, AND GRADING THE ASSOCIATEDABANDONED REACH OF STREAM CHANNEL, AS INDICATED ON PLANS, MOVING IN ADOWNSTREAM DIRECTION TO ALLOW FOR POSITIVE AND ADEQUATE DRAINAGE OF THEABANDONED CHANNEL REACH. STREAM FLOW SHALL NOT BE DIVERTED INTO ANY SECTION OFRESTORED STREAM CHANNEL PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THATREACH OF PROPOSED CHANNEL, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO FINAL GRADING,STABILIZATION WITH TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEEDING AND ALL REQUIREDAMENDMENTS, MULCHING, VEGETATION TRANSPLANT INSTALLATION, INSTREAM STRUCTUREINSTALLATION, BIOENGINEERING INSTALLATION, AND COIR FIBER MATTING INSTALLATION.13.THE RESTORED CHANNEL SECTIONS SHALL REMAIN OPEN AT THEIR DOWNSTREAM END TOALLOW FOR DRAINAGE DURING RAIN EVENTS.14.ALL GRADING ACTIVITIES ADJACENT TO THE STREAM CHANNEL AND RIPARIAN AREAS SHALL BECOMPLETED PRIOR TO DIVERTING STREAM FLOW INTO THE RESTORED STREAM CHANNELREACHES. ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED ON A REACH OF PROPOSED STREAMCHANNEL, ADDITIONAL GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL NOT BE CONDUCTED WITHIN 10 FEET(HORIZONTALLY) OF THE NEWLY RESTORED STREAM CHANNEL BANKS. THE CONTRACTORSHALL NOT FINALIZE GRADE OR ROUGHEN AREAS WHERE REQUIRED EXCAVATION ACTIVITIESHAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETED.15.ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE WITHIN A PUMP-AROUND WORK AREA OR CONSTRUCTIONWORK PHASE LIMIT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY TEMPORARY SEEDING TO ANY AREASDISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION WITHIN HOURS. ALL SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 SHALL BESTABILIZED WITH GROUND COVER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE WITHIN 7 CALENDAR DAYS. ALLOTHER DISTURBED AREAS AND SLOPES FLATTER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED WITHIN 14CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY.16.PERMANENT GROUND COVER SHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 15WORKING DAYS OR 90 CALENDAR DAYS (WHICHEVER IS SHORTER) FOLLOWING COMPLETIONOF CONSTRUCTION. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED GROUND COVERPRIOR TO DEMOBILIZATION. REMOVE ANY TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSINGS AND TEMPORARYEROSION CONTROL MEASURES. HAUL ROADS TO BE RESTORED TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO ORBETTER THAN FOUND PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.17.ALL REMAINING DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED BY TEMPORARY AND PERMANENTSEEDING AND MULCHING BEFORE CONSTRUCTION CLOSEOUT IS REQUESTED ANDDEMOBILIZATION CAN OCCUR. ALL WASTE MATERIAL MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE PROJECTSITE.18.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TREAT AREAS OF INVASIVE SPECIES VEGETATION THROUGHOUT THEPROJECT AREA ACCORDING TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THEAPPROVED PERMIT, PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS PRIOR TO DEMOBILIZATION.19.THE CONTRACTOR COMPLETE ALL REMAINING PLANTING ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING SHRUB ANDTREE PLANTING, REMAINING TRANSPLANT INSTALLATION, INSTALLATION OF REMAININGBIOENGINEERING MEASURES, AND LIVE STAKE INSTALLATION, ACCORDING TO THECONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE APPROVED PERMIT, PLANS ANDTECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE RE-FORESTATIONPHASE OF THE PROJECT AND CONDUCT REMAINING PERMANENT SEEDING IN ACCORDANCEWITH THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE APPROVED PERMIT, PLANSAND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.20.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT THE SITE IS FREE OF TRASH AND LEFTOVERCONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRIOR TO DEMOBILIZATION FROM THE SITE. THE CONTRACTORSHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OFF-SITE REMOVAL OF ALL TRASH, EXCESS BACKFILL, AND ANYOTHER INCIDENTAL MATERIALS PRIOR TO DEMOBILIZATION OF EQUIPMENT FROM THE SITE.THE DISPOSAL AND STOCKPILE LOCATIONS SELECTED MUST BE APPROVED TO THE ENGINEERAND ANY FEES SHALL BE PAID FOR BY THE CONTRACTOR.TREATMENT FEATURE1. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY SEVEN MILES SOUTHWESTOF THE TOWN OF GOLDSBORO IN WAYNE COUNTY, NC (35.35814°,-78.11642°).AS SHOWN ON THE COVER SHEET VICINITY MAP. TO ACCESSTHE SITE FROM GOLDSBORO, FOLLOW STEVENS MILL ROAD (SR 1008)SOUTHWEST APPROXIMATELY SIX MILES AND ARRIVE AT THE SITEENTRANCE ON THE RIGHT. FOLLOW THE FARM ROAD NORTH TO THE SITEBOUNDARY.2. THE PROJECT SITE BOUNDARIES ARE SHOWN ON THE DESIGN PLANS AS THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM ALL RELATED WORK ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE BOUNDARIES AND/OR WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (LOD). THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE ACCESSED THROUGH THE DESIGNATED ACCESS POINTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PERMITTED ACCESS THROUGHOUT ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS AND MEASURES TO PROTECT ALL PROPERTIES FROM DAMAGE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ALL DAMAGE CAUSED BY HIS/HER OPERATIONS TO ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY AND LEAVE THE PROPERTY IN GOOD CONDITION AND/OR AT LEAST EQUIVALENT TO THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS. UPON COMPLETION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE AREA IS TO BE RESTORED TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN FOUND PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.4. THE TOPOGRAPHIC BASE MAP WAS DEVELOPED USING SURVEY DATA COLLECTED BY WITHERSRAVENEL, INC. (WR) IN THE FALL OF 2018. THE HORIZONTAL DATUM WAS TIED TO NAD83 NC STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, US SURVEY FEET AND NAVD88 VERTICAL DATUM USING VRS NETWORK AND NCGS MONUMENT. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT EXISTING ELEVATIONS AND SITE CONDTIONS MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE ORIGINAL SURVEY WAS COMPLETED DUE TO EROSION, AND/OR SEDIMENT ACCRETION. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONFIRM EXISTING GRADES AND ADJUST QUANTITIES, EARTHWORK, AND WORK EFFORTS AS NECESSARY.5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND THOROUGHLY FAMILIARIZE HIM/HERSELF WITH ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS. PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS AND DESIGN PLANS REGARDING THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE WORK DESCRIBED.6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BRING ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND/OR FIELD CONDITIONS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE SPONSORS ENGINEER BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS.7. THERE SHALL BE NO CLEARING OR REMOVAL OF ANY NATIVE SPECIES VEGETATION OR TREES OF SIGNIFICANCE, OTHER THAN THOSE INDICATED ON THE PLANS OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE CARE DURING GRADING ACTIVITIES IN THE VICINITY OF NATIVE VEGETATION AND TREES OF SIGNIFICANCE AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. ALL GRADING IN THE VICINITY OF TREES NOT IDENTIFIED FOR REMOVAL SHALL BE MADE IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT DISTURB THE ROOT SYSTEM WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE.9. WORK ACTIVITIES ARE BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PLAN NEAR PRIVATE RESIDENCES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REDUCE SEDIMENT LOSS, PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY, AND MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE WHILE PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK. ALL AREAS SHALL BE KEPT NEAT, CLEAN, AND FREE OF ALL TRASH AND DEBRIS, AND ALL REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS SHALL BE TAKEN TO AVOID DAMAGE TO EXISTING ROADS, VEGETATION, TURF, STRUCTURES, AND PRIVATE PROPERTY.10. PRIOR TO START OF WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THE SOURCE OF MATERIALS, INCLUDING AGGREGATES, EROSION CONTROL MATTING, WOOD AND NATIVE PLANTING MATERIAL TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. NO WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED UNTIL THE SOURCE OF MATERIAL IS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY NECESSARY COORDINATION BETWEEN THE VARIOUS COUNTY, STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCIES, UTILITY COMPANIES, HIS/HER SUB-CONTRACTORS, AND THE ENGINEER FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT.12. PRIOR TO START OF WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THEIR DETAILED PLANTING SCHEDULE TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW. NO WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED UNTIL THIS SCHEDULE IS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. THE DETAILED PLANTING SCHEDULE SHALL CONFORM TO THE PLANTING REVEGETATION PLAN AND SHALL INCLUDE A SPECIES LIST AND TIMING SEQUENCE.13. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL IN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND CULVERT PIPES USING A BACKHOE/EXCAVATOR WITH A HYDRAULIC THUMB OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO PLACE STRUCTURES INCLUDING LOGS, STONE, BOULDERS, ROOT WADS, AND TEMPORARY WOOD MAT STREAM CROSSINGS.1. NO GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL OCCUR BEYOND THEPROJECT LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (LOD) AS SHOWN ONTHE DESIGN PLANS.2. ONCE DESIGN GRADES ARE ACHIEVED AS SHOWN ONTHE PLAN AND PLAN AND PROFILE, THE HEADWATERVALLEY, STREAM AND WETLAND, AND FLOODPLAINAREAS SHALL BE ROUGHENED USING TECHNIQUESDESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS.3. ALL SUITABLE SOIL MATERIAL REQUIRED TO FILLAND/OR PLUG EXISTING DITCHES AND/OR STREAMCHANNEL SHALL BE GENERATED ON-SITE ASDESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS.ANY EXCESS SPOIL MATERIAL SHALL BE STOCKPILED INDESIGNATED AREAS AND OR HAULED OFF-SITE ASAPPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.EASEMENT BOUNDARY
RIFFLE WITH BANKFULL BENCHTOP OF TERRACEPOOLPOOL WITH BANKFULL BENCHOUTLET CHANNELWbkfD-max3:13:1WbEXISTINGGROUNDPROPOSEDGROUNDN.T.SN.T.SN.T.SN.T.SRIFFLEWbkfD-max2.5:12.5:1WbD-max1.5:14:1 WbkfWbEXISTINGGROUNDEXISTINGGROUNDPROPOSEDGROUNDPROPOSEDGROUNDN.T.SWbkfD-max2.5:
12.5:1WbPROPOSEDGROUNDEXISTINGGROUNDVARIESVARIES3:13:1D-max1.5:14
:
1 WbkfWbPROPOSEDGROUND3:1EXISTINGGROUND3:1 TOP OF TERRACEVARIESVARIESDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480N.T.S.MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
STYPICALSECTIONSN.T.S.03_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_TYPICAL_SECTIONS.DWG303_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_TYPICAL_SECTIONS.DWGHEADWATER (MULTI-THREAD) CHANNELSECTION A-ANOT TO SCALEVALLEY BOTTOM WIDTH(APPROX. 20' TO 40')CHANNEL DEPTH(APPROX. 0.3' TO 0.7')VALLEY SIDE SLOPEBASED ON GRADINGPLANSGRADED VALLEYELEVATION PRIORTO ROUGHINGMULTI-THREADCHANNELSAAPLAN VIEW OF MICROTOPOGRAPHIC PATTERN1.GRADE VALLEY TO DESIGN CONTOURS ASSHOWN ON GRADING PLAN.2.MICROTOPOGRAPHY IS FORMED USINGSTANDARD TILLAGE EQUIPMENT TO CREATEMOUNDS AND FURROWS AS DESCRIBED INTHE SPECIFICATIONS. ALTERNATIVECONSTRUCTION METHODS SHALL BEAPPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.3.THE HEADWATER CHANNEL ALIGNMENTSHALL BE APPROVED BY ENGINEERFOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THEMICROTOPOGRAPHY ROUGHENING.4.HEADWATER (MULTI-THREAD) CHANNELSWILL BE SHAPED TO FORM SMOOTHTRANSITIONS.5.UPON COMPLETION OF THE HEADWATERCHANNEL FEATURES, APPLY MULCH,TEMPORARY SEED AND PERMANENT SEEDTO THE CONSTRUCTED VALLEY INACCORDANCE WITH THE TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS.NOTES:MULTI-THREAD CHANNELSAVERAGE WIDTH = 2 TO 4 FT.AVERAGE DEPTH = 0.3 TO 0.7 FTHEADWATERCHANNELALIGNMENT
DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480N.T.S.MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SDETAILS NOTES:1.THE TRENCHING METHOD REQUIRES THAT A TRENCH BE EXCAVATED FORTHE LOG PORTION OF THE ROOTWAD. A COVER LOG SHOULD BE INSTALLEDUNDERNEATH THE ROOTWAD IN A TRENCH EXCAVATED PERPENDICULARTO THE BANK AND BELOW THE RESTORED STREAMBED. ONE-THIRD OF THEROOTWAD SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS.ROOTWADSPLAN VIEWROOTWAD (TYP.)FLOWTRANSPLANTSBANKFULL STAGEBASE FLOWOPTIONALCOVER LOGROOTWADTRANSPLANTSRESTOREDSTREAMBANKBERM (0.5' MAX. HT.)NOT TO EXTEND BEYONDLIMITS OF ROOTWADS.> 1/2 OF ROOT MASSIS BELOW BASE FLOWSECTION A-ATOP OFSTREAMBANKBASE FLOWROOTWADS WITH TRANSPLANTSBANKFULL STAGERESTOREDSTREAMBANKBERM (0.5' MAX. HT.) BERM(S)NOT TO EXTEND BEYONDLIMITS OF ROOTWADS.> 1/2 OF ROOT MASSIS BELOW BASE FLOWROOTWADROOTWADS WITHOUT TRANSPLANTSSECTION A-ACOVER LOG(OPTIONAL)SCOURPOOLAEROSION CONTROL MATTINGATOP OFSTREAMBANKTOP OFSTREAMBANKENTIRE ROOTWAD TRUNK ISBELOW STREAMBED.COVER LOG(OPTIONAL)ENTIRE ROOTWAD TRUNK ISBELOW STREAMBED.NOT TO SCALENOTES:1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.2. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOGS.3. ROOTWADS SHOULD BE PLACED BENEATH THE HEADER LOG AND PLACED SO THAT IT LOCKS THE HEADER LOG INTO THE BANK. SEE ROOTWAD DETAIL.4. BOULDERS OF SUFFICIENT SIZE CAN PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.5. LOGS SHOULD BE BURIED INTO THE STREAM BED AND BANKS AT LEAST 5 FEET.6. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.7. TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF ROOTWADS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.LOG VANEPLAN VIEWSECTION A-APROFILE B-BAAFLOWSCOURPOOL2/3 BANKFULLSTAGENON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRICROOT WADBURY LOGS INTOBANK AT LEAST 5'4% TO 7%ARM SLOPEFOOTER LOG(OPTIONAL)HEADERLOG1'2/3 BANKFULL STAGEFLOWRESTORED STREAMBED ELEVATIONBOULDER(OPTIONAL)ARM ANGLE20° TO 30°BOULDER(OPTIONAL)BTOP OF STREAM BANKBINVERT/GRADE POINTHEADERLOGSTONE BACKFILLNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC5' MINIMUMFOOTER LOG(OPTIONAL)STREAMBEDSCOURPOOLINVERTELEVATIONTOP OF STREAM BANKFLOWROOT WADNOT TO SCALELOG WEIRBBAAINVERTELEVATION~1.3X CHANNEL WIDTHPOOL LENGTH
FLOWSCOURPOOLPLAN VIEWNOTES: 1.LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHTHARDWOOD AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.2.LOGS >24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT ANADDITIONAL LOG FILTER FABRIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUNDLOG, AT THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.3.PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) LOG. SET HEADERLOG AT A MAXIMUM OF 3 INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.4.CUT A NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATELY 30% OF THE CHANNELBOTTOM WIDTH AND EXTENDING DOWN TO THE INVERT ELEVATION. NOTCHSHALL BE USED TO CENTER FLOW AND NOT EXCEED 3 INCHES IN DEPTH.5.USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.6.INSTALL VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAM BANK TO TOPOF STREAM BANK.7.SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR CHANNEL DIMENSIONS.HEADERLOGFOOTERLOGSECTION A-ASET INVERT ELEVATIONBASED ON DESIGN PROFILETRANSPLANTSOR LIVE STAKESBANKFULL STAGETOP OF STREAM BANKBASEFLOWPROFILE B-BSTONE BACKFILLNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC5' MINIMUMFOOTER LOGSTREAMBEDSCOURPOOLINVERTELEVATIONTOP OF STREAM BANKTOP OF STREAM BANKFLOW BURY INTOBANK 5'MINIMUM(TYP.) BURY INTOBANK 5'MINIMUM(TYP.)HEADER LOGNOT TO SCALEEROSION CONTROLMATTING04-07_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_DETAIL_SHEETS.DWG404-07_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_DETAIL_SHEETS.DWG
DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480N.T.S.MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SCONSTRUCTED LOG RIFFLEFLOWFOOTERLOGHEADERLOGSTREAMBEDSTREAMBEDPRIMARYLOGSSECONDARY LOGSAND WOODY DEBRISHEADERLOGBACKFILL WITHON-SITE ALLUVIUMNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(TYPICAL) BACKFILL WITHSUITABLE ON-SITEALLUVIUMPROFILE B-B5' MINIMUM5' MINIMUMH ≤ 0.3'HEADERLOGFOOTERLOGSECTION A-ASET INVERT ELEVATION BASEDON DESIGN PROFILE5' MINIMUMBURIED INTOBANK5' MINIMUMBURIED INTOBANKBBAAFLOWBEGIN INVERTELEVATIONTRANSPLANTSOR LIVE STAKESHEADERLOGPRIMARY LOGS SPACEEVERY 8'-12'END INVERTELEVATIONSECONDARY LOGSAND WOODY DEBRISPLAN VIEW1. PRIMARY LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12" OR MORE IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY HARVESTED AND EXTENDING INTO THE BANK 5' ON EACH SIDE.2. SECONDARY LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 4" IN DIAMETER AND NO LARGER THAN 10" AND EXTEND INTO THE BANK 3' ON EACH SIDE. WOODY DEBRIS MATERIAL SHALL BE VARYING DIAMETER TO ALLOWMATERIAL TO BE COMPACTED.3. NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE HEADER LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.4. ROOT WADS AND EROSION CONTROL MATTING CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF TRANSPLANTS OR LIVE STAKES PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.5. AFTER TRENCH HAS BEEN EXCAVATED A LAYER OF SECONDARY LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS SHOULD BE PLACED WITH MINIMAL GAPS. A LAYER OF ON-SITE ALLUVIUM SHOULD BE APPLIED TO FILL VOIDS BETWEEN SECONDARY LOGS BEFORE ADDITIONAL LAYERS ARE PLACED.6. SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR CHANNEL DIMENSIONS.NOTES:BANKFULL STAGETOP OF STREAM BANKTOP OF STREAM BANKBASEFLOWH ≤ 0.3'TOE OF STREAM BANK24" MINIMUM DEPTHBASEFLOWNOT TO SCALEEROSION CONTROLMATTING04-07_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_DETAIL_SHEETS.DWGSECTION A - APLAN VIEWANOTES:WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FEATURE18" POOL DEPTHASLOPE VARIES(3:1 MAX.)NOT TO SCALECONSTRUCT EMBANKMENT WITHCOMPACTED SOIL AND SUITABLEBACKFILL MATERIAL (TYP.)PROPOSED BOTTOMOUTLET CHANNELINFLOWSTORAGE VOLUME ELEVATIONFINISHED GRADE8" THICK STONE SPILLWAY(OPTIONAL AS DIRECTEDBY ENGINEER)3:13:1EXISTING GRADE1.CONSTRUCT EMBANKMENT WITH COMPACTED SOIL ANDSUITABLE MATERIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS.2.WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FEATURE VARIES IN SIZE ANDSHAPE AS SHOWN ON PLANS.3.PLANT APPROPRIATE WETLAND SPECIES VEGETATION AS SPECIFIED IN THE PLANTING PLAN.4' WIDEEMBANKMENT4' WIDE EMBANKMENT WITHSTONE COVER (OPTIONAL ASDIRECTED BY ENGINEER)GRADE SIDE SLOPES NO STEEPER THAN 3H:1VINFLOWPROPOSEDOUTLET CHANNEL(WIDTH VARIES)SHALLOWPOOLSHALLOWPOOL504-07_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_DETAIL_SHEETS.DWGDETAILSPERMANENT CULVERT STREAM CROSSINGNOT TO SCALEPIPE CULVERTINSTALL 8" THICK ABCSTONE OR EQUIVALENTFOR FARM PATH COVER13132% MAX2% MAX2'6'CL2'6'NOTES:1. INSTALL PIPE CULVERT(S) IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAILSPECIFICATIONS. SEE PLANS FOR NUMBER, SIZE AND LENGTH.2. INSTALL COIR FIBER MATTING FOR EROSION CONTROL ALONGFILL SLOPES IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS.3. PIPE CULVERTS ARE TO BE A MINIMUM OF 24" COVER ANDSPACING IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS.MATTING FOR EROSIONCONTROL SLOPESCOMPACTEDEARTHEN FILLVARIES3:13
:
1 RELOCATED FARMPATHNATURALGROUNDAPPLY CLASS B STONETO FILL SLOPESAROUND FLOOD PLAINCULVERTS.MIN. 24"COVERBANKFULL ELEVATIONVARIESVARIESBURY PIPE BELOW THE STREAM BED ELEVATION AS SHOWN ON PLANSPROPOSEDSTREAM BED
DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480N.T.S.MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SDETAILSPLAN VIEWGEOLIFT W/ TOE WOODBASEFLOWRESTORED STREAMBED POINT BAR (SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS)TOP OF RESTORED STREAM BANK4' DEEP (TYP.)STAKE TOP LAYER OFEROSION CONTROLMATTING IN 6" TRENCH(SEE COIR FIBER MATTINGDETAIL)INSTALL FOUNDATION LOGSSUCH THAT AT LEAST HALF OFTHE LOG DIAMETER IS BELOWTHE RESTORED STREAMBEDELEVATION.SLOPE VARIESCOVER LOGS AND/OR ROOT WADSINSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ONPLANS AND PER RESPECTIVE DETAILSPLACE THICK LAYEROF 1"- 6" DIAMETERWOODY DEBRISLIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS (SEEPLANTING PLAN FOR SPECIES)EROSION CONTROL MATTINGENCOMPASSES LIFTBANKFULL STAGEADD BOULDERS OR OTHER APPROVEDCOUNTERWEIGHT TO PREVENT WOODFROM FLOATINGSECTION A - AFLOWFOUNDATION LOGS TO BE INSTALLEDAT ANGLES SHOWN BETWEEN 15-25°EXTEND WOODY DEBRIS MATERIALTO 1/4 BANKFULL WIDTHAATOP OF RESTORED STREAM BANKBACKFILL 1.5' LIFT OF COMPACTEDON-SITE SOIL (TYP.)SCOURPOOLHORIZONTAL SETBACK FOR LIFT ISAPPROX. 1 FT.NOT TO SCALECHANNEL BLOCKCHANNEL TO BERELOCATEDAAOLD FLOWNEW FLOW DIRECTION100' MINIMUMPLAN VIEWOLD FLOWFINISHED GRADEUNCOMPACTEDFILL 1.5' MINIMUMCOMPACTEDBACKFILLNEW STREAMBANKSHALL BE TREATED ASSPECIFIED IN PLANSCHANNEL INVERTOPTIONAL ROOT WADPLACEMENT AS DIRECTEDBY ENGINEER21SECTION A-A1. COMPACT BACKFILL USING ON-SITE HEAVY EQUIPMENT IN 10 INCH LIFTS.2. FILL DITCH PLUG TO TOP OF BANKS OR AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER.CHANNEL BLOCKNOTES:TOP OF STREAMBANKNOT TO SCALEGLIDERIFFLEFLOW
POOLNOTES:16" MIN. THICKNESSSTONE BACKFILL16" MIN. THICKNESSSTONE BACKFILL1. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE RESTORED STREAMBED FOR THE STONE BACKFILL.2. FILL TRENCH WITH STONE BACKFILL.16" MIN. THICKNESSSTONE BACKFILLCONSTRUCTED STONE RIFFLEBSECTION A-APLAN VIEWPROFILE B-BAATOE OF STREAM BANKEROSION CONTROLMATTING SHOULD BEPLACED BENEATH STONEBACKFILLHEAD OF RIFFLEINVERT ELEVATIONHEAD OF RIFFLEINVERT ELEVATIONBASEFLOWBANKFULL STAGERIFFLE Dmax = MAX DEPTHTOP OF STREAM BANKTOP OF STREAM BANKRUNTAIL OF RIFFLEINVERT ELEVATIONTAIL OF RIFFLEINVERT ELEVATIONTOE OF STREAMBANKFLOW BOTTOM WIDTH OFCHANNELBBANKFULL STAGENOT TO SCALE04-07_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_DETAIL_SHEETS.DWG604-07_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_DETAIL_SHEETS.DWG
DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480N.T.S.MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SDETAILSVEGETATION TRANSPLANTS TOP OF STREAM BANKPLAN VIEW OF STREAM BANKRESTORED STREAMBEDSECTION A-ANOTES: 1. EXCAVATE A HOLE IN THE RESTORED STREAM BANK THAT WILL ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF TRANSPLANT TO BE PLANTED. BEGIN EXCAVATION AT TOE OF THE STREAM BANK.2. EXCAVATE THE ENTIRE TRANSPLANT ROOT MASS AND ASMUCH ADDITIONAL SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE. IF ENTIREROOT MASS CAN NOT BE EXCAVATED AT ONCE, THETRANSPLANT IS TOO LARGE AND ANOTHER SHOULD BESELECTED.3. PLANT TRANSPLANT IN THE RESTORED STREAM BANK SO THAT VEGETATION IS ORIENTATED VERTICALLY.4. FILL IN ANY HOLES OR VOIDS AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT.5. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED.6. WHEN POSSIBLE, PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH THAT THEIR ROOT MASSES CONTACT.TOE OF STREAM BANKTOE OF STREAM BANKTOP OF STREAM BANKTRANSPLANTED VEGETATION,WITH ROOTMASS, AND SOILMATERIALBANKFULL STAGEBASE FLOWTRANSPLANTED VEGETATION,WITH ROOTMASS, AND SOILMATERIALAARESTORED STREAMBEDNOT TO SCALEHEAD THICKNESSLEG LENGTHHEAD WIDTHLEG WIDTHLEG THICKNESSTOTAL LENGTH11.00 IN (27.94 CM)1.25 IN (3.18 CM)0.40 IN (1.02 CM)0.60 IN (1.52 CM) (TAPERED TO POINT)0.40 IN (1.02 CM)12.00 IN (30.48 CM)LENGTH24.00 IN ( 60.96 CM) (TAPERED TO POINT)WIDTHTHICKNESS1.5 IN (3.81 CM)1.5 IN (3.81 CM)RESTORED STREAMBEDTOE OF STREAM BANKINSTALL EDGE OF EROSION CONTROL MATTING IN 12 INCH DEEPTRENCH, AND SECURE BY STAKING, BACKFILLING, AND COMPACTINGSOIL TO FINISHED GRADE.TOP OF STREAM BANKLARGE MATTING STAKES (TYP.)TRENCH LIMITSEROSION CONTROL MATTINGSMALL MATTING STAKES (TYP.)LARGE MATTING STAKESSMALL MATTING STAKESTYPICAL LARGE MATTING STAKE2.5 INCH GALVANIZEDROOFING NAILTYPICAL SMALL MATTING STAKEPLAN VIEW OF STREAM BANKSECTION A - AAAEROSION CONTROLMATTING TO BEEXTENDED TO TOEOF SLOPETOP OF STREAM BANKSECURE EROSION CONTROLMATTING AT TOE OF SLOPEWITH LARGE MATTING STAKES.BANKFULL STAGEBASEFLOW24" MAX. TYP (TRENCH ONLY)36" MAX. TYPNOT TO SCALENOTES:1.RESTORED STREAM BANKS MUST BE SEEDED ANDMULCHED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF EROSION CONTROLMATTING.2.SEE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR MATTING STAKESPACING REQUIREMENTS.3.PLACE LARGE STAKES ALONG ALL MATTING SEAMS, INTHE CENTER OF STREAM BANK, AND TOE OF SLOPE.AABBFLOW
BEGIN STEP INVERTELEVATIONSTONE BACKFILLOR SUITABLESOIL MATERIALTOE OFSTREAMBANKTOP OF STREAMBANKPOOL WIDTH(~1.3X BANKFULLWIDTH)POOL TO POOL SPACINGVARIES. SEE NOTE #9 FOR POOLSPACING REQUIREMENTS.STEP INVERTELEVATIONSTONEBACKFILLFLOWH = STEPHEIGHTNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILEFABRICPOOLPROFILE B-BLOG STEP POOL BASEFLOWBANKFULL STAGERESTOREDSTREAMBEDHEADERLOGFOOTERLOGSECTION A-ASET INVERT ELEVATIONBASED ON DESIGN PROFILETRANSPLANTSOR LIVE STAKESBANKFULL STAGETOP OF STREAMBANKBASEFLOW BURY INTOBANK 5'MINIMUM(TYP.)1% - 2% CROSS SLOPEEND STEP INVERTELEVATIONSCOURPOOLNOTES: 5' MINIMUMPLAN VIEWNOT TO SCALE1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOODAND RECENTLY HARVESTED.2. LOGS >24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL LOG FILTERFABRIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND LOG. LOGS SHOULD EXTEND INTO THEBANKS 5' ON EACH SIDE.3. SOIL SHALL BE WELL COMPACTED AROUND BURIED PORTION OF FOOTER LOGS WITHBUCKET OF TRACK HOE.4. INSTALL NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC UNDERNEATH LOGS.5. UNDERCUT POOL BED ELEVATION 8 INCHES TO ALLOW FOR LAYER OF STONE. INSTALLSTONE BACKFILL OR SUITABLE ALLUVIUM ALONG SIDE SLOPES.6. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCH THAT THE EROSIONCONTROL MATTING AT THE TOE OF THE BANK EXTENDS DOWN TO THE UNDERCUTELEVATION.7. INSTALL STONE BACKFILL OR SUITABLE SOIL MATERIAL ALONG SIDE SLOPES.8. FINAL CHANNEL BED SHAPE SHOULD BE ROUNDED, COMPACTED, AND CONCAVE, WITH THEELEVATION OF THE BED APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT DEEPER IN THE CENTER THAN AT THEEDGES.9. AVERAGE POOL TO POOL SPACING SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE PROFILE OR SPECIFIED BYENGINEER BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS SUCH AS SLOPE AND SUITABLE FILL MATERIAL.RIFFLE STEP POOLS OR CASCADE POOLS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED IN AREAS WHERE EXISTINGSLOPES EXCEED 10% AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER.10. INTERIOR LOGS SHOULD BE AT A SLIGHT ANGLE (~70 DEGREES) FROM THESTREAMBANK AND CROSS SLOPES SHOULD BE 1-2%.11. PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) LOG. SET HEADER LOGAT A MAXIMUM OF 3 INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.12. AVERAGE STEP HEIGHTS/DROPS SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.5 UNLESS SHOWNOTHERWISE.13. CUT A NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATELY 30% OF THE CHANNELBOTTOM WIDTH AND EXTENDING DOWN TO THE INVERT ELEVATION. NOTCHSHALL BE USED TO CENTER FLOW AND NOT EXCEED 3 INCHES IN DEPTH.14. THE NUMBER OF STEPS MAY VARY BETWEEN BEGINNING AND ENDSTATIONING. SEE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE FOR STATION AND ELEVATION.15. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.16. PLACE VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OFSTREAMBANK.17. SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR CHANNEL DIMENSIONS.04-07_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_DETAIL_SHEETS.DWG704-07_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_DETAIL_SHEETS.DWG
CECECECECECE CECECECECEDESIGNBANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGEXISTING GROUND-0.09%-0.10%-0.11%-0.09%-0.11%-0.09%-0.22%-0.22%-0.22%-0.22%-0.22%PI STA=10+00.00 ELEV.=84.69PI STA=11+00.00 ELEV.=84.60PI STA=11+52.50 ELEV.=84.55PI STA=12+16.61 ELEV.=84.48
PI STA=12+80.64 ELEV.=84.42
PI STA=13+42.16 ELEV.=84.35
PI STA=13+95.15 ELEV.=84.30
PI STA=14+41.25 ELEV.=84.20
PI STA=14+87.18 ELEV.=84.10
PI STA=15+40.68 ELEV.=83.98
PI STA=15+90.82 ELEV.=83.87
PI STA=17+11.55 ELEV.=83.60
SHEET NAME1" = 60'1" = 6'08_22_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_PLAN AND PROFILE.DWG8UT1-R1PLAN ANDPROFILEDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERDRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19ENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 60'1" = 6'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SNORTHFLOWUT1-R1MATCH LI
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
7
+
0
0
SEE SHE
E
T

9N/FJOHN L. TART AND WIFE,LARIE R. TARTD.B. 3133, PG. 486PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-22-390370809010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+00100708090100BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT-R1STA. 10+00.00N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-7761CONSERVATIONEASEMENT (TYP.)CHANNEL BLOCK (TYP.)INSTALL LOGWEIR( TYP.)REMOVE EXISTINGBURIED CULVERTPIPE(TYP.)REMOVE EXISTING SPOIL PILES AND USESUITABLE MATERIAL TO FILL EXISTING CHANNEL.HARVEST WOODY MATERIAL FOR IN-STREAMSTRUCTURES.
CECECECECECECECECEC
E
C
EDESIGNBANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGEXISTING GROUND-0.32%-0.32%-0.32%-0.60%-0.61%-0.60%-0.58%PI STA=17+11.55 ELEV.=83.60PI STA=18+04.58 ELEV.=83.30PI STA=19+13.26 ELEV.=82.95
PI STA=20+21.97 ELEV.=82.60
PI STA=21+19.31 ELEV.=82.02
PI STA=22+11.34 ELEV.=81.46
PI STA=23+21.60 ELEV.=80.80
SHEET NAME1" = 60'1" = 6'08_22_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_PLAN AND PROFILE.DWG9UT1-R1PLAN ANDPROFILEDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERDRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19ENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 60'1" = 6'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SNORTHFLOWUT1-R1MATCH LINE - STA 17+00SEE SHEET 8
MATCH LINE - STA 24+00
SEE SHEET 10 N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-776170809017+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+0023+0024+00100708090100N/FJOHN L. TART AND WIFE,LARIE R. TARTD.B. 3133, PG. 486PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-22-3903INSTALL CONSTRUCTED LOGRIFFLE (TYP.)LOG WEIR (TYP.)CHANNEL BLOCK (TYP.)CONSERVATIONEASEMENT (TYP.)50" DUKE ENERGYPROGRESS TRANSMISSIONLINE EASEMENTD.B. 406 PG. 215
CECEC
E
CECE
DESIGNBANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGEXISTING GROUND-0.58%-0.58%-0.34%-0.34%-0.28%-0.29%-0.47%PI STA=24+41.76 ELEV.=80.10PI STA=25+62.77 ELEV.=79.40
PI STA=26+78.26 ELEV.=79.01
PI STA=28+00.55 ELEV.=78.60
PI STA=29+13.45 ELEV.=78.28
PI STA=30+09.31 ELEV.=78.00
PI STA=31+06.71 ELEV.=77.54
1" = 60'1" = 6'UT1-R1PLAN ANDPROFILEDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERDRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19ENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 60'1" = 6'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SNORTHFLOWUT1-R1MATCH LINE - STA 24+00SEE SHEET 9MATCH

L
IN
E

-

S
T
A

3
1
+
0
0
SE
E
SH
EE
T

1
1 N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-776108_22_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_PLAN AND PROFILE.DWG70809024+0025+0026+0027+0028+0029+0030+0031+00708090606010REMOVE EXISTINGCULVERT PIPE (TYP.)LOG WEIR TYP.)CHANNEL BLOCK (TYP.)CONSERVATIONEASEMENT (TYP.)
CEFP
FPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPDESIGNBANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGEXISTING GROUND-0.47%-0.74%-0.86%-0.55%-7.75%7.75%-0.75%-4.86%4.78%-1.18%-3.97%3.91%-0.87%-4.01%3.95%-0.68%-10.11%10.12%-0.34%-12.02%12.04%-0.45%-5.54%5.54%-0.45%-5.22%5.14%-0.48%-4.44%4.37%-0.46%PI STA=31+06.71 ELEV.=77.54PI STA=31+99.95 ELEV.=77.10PI STA=32+80.65 ELEV.=76.50
PI STA=33+48.18 ELEV.=75.92
PI STA=34+00.95 ELEV.=75.63
PI STA=34+09.59 ELEV.=74.96
PI STA=34+18.23 ELEV.=75.63
PI STA=34+48.98 ELEV.=75.40
PI STA=34+62.56 ELEV.=74.74
PI STA=34+76.15 ELEV.=75.39
PI STA=34+93.08 ELEV.=75.19
PI STA=35+09.21 ELEV.=74.55
PI STA=35+25.34 ELEV.=75.18
PI STA=35+51.72 ELEV.=74.95
PI STA=35+67.67 ELEV.=74.31
PI STA=35+83.63 ELEV.=74.94
PI STA=36+04.22 ELEV.=74.80
PI STA=36+10.85 ELEV.=74.13
PI STA=36+17.47 ELEV.=74.80
PI STA=36+40.84 ELEV.=74.72
PI STA=36+46.58 ELEV.=74.03
PI STA=36+52.31 ELEV.=74.72
PI STA=36+80.96 ELEV.=74.59
PI STA=36+93.05 ELEV.=73.92
PI STA=37+05.15 ELEV.=74.59
PI STA=37+34.11 ELEV.=74.46
PI STA=37+47.14 ELEV.=73.78
PI STA=37+60.18 ELEV.=74.45
PI STA=37+84.99 ELEV.=74.33
PI STA=38+00.31 ELEV.=73.65
PI STA=38+15.64 ELEV.=74.32
DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERDRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19ENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 60'1" = 6'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SSHEET NAME1" = 60'1" = 6'08_22_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_PLAN AND PROFILE.DWG11UT1-R1&R2PLAN ANDPROFILENORTHFLOWUT1-R2MATCH LINE - STA 31+00SEE SHEET 10MATCH LINE -
S
T
A

3
8
+
0
0
SEE SHEET 1270809031+0032+0033+0034+0035+0036+0037+0038+007080906060END CONSTRUCTION UT1-R1BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT1-R2STA. 32+80.65FLOWUT1-R1
N/ADEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 495P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-7761REMOVE EXISTINGCULVERT PIPE (TYP.)CONSTRUCT GRADUALTRANSITION BETWEENHEADWATER VALLEY ANDSINGLE THREAD CHANNELINSTALL CONSTRUCTEDLOG RIFFLE (TYP.)CONSERVATIONEASEMENT (TYP.)CHANNEL BLOCK (TYP.)INSTALL LOGWEIR( TYP.)
WLBWLBFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPDESIGNBANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGEXISTING GROUND-0.48%-4.44%4.37%-0.46%-4.46%4.39%-0.43%-5.12%5.04%-0.44%-4.34%4.28%-0.53%-3.74%3.68%-0.36%-6.84%6.74%-0.32%-8.72%8.72%-0.37%-6.05%6.04%-0.41%-3.59%5.26%-0.37%-4.75%4.67%-0.40%-7.53%7.53%-0.42%-11.04%11.02%-0.65%-3.66%3.61%-0.59%-4.05%4.00%-0.42%PI STA=37+84.99 ELEV.=74.33PI STA=38+00.31 ELEV.=73.65PI STA=38+15.64 ELEV.=74.32PI STA=38+46.31 ELEV.=74.18PI STA=38+61.34 ELEV.=73.51PI STA=38+76.37 ELEV.=74.17PI STA=39+06.43 ELEV.=74.04PI STA=39+19.72 ELEV.=73.36PI STA=39+33.02 ELEV.=74.03PI STA=39+64.74 ELEV.=73.89PI STA=39+80.17 ELEV.=73.22PI STA=39+95.60 ELEV.=73.88PI STA=40+23.97 ELEV.=73.73
PI STA=40+41.63 ELEV.=73.07
PI STA=40+59.30 ELEV.=73.72
PI STA=40+89.75 ELEV.=73.61
PI STA=40+99.84 ELEV.=72.92
PI STA=41+09.93 ELEV.=73.60
PI STA=41+31.90 ELEV.=73.53
PI STA=41+39.81 ELEV.=72.84
PI STA=41+47.72 ELEV.=73.53
PI STA=41+69.41 ELEV.=73.45
PI STA=41+80.65 ELEV.=72.77
PI STA=41+91.90 ELEV.=73.45
PI STA=42+13.68 ELEV.=73.36
PI STA=42+32.91 ELEV.=72.67
PI STA=42+45.84 ELEV.=73.35
PI STA=42+70.06 ELEV.=73.26
PI STA=42+84.60 ELEV.=72.57
PI STA=42+99.15 ELEV.=73.25
PI STA=43+24.40 ELEV.=73.15
PI STA=43+33.43 ELEV.=72.47
PI STA=43+42.46 ELEV.=73.15
PI STA=43+75.53 ELEV.=73.01
PI STA=43+81.69 ELEV.=72.33
PI STA=43+87.86 ELEV.=73.01
PI STA=44+17.26 ELEV.=72.82
PI STA=44+35.01 ELEV.=72.17
PI STA=44+52.76 ELEV.=72.81
PI STA=44+81.69 ELEV.=72.64
PI STA=44+97.97 ELEV.=71.98
PI STA=45+14.24 ELEV.=72.63
SHEET NAME1" = 60'1" = 6'08_22_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_PLAN AND PROFILE.DWG12UT1-R2PLAN ANDPROFILEDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERDRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19ENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 60'1" = 6'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SNORTH FLOWUT1-R2MATCH LINE - STA 38+00SEE SHEET 11
MATCH LINE - STA 45+00
SEE SHEET 13 N/ADEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 495P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-776170809038+0039+0040+0041+0042+0043+0044+0045+007080906060INSTALL GEOLIFT WITHTOE WOOD (TYP.)N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-7761REMOVE EXISTINGCULVERT PIPEREMOVE EXISTINGCULVERT PIPECHANNEL BLOCK (TYP.)INSTALL LOGWEIR( TYP.)INSTALL CONSTRUCTEDLOG RIFFLE (TYP.)
WLBCECECECECE CECEWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB WLB
WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB FPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPDESIGNBANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGEXISTING GROUND-0.59%-4.05%4.00%-0.42%-8.87%8.87%-0.63%-0.38%0.31%-0.46%-7.52%7.40%-0.46%-5.90%5.81%-0.43%-7.33%7.22%-0.40%-10.23%10.24%-0.45%-6.65%6.65%-0.43%-9.56%9.42%-0.45%-5.13%5.05%-0.61%-5.15%5.07%-0.54%-4.98%4.99%-0.47%PI STA=44+81.69 ELEV.=72.64PI STA=44+97.97 ELEV.=71.98PI STA=45+14.24 ELEV.=72.63PI STA=45+52.63 ELEV.=72.47PI STA=45+60.30 ELEV.=71.79PI STA=45+67.97 ELEV.=72.47 PI STA=46+51.42 ELEV.=71.95PI STA=46+75.86 ELEV.=71.85PI STA=47+22.40 ELEV.=72.00
PI STA=47+50.89 ELEV.=71.87
PI STA=47+59.93 ELEV.=71.19
PI STA=47+68.98 ELEV.=71.86
PI STA=48+06.07 ELEV.=71.69
PI STA=48+17.43 ELEV.=71.02
PI STA=48+28.79 ELEV.=71.68
PI STA=48+66.00 ELEV.=71.52
PI STA=48+75.28 ELEV.=70.84
PI STA=48+84.56 ELEV.=71.51
PI STA=49+16.89 ELEV.=71.38
PI STA=49+23.54 ELEV.=70.70
PI STA=49+30.18 ELEV.=71.38
PI STA=49+70.26 ELEV.=71.20
PI STA=49+80.34 ELEV.=70.53
PI STA=49+90.42 ELEV.=71.20
PI STA=50+23.21 ELEV.=71.06
PI STA=50+30.32 ELEV.=70.38
PI STA=50+37.43 ELEV.=71.05
PI STA=50+79.52 ELEV.=70.86
PI STA=50+92.59 ELEV.=70.19
PI STA=51+05.65 ELEV.=70.85
PI STA=51+28.59 ELEV.=70.71
PI STA=51+41.61 ELEV.=70.04
PI STA=51+54.63 ELEV.=70.70
PI STA=51+86.34 ELEV.=70.53
PI STA=51+99.58 ELEV.=69.87
PI STA=52+12.81 ELEV.=70.53PROPOSED 36" DIA. RCP 32'LTOP EL.=76.0'INV. EL.=71.3'INV. EL.=71.2'SHEET NAME1" = 60'1" = 6'08_22_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_PLAN AND PROFILE.DWG13UT1-R2PLAN ANDPROFILEDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERDRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19ENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 60'1" = 6'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SNORTHMATCH LINE - STA 45+00SEE SHEET 12
MATCH LINE - STA 52+0
0
SEE SHEET 14FLOWUT1-R2N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-7761N/ADEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 495P.I.N.: 2568-35-682470809045+0046+0047+0048+0049+0050+0051+0052+007080906060INSTALL GEOLIFT WITHTOE WOOD (TYP.)REMOVE EXISTING CULVERT AND REPLACEWITH PERMANENT CULVERT CROSSING.REBUILD SIDE SLOPE AND STABILIZE WITHCLASS "B" STONEINSTALL (1) 36" DIA. RCP 0.5' BELOWSTREAM BED ELEVATIONINV. IN=71.3'INV. OUT=71.2'TOP OF ROAD76.0EXISTING FARM ROAD TOREMAININSTALL LOGVANE (TYP.)INSTALL CONSTRUCTEDSTONE RIFFLE (TYP.)CONSERVATIONEASEMENT (TYP.)INSTALL CONSTRUCTEDLOG RIFFLE (TYP.)
CECECECEWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFP-0.54%-4.98%4.99%-0.47%-4.81%4.74%-0.30%PI STA=51+86.34 ELEV.=70.53PI STA=51+99.58 ELEV.=69.87PI STA=52+12.81 ELEV.=70.53PI STA=52+59.27 ELEV.=70.31PI STA=52+72.98 ELEV.=69.65PI STA=52+86.69 ELEV.=70.30PI STA=53+28.10 ELEV.=70.18
SHEET NAME1" = 60'1" = 6'08_22_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_PLAN AND PROFILE.DWG14UT1-R2PLAN ANDPROFILEDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERDRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19ENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 60'1" = 6'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SNORTHMATCH LINE - STA 52+00SEE SHEET 13FLOWUT1-R2N/ADEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 495P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-776170809052+0053+0054+0055+007080906060END CONSTRUCTION UT1-R2STA. 53+28.10INSTALL LOGWEIR (TYP.)INSTALLCONSTRUCTEDLOG RIFFLE(TYP.)CONSERVATIONEASEMENT (TYP.)
WLBWLB WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB-0.69%-0.68%-0.69%-0.67%-0.49%-0.50%-0.50%-0.34%-0.33%PI STA=12+28.21 ELEV.=88.16
PI STA=12+62.85 ELEV.=87.92
PI STA=13+16.03 ELEV.=87.56
PI STA=13+71.37 ELEV.=87.18
PI STA=14+27.85 ELEV.=86.80
PI STA=14+84.55 ELEV.=86.52
PI STA=15+46.22 ELEV.=86.21
PI STA=16+08.24 ELEV.=85.90
PI STA=16+75.96 ELEV.=85.67DESIGNBANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGEXISTING GROUNDSHEET NAME1" = 60'1" = 6'08_22_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_PLAN AND PROFILE.DWG15UT2-R1PLAN ANDPROFILEDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERDRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19ENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 60'1" = 6'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SNORTHFLOWUT2-R1
MATCH LI
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
7
+
0
0
SEE SHE
E
T

1
6 N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 486PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-776170809010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+00100708090100BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2-R1STA. 12+28.21NO CONSTRUCTION ACTVITIESARE PROPOSED FROMSTA. 10+00 TO STA. 12+28.21REMOVE EXISTINGCULVERT PIPEINSTALL LOGWEIR (TYP.)CHANNEL BLOCK (TYP.)
CECECECEC
E
C
ECECEFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFP
FPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFP-0.33%-0.36%-0.33%-1.10%-0.54%-0.57%-0.53%-0.56%-0.57%-0.56%-0.53%-0.57%-0.54%-0.54%-0.55%-1.01%-3.71%PI STA=16+75.96 ELEV.=85.67PI STA=17+44.64 ELEV.=85.44PI STA=17+94.79 ELEV.=85.26PI STA=18+42.96 ELEV.=85.10PI STA=18+97.59 ELEV.=84.50
PI STA=19+47.33 ELEV.=84.23
PI STA=20+05.59 ELEV.=83.90
PI STA=20+54.52 ELEV.=83.64
PI STA=21+04.62 ELEV.=83.36
PI STA=21+25.79 ELEV.=83.24
PI STA=21+65.35 ELEV.=83.02
PI STA=22+03.36 ELEV.=82.82
PI STA=22+56.29 ELEV.=82.52
PI STA=23+05.98 ELEV.=82.25
PI STA=23+50.04 ELEV.=82.01
PI STA=23+95.36 ELEV.=81.76
PI STA=24+28.15 ELEV.=81.43DESIGNBANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGEXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED 36" DIA. RCP 32'LTOP EL.=87.7'INV. EL.=82.6'INV. EL.=82.7'PROPOSED 24" DIA. RCP 32'LSHEET NAME1" = 60'1" = 6'08_22_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_PLAN AND PROFILE.DWG16UT2-R1PLAN ANDPROFILEDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERDRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19ENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 60'1" = 6'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SNORTHFLOW UT2-R1MATCH LINE - STA 17+00SEE SHEET 15
MATCH LINE - STA 24+00SEE SHEET 17N/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 477P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 486PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-776170809017+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+0023+0024+00100708090100INSTALL CONSTRUCTEDSTONE RIFFLE (TYP.)FLOWUT2-R2END CONSTRUCTION UT2-R1BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2-R2STATION 18+42.94END CONSTRUCTION UT2ASTATION 16+67.08FLOWUT2AEXISTING FARM ROAD TOREMAIN (TYP.)INSTALL CONSTRUCTEDLOG RIFFLE(TYP.)INSTALL WATERQUALITY TREATMENTFEATURE WITH OUTLETCHANNEL(TYP.)REMOVE EXISTING CULVERT AND REPLACEWITH PERMANENT CULVERT CROSSING.REBUILD SIDE SLOPE AND STABILIZE WITHCLASS "B" STONEINSTALL (1) 36" DIA. RCP 0.5' BELOWEXISTING STREAM BED ELEVATIONINSTALL (1) 24" DIA. RCP AT FLOODPLAINELEVATIONINV. IN=82.7'INV. OUT=82.6'CONSERVATIONEASEMENT (TYP.)INSTALL WATERQUALITY TREATMENTFEATURE WITH OUTLETCHANNEL(TYP.)
CECEWLBWLBWLBWLBWL
B
WLBWLBWLBFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFP-0.55%-1.01%-3.71%3.64%-1.21%-4.62%4.62%-1.16%-3.44%3.38%-1.26%-2.80%2.74%-0.99%-4.26%4.18%-0.90%-5.10%5.00%-0.94%-3.87%3.88%-0.85%-6.66%6.53%-1.00%-3.77%3.77%-0.78%-7.10%7.10%-0.71%-8.66%8.68%-0.56%PI STA=23+95.36 ELEV.=81.76PI STA=24+28.15 ELEV.=81.43PI STA=24+42.45 ELEV.=80.90PI STA=24+56.75 ELEV.=81.42PI STA=24+75.69 ELEV.=81.19PI STA=24+87.38 ELEV.=80.65PI STA=24+99.07 ELEV.=81.19PI STA=25+25.86 ELEV.=80.88PI STA=25+41.26 ELEV.=80.35PI STA=25+56.66 ELEV.=80.87PI STA=25+83.55 ELEV.=80.53PI STA=26+01.77 ELEV.=80.02PI STA=26+20.00 ELEV.=80.52
PI STA=26+49.26 ELEV.=80.23
PI STA=26+61.93 ELEV.=79.69
PI STA=26+74.61 ELEV.=80.22
PI STA=27+06.85 ELEV.=79.93
PI STA=27+17.63 ELEV.=79.38
PI STA=27+28.42 ELEV.=79.92
PI STA=27+64.40 ELEV.=79.58
PI STA=27+78.08 ELEV.=79.05
PI STA=27+91.75 ELEV.=79.58
PI STA=28+21.13 ELEV.=79.33
PI STA=28+29.54 ELEV.=78.77
PI STA=28+37.96 ELEV.=79.32
PI STA=28+70.83 ELEV.=78.99
PI STA=28+84.89 ELEV.=78.46
PI STA=28+98.94 ELEV.=78.99
PI STA=29+37.16 ELEV.=78.69
PI STA=29+45.05 ELEV.=78.13
PI STA=29+52.94 ELEV.=78.69
PI STA=29+97.76 ELEV.=78.37
PI STA=30+04.34 ELEV.=77.80
PI STA=30+10.91 ELEV.=78.37
PI STA=30+26.97 ELEV.=78.28DESIGNBANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGEXISTING GROUNDSHEET NAME1" = 60'1" = 6'08_22_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_PLAN AND PROFILE.DWG17UT2-R1&R2PLAN ANDPROFILEDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERDRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19ENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 60'1" = 6'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SNORTH N/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 477P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824FLOWUT2-R2MATCH LINE - STA 24+00SEE SHEET 16MATCH LI
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
1
+
0
0
SEE SHE
E
T

1
870809024+0025+0026+0027+0028+0029+0030+0031+007080906060INSTALL GEOLIFT WITHTOE WOOD (TYP.)END CONSTRUCTION UT2BSTA. 12+56.50END CONSTRUCTION UT2-R2BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2-R3STATION 30+26.97CONSERVATIONEASEMENT (TYP.)CHANNEL BLOCK (TYP.)INSTALL WATERQUALITY TREATMENTFEATURE WITH OUTLETCHANNEL(TYP.)INSTALL CONSTRUCTEDLOG RIFFLE (TYP.)FLOWUT2-R3
CECECECECECECEWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBW
L
B
WLBWLBWLBWLBEXISTING GROUNDSHEET NAME1" = 60'1" = 6'08_22_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_PLAN AND PROFILE.DWG18UT2-R3PLAN ANDPROFILEDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERDRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19ENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 60'1" = 6'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SNORTH MAT
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
8
+
0
0
SEE
S
H
E
E
T

1
9FLOWUT2-R3N/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 477P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824N/FTIMMOTHY ROBBINSD.B. 2666, PG. 840PC A SLIDE 72 A,BP.I.N.: 2568-56-0252MATCH LINE - STA 31+00SEE SHEET 1770809031+0032+0033+0034+0035+0036+0037+0038+007080906060SEE REVEGETATION PLANSHEETS FOR PLANTINGLOCATIONS
CECECECECECEWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB WLBEXISTING GROUNDSHEET NAME1" = 60'1" = 6'08_22_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_PLAN AND PROFILE.DWG19UT2-R3PLAN ANDPROFILEDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERDRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19ENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 60'1" = 6'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SNORTH MATCH LINE - STA 38+00SEE SHEET 18FLOWUT2-R3MATCH LINE - STA 45+00
SEE SHEET 20N/FTIMMOTHY ROBBINSD.B. 2666, PG. 840PC A SLIDE 72 A,BP.I.N.: 2568-56-0252N/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 477P.I.N.: 2568-35-682470809038+0039+0040+0041+0042+0043+0044+0045+007080906060SEE REVEGETATION PLANSHEETS FOR PLANTINGLOCATIONSREMOVE EXISTING CULVERT PIPEAND REGRADE THALWEG TO MATCHEXISTING STREAMBED ELEVATION.
CECECECECEEXISTING GROUNDSHEET NAME1" = 60'1" = 6'08_22_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_PLAN AND PROFILE.DWG20UT2-R3PLAN ANDPROFILEDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERDRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19ENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 60'1" = 6'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SNORTH MATCH LINE - STA 45+00SEE SHEET 19
N/FTIMMOTHY ROBBINSD.B. 2666, PG. 840PC A SLIDE 72 A,BP.I.N.: 2568-56-0252N/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 477P.I.N.: 2568-35-682470809045+0046+0047+0048+0049+007080906060END CONSTRUCTION UT2-R3STATION 49+50.03INSTALL CONSTRUCTEDLOG RIFFLE (TYP.)SEE REVEGETATION PLANSHEETS FOR PLANTINGLOCATIONS
CE CEWLBWLBWLBWLB
WLBWLBWLBFPFPFP-1.14%-1.12%-0.10%-0.10%-0.10%-0.10%-0.10%-0.12%-0.12%-0.11%PI STA=10+00.00 ELEV.=86.73PI STA=10+50.02 ELEV.=86.16PI STA=11+00.01 ELEV.=85.60PI STA=11+49.78 ELEV.=85.55
PI STA=12+31.42 ELEV.=85.47
PI STA=13+50.29 ELEV.=85.35
PI STA=13+99.95 ELEV.=85.30
PI STA=14+99.89 ELEV.=85.20
PI STA=15+99.92 ELEV.=85.08
PI STA=16+40.84 ELEV.=85.03
PI STA=16+67.08 ELEV.=85.00DESIGNBANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGEXISTING GROUNDSHEET NAME1" = 60'1" = 6'08_22_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_PLAN AND PROFILE.DWG21UT2APLAN ANDPROFILEDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERDRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19ENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 60'1" = 6'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SNORTHFLOWUT2A70809010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+00100708090100BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2ASTA. 10+00.00END CONSTRUCTION UT2ASTA. 16+67.08LOG WEIR (TYP.)INSTALL CONSTRUCTEDLOG RIFFLE (TYP.)CONSERVATIONEASEMENT (TYP.)CHANNEL BLOCK (TYP.)MATCH LINE - STA 19+00SEE SHEET 16
CECE CECE CE
WL
B
WLB
WLB
WLBWLBWLBWLBFPFPFPFPFPEXISTING GROUNDSHEET NAME1" = 60'1" = 6'08_22_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_PLAN AND PROFILE.DWG22UT2BPLAN ANDPROFILEDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERDRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19ENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 60'1" = 6'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SNORTH70809010+0011+0012+0013+00100708090100BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2BSTA. 10+00.00END CONSTRUCTION UT2BSTA. 12+56.50SEE REVEGETATION PLANSHEETS FOR PLANTINGLOCATIONSCONSERVATIONEASEMENT (TYP.)INSTALL CONSTRUCTEDLOG RIFFLE (TYP.)INSTALL GEOLIFT WITHTOE WOOD (TYP.)MATCH LINE - STA. 29+00SEE SHEET 17MATCH LINE - STA. 31+00SEE SHEET 18
DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'1" = 40'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SREVEGETATIONPLANN/A23-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWG2323-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWGWAYNE COUNTY, NCPLANTING SCHEDULEPERMANENT SEEDINGSCHEDULETEMPORARY SEEDINGSCHEDULEPLANTING NOTES1. THE FOLLOWING TABLES LIST THE PROPOSED VEGETATION SPECIESSELECTION FOR THE PROJECT REVEGETATION. THE TOTAL PLANTING AREAIS APPROXIMATELY 54 ACRES AND WILL VARY BASED ON SITE CONDITIONSAND AREAS DISTRUBED DURING CONSTRUCTION.2. FINAL VEGETATION SPECIES SELECTION MAY CHANGE DUE TO REFINEMENTOR SPECIES AVAILABILITY AT THE TIME OF PLANTING. SPECIESSUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE COORDINATED BETWEEN ENGINEER AND PLANTINGCONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE PROCUREMENT OF PLANT/SEED STOCK.3. IN GENERAL, WOODY SPECIES SHALL BE PLANTED AT A DENSITY OF 680STEMS PER ACRE AND A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET FROM THE TOP OF RESTOREDSTREAMBANKS AND TO THE REVEGETATION LIMITS. EXACT PLACEMENT OFTHE SPECIES WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S VEGETATIONSPECIALIST PRIOR TO SITE PLANTING AND BASED ON THE WETNESSCONDITIONS OF PLANTING LOCATIONS.4. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED WITHIN THECONSERVATION EASEMENT USING NATIVE SPECIES VEGETATION DESCRIBEDIN RIPARIAN BUFFER PLANT MIXTURE.5. ANY INVASIVE SPECIES VEGETATION, SUCH AS CHINESE PRIVET (LIGUSTRUMSINENSE) AND MULTIFLORA ROSE (ROSA MULTIFLORA) WILL BE INITIALLYTREATED AS DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS PRIOR TOPLANTING ACTIVITIES TO ALLOW NATIVE PLANTS TO BECOME ESTABLISHEDWITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT.6. LARGER NATIVE TREE SPECIES TO BE PRESERVED WILL BE FLAGGED BY THEENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. ANY TREES HARVESTEDFOR WOODY MATERIAL WILL BE UTILIZED TO PROVIDE BED AND BANKSTABILIZATION, COVER AND/OR NESTING HABITAT.7. ALL DISTURBED AREAS WILL BE STABILIZED USING MULCHING AND SEEDINGAS DEFINED IN THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS AND THE APPROVEDSEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS.Botanical NameCommon Name% Proposedfor Plantingby SpeciesWetlandToleranceRiparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings – Overstory(Proposed 8’ x 8’ Planting Spacing @ 680 Stems/Acre)Betula nigraRiver birch7%FACWFraxinuspennsylvanicaGreen Ash7%FACWPlatanus occidentalisAmericansycamore7%FACWQuercus nigraWater Oak5%FACLiriodendron tulipiferaTulip-poplar7%FACUQuercus albaWhite oak5%FACUNyssa bifloraSwamp blackgum5%OBLQuercus bicolorSwamp whiteoak5%FACWTaxodium distichumBald Cypress5%OBLQuercus phellosWillow Oak5%FACWRiparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings – Understory(Proposed 8’ x 8’ Planting Spacing @ 680 Stems/Acre)Clethra alnifoliaSweetPepperbush6%FACWCarpinus carolinianaIronwood6%FACPersea palustrisRed bay6%FACWEubotrys racemosusSwampdoghobble6%FACWMagnolia virginianaSweetbaymagnolia6%FACWCyrilla racimifloraTiti6%FACWItea virginicaSweetspire6%FACWRiparian Buffer Live Stake Plantings - Streambanks(Proposed 2’-3’ Spacing @ Meander Bends and 6’-8’ Spacing @Riffle Sections)CephalanthusoccidentalisButtonbush20%OBLSalix sericeaSilky Willow30%OBLSalix nigraBlack Willow10%OBLSambucuscanadensisElderberry30%FACW-Botanical NameCommonName% Proposedfor Plantingby SpeciesSeeding Rate(lb/acre)WetlandTolerancePermanent Herbaceous Seed Mixture – Streambank, Floodplain, Wetlands andRiparian Buffer Areas(Proposed Seed Rate @ 15 lbs/acre)Andropogon gerardiiBig blue stem10%1.5000FACDichantheliumclandestinumDeer tongue15%1.5000FACWCarex vulpinoideaFox sedge10%2.2500OBLCarex lupulinaHop sedge5%2.2500OBLElymus virginicusVirginia wild rye15%1.5000FACJuncus effususSoft rush15%2.2500FACW+Panicum virgatumSwitchgrass5%1.5000FACW+SchizachyriumscopariumLittle blue stem10%0.7500FACUTripsacumdactyloidesEasterngamagrass5%0.7500FAC+Sorghastrum nutansIndiangrass10%0.7500FACUPlanting DatesBotanical NameCommon NameApplicationRate (lbs/acre)September toMarchSecale cerealeRye Grain (CoolSeason)130April to AugustUrochloa ramosaBrowntop Millet (WarmSeason)40
WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBCE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEWLBWLBWLB
DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'1" = 40'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SREVEGETATIONPLANN/A23-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWG2423-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWGPLANTING ZONESRIPARIAN BUFFER ENHANCEMENTRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATIONRIPARIAN BUFFER PRESERVATIONMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 25MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 26N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-7761N/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 495P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824END CONSTRUCTION UT-R1BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT-R2STA. 32+80.65
WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBCECECECECECECE CE CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB
WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBW
L
B
WLB
WLB
W
L
B
WL
B
WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB
DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'1" = 40'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SREVEGETATIONPLANN/A23-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWG2523-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWGMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 24
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 27END CONSTRUCTION UT1-R2STA. 53+28.10PLANTING ZONESRIPARIAN BUFFER ENHANCEMENTRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATIONRIPARIAN BUFFER PRESERVATIONN/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 495P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-7761
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECECE CECECE CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECEWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB
DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'1" = 40'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SREVEGETATIONPLANN/A23-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWG2623-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWGWAYNE COUNTY, NCMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 27 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 24N/FPHILLIP RAYBEVERLY RICKSD.B. 986, PG. 400P.I.N.: 2568-12-0773PLANTING ZONESRIPARIAN BUFFER ENHANCEMENTRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATIONRIPARIAN BUFFER PRESERVATIONNO PLANTING SHALL OCCUROUTSIDE OF THE CONSERVATIONEASEMENTN/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-7761
CECECECECECECECECECECECECEWLBWLBWLBWLBDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'1" = 40'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SREVEGETATIONPLANN/A23-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWG2723-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWGWAYNE COUNTY, NCMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 26
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 25PLANTING ZONESRIPARIAN BUFFER ENHANCEMENTRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATIONRIPARIAN BUFFER PRESERVATIONN/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 495P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-7761
CECECECECECECECECECE CECECECECECECE
CE
DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'1" = 40'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SREVEGETATIONPLANN/A23-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWG2823-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWGWAYNE COUNTY, NCMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 27 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 26 N/FJOHN L. TART AND WIFE,LARIE R. TARTD.B. 3133, PG. 486PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-22-3903N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-7761N/FPHILLIP RAYBEVERLY RICKSD.B. 986, PG. 400P.I.N.: 2568-12-0773BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT1-R1STATION 10+00PLANTING ZONESRIPARIAN BUFFER ENHANCEMENTRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATIONRIPARIAN BUFFER PRESERVATION
CE CE CE CE CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE
CECE
CE
CE
WLB WLB WLB WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'1" = 40'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SREVEGETATIONPLANN/A23-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWG2923-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWGWAYNE COUNTY, NCMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 30MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 31N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 486PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-7761N/FJOHN L. TART AND WIFE,LARIE R. TARTD.B. 3133, PG. 486PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-22-3903N/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 477P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2ASTATION 10+00END CONSTRUCTION UT2-R1BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2-R2STATION 18+42.94END CONSTRUCTION UT2ASTATION 16+67.08PLANTING ZONESRIPARIAN BUFFER ENHANCEMENTRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATIONRIPARIAN BUFFER PRESERVATION
CECECECECECECE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE
WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB
WL
B
W
L
B
WLB
WLBWL
B
DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'1" = 40'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SREVEGETATIONPLANN/A23-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWG3023-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWGWAYNE COUNTY, NCMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 29
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 32N/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 477P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824N/FTIMMOTHY ROBBINSD.B. 2666, PG. 840PC A SLIDE 72 A,BP.I.N.: 2568-56-0252BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2BSTA. 10+00.00END CONSTRUCTION UT2BSTA. 12+56.50END CONSTRUCTION UT2-R2BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2-R3STATION 30+26.97PLANTING ZONESRIPARIAN BUFFER ENHANCEMENTRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATIONRIPARIAN BUFFER PRESERVATION
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CEWLBWLBWLBWLBW
L
B
WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB WLB WLBWLB WLB WLB WLB WLB WLB WLB WLB WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB
WLBWLBDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'1" = 40'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SREVEGETATIONPLANN/A23-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWG3123-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWGWAYNE COUNTY, NCMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 29N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-7761N/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 477P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2-R1STATION 12+28.21PLANTING ZONESRIPARIAN BUFFER ENHANCEMENTRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATIONRIPARIAN BUFFER PRESERVATION
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB WLBWLBWLB
WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBW
L
B
WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'1" = 40'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SREVEGETATIONPLANN/A23-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWG3223-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWGWAYNE COUNTY, NCMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 30
N/FTIMMOTHY ROBBINSD.B. 2666, PG. 840PC A SLIDE 72 A,BP.I.N.: 2568-56-0252N/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 477P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2BSTA. 10+00.00END CONSTRUCTION UT2BSTA. 12+56.50END CONSTRUCTION UT2-R2BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2-R3STATION 30+26.97PLANTING ZONESRIPARIAN BUFFER ENHANCEMENTRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATIONRIPARIAN BUFFER PRESERVATION
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB
DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'1" = 40'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SREVEGETATIONPLANN/A23-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWG3323-33_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_REVEGETATION PLANS.DWGWAYNE COUNTY, NCMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 32
N/FTIMMOTHY ROBBINSD.B. 2666, PG. 840PC A SLIDE 72 A,BP.I.N.: 2568-56-0252N/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 477P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824END CONSTRUCTION UT2-R3STATION 49+50.03PLANTING ZONESRIPARIAN BUFFER ENHANCEMENTRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATIONRIPARIAN BUFFER PRESERVATION
WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBCE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEWLBWLBWLBFPFPFPFPFP 777879797676767775757575757474DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SGRADINGPLANN/A34-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWG3434-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWGMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 35MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 36N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-7761N/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 495P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824GRADING NOTESEND CONSTRUCTION UT-R1BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT-R2STA. 32+80.651.NO GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL OCCUR BEYOND THEPROJECT LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (LOD) AS SHOWNON THE DESIGN PLANS.2. ONCE DESIGN GRADES ARE ACHIEVED AS SHOWN ONTHE PLAN AND PROFILE, THE HEADWATER VALLEY, STREAM AND WETLAND, AND FLOODPLAIN AREAS SHALL BE ROUGHENED USING TECHNIQUESDESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS.3. ALL SUITABLE SOIL MATERIAL REQUIRED TO FILL AND/OR PLUG EXISTING DITCHES AND/OR STREAM CHANNEL SHALL BE GENERATED ON-SITE AS DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS.ANY EXCESS SPOIL MATERIAL SHALL BE STOCKPILEDIN DESIGNATED AREAS AND OR HAULED OFF-SITE ASAPPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBCECECECECECECE CE CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB
WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBW
L
B
WLB
WLB
W
L
B
WL
B
WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBFPFPFPFPFPFP
F
P
FPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFP
FPFPFPFP737374747575737374747572727373747471717
2 72727
373
DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SGRADINGPLANN/A34-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWG3534-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWGMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 34
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 37N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-7761N/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 495P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824END CONSTRUCTION UT1-R2STA. 53+28.10
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECECE CECECE CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECEWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB
FPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFP FPFP
FPFPFP FPFPFPFP FP FPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFP81807979
8
2
838
3
86DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SGRADINGPLANN/A34-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWG3634-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWGWAYNE COUNTY, NCMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 37 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 34N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-7761N/FPHILLIP RAYBEVERLY RICKSD.B. 986, PG. 400P.I.N.: 2568-12-0773MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 38APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 100YEAR FEMA FLOOD ZONE 'AE'(FIRM PANEL 2548)
CECECECECECECECECECECECECEWLBWLBWLBWLBFPFPFPFPFP FPFPFPFPFPFP FP
DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SGRADINGPLANN/A34-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWG3734-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWGWAYNE COUNTY, NCMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 36
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 35N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-7761N/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 495P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 38APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 100YEAR FEMA FLOOD ZONE 'AE'(FIRM PANEL 2548 )
CECECECECECECECECECE CECECECECECECE
CE
8584868585DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SGRADINGPLANN/A34-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWG3834-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWGWAYNE COUNTY, NCMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 37 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 36 N/FJOHN L. TART AND WIFE,LARIE R. TARTD.B. 3133, PG. 486PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-22-3903N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-7761N/FPHILLIP RAYBEVERLY RICKSD.B. 986, PG. 400P.I.N.: 2568-12-0773BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT1-R1STATION 10+00
CE CE CE CE CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE
CECE
CE
CE
WLB WLB WLB WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB868
6
8
7 868685858
686
8585
8484858685DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SGRADINGPLANN/A34-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWG3934-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWGWAYNE COUNTY, NCMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 40MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 41N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 486PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-7761N/FJOHN L. TART AND WIFE,LARIE R. TARTD.B. 3133, PG. 486PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-22-3903N/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 477P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2ASTATION 10+00.00END CONSTRUCTION UT2-R1BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2-R2STATION 18+42.94END CONSTRUCTION UT2ASTATION 16+67.08
CECECECECECECE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE
WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB
WL
B
W
L
B
WLB
WLBWL
BFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPF
P
FP
FP
FPFP
F
P
FP
FPFPFPFP85848282838481818282838384808
1818
2
8
2
8
3
8
3
8
080
818
1
828
2
838
3
8
4
8080808
0
7
9
818182828383808079798180817
979
DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SGRADINGPLANN/A34-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWG4034-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWGWAYNE COUNTY, NCMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 39
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 42N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 486PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-7761N/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 477P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824N/FTIMMOTHY ROBBINSD.B. 2666, PG. 840PC A SLIDE 72 A,BP.I.N.: 2568-56-0252BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2BSTA. 10+00.00END CONSTRUCTION UT2BSTA. 12+56.50END CONSTRUCTION UT2-R2BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2-R3STATION 30+26.97APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 100YEAR FEMA FLOOD ZONE 'AE'(FIRM PANEL 2548)
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CEWLBWLBWLBWLBW
L
B
WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB WLB WLBWLB WLB WLB WLB WLB WLB WLB WLB WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB
WLBWLB9
0
8
8
8
9
8
7
8
8
8
9
8
78889
DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SGRADINGPLANN/A34-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWG4134-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWGWAYNE COUNTY, NCMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 39N/FCONNIE H. FEIGED.B. 3133, PG. 504PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-05-7761N/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 477P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824N/FJOHN L. TART AND WIFE,LARIE R. TARTD.B. 3133, PG. 486PC SLIDE 18 G,H,I,JP.I.N.: 2568-22-3903BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2-R1STATION 12+28.21
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB WLBWLBWLB
WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBW
L
B
WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFP FPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFP FP FPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPF
P
FPFPFP8182838080808079818182828383808079798180817979DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SGRADINGPLANN/A34-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWG4234-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWGWAYNE COUNTY, NCMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 40
N/FTIMMOTHY ROBBINSD.B. 2666, PG. 840PC A SLIDE 72 A,BP.I.N.: 2568-56-0252N/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 477P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2BSTA. 10+00.00END CONSTRUCTION UT2BSTA. 12+56.50END CONSTRUCTION UT2-R2BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2-R3STATION 30+26.97APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 100YEAR FEMA FLOOD ZONE 'AE'(FIRM PANEL 2548)
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB
FPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFP FPFPFPFP FPFPFPFPFPFPDESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :NORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-14801" = 80'MITIGATIONPROJECTKMVAPL3-25-1917-002DRAFT MIT PLANA3-25-19WAYNE COUNTY, NCHOLLOWELLN
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SGRADINGPLANN/A34-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWG4334-43_HOLLOWELL MITIGATION BANK_GRADING PLANS.DWGWAYNE COUNTY, NCMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 42
N/FTIMMOTHY ROBBINSD.B. 2666, PG. 840PC A SLIDE 72 A,BP.I.N.: 2568-56-0252N/FDEBRA GRANTHAMD.B. 3133, PG. 477P.I.N.: 2568-35-6824END CONSTRUCTION UT2-R3STATION 49+50.03

Appendix B - Existing Conditions Data
WLS Neuse 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Hollowell Mitigation Project

Existing Cross-Section and Longitudinal Profile Data
Sediment Samples
Hydric Soils Report
Stream Quantification Tool Summary
FEMA Panels

Cross Section X1Bankfull DimensionsFlood DimensionsMaterials1.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)6.0 W flood prone area (ft)0.63D50 Riffle (mm)4.4 width (ft)1.4 entrenchment ratio1.4D84 Riffle (mm)0.3 mean depth (ft)2.1 low bank height (ft)4 threshold grain size (mm):0.6 max depth (ft)3.6 low bank height ratio4.6 wetted parimeter (ft)0.3 hyd radi (ft)13.3 width-depth ratioBankfull FlowFlow ResistanceForces & Power1.8 velocity (ft/s)0.025 Manning's roughness0.4 channel slope (%)2.6 discharge rate (cfs)0.11 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.08 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.55 Froude number13.9 resistance factor u/u*0.20 shear velocity (ft/s)72.2 relative roughness0.15unit strm power (lb/ft/s)92.59393.59494.59595.59696.5970 10203040506070ElevationWidthRiffle
Cross Section X2Bankfull DimensionsFlood DimensionsMaterials1.9 x-section area (ft.sq.)9.6 W flood prone area (ft)0.63D50 Riffle (mm)6.8 width (ft)1.4 entrenchment ratio1.4D84 Riffle (mm)0.3 mean depth (ft)2.3 low bank height (ft)3 threshold grain size (mm):0.5 max depth (ft)4.9 low bank height ratio6.8 wetted parimeter (ft)0.3 hyd radi (ft)24.1 width-depth ratioBankfull FlowFlow ResistanceForces & Power1.6 velocity (ft/s)0.025 Manning's roughness0.4 channel slope (%)3.0 discharge rate (cfs)0.11 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.07 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.54 Froude number13.5 resistance factor u/u*0.19 shear velocity (ft/s)60.9 relative roughness0.11unit strm power (lb/ft/s)91.59292.59393.59494.5950 10203040506070ElevationWidthRiffle
Cross Section X3Bankfull DimensionsFlood DimensionsMaterials3.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)10.0 W flood prone area (ft)0.63D50 Riffle (mm)6.7 width (ft)1.5 entrenchment ratio1.4D84 Riffle (mm)0.5 mean depth (ft)2.8 low bank height (ft)0 threshold grain size (mm):0.9 max depth (ft)3.0 low bank height ratio7.0 wetted parimeter (ft)0.5 hyd radi (ft)13.0 width-depth ratioBankfull FlowFlow ResistanceForces & Power0.2 velocity (ft/s)0.025 Manning's roughness0.004 channel slope (%)0.8 discharge rate (cfs)0.09 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.00 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.06 Froude number15.1 resistance factor u/u*0.03 shear velocity (ft/s)111.8 relative roughness0.0003unit strm power (lb/ft/s)91.59292.59393.59494.59595.50 1020304050607080ElevationWidthRiffle
Cross Section X4Bankfull DimensionsFlood DimensionsMaterials7.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)88.0 W flood prone area (ft)0.63D50 Riffle (mm)6.6 width (ft)13.4 entrenchment ratio1.4D84 Riffle (mm)1.1 mean depth (ft)2.3 low bank height (ft)12 threshold grain size (mm):1.7 max depth (ft)1.3 low bank height ratio7.8 wetted parimeter (ft)1.0 hyd radi (ft)5.8 width-depth ratioBankfull FlowFlow ResistanceForces & Power3.7 velocity (ft/s)0.025 Manning's roughness0.4 channel slope (%)27.4 discharge rate (cfs)0.07 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.24 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.66 Froude number16.7 resistance factor u/u*0.35 shear velocity (ft/s)246.7 relative roughness1.04unit strm power (lb/ft/s)92.59393.59494.59595.59696.5970 102030405060708090100ElevationWidthRiffle
Cross Section X5Bankfull DimensionsFlood DimensionsMaterials1.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)6.2 W flood prone area (ft)0.63D50 Riffle (mm)4.6 width (ft)1.4 entrenchment ratio1.4D84 Riffle (mm)0.3 mean depth (ft)2.4 low bank height (ft)2 threshold grain size (mm):0.5 max depth (ft)5.2 low bank height ratio4.7 wetted parimeter (ft)0.3 hyd radi (ft)16.9 width-depth ratioBankfull FlowFlow ResistanceForces & Power1.8 velocity (ft/s)0.016 Manning's roughness0.2 channel slope (%)2.2 discharge rate (cfs)0.04 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.03 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.60 Froude number13.4 resistance factor u/u*0.13 shear velocity (ft/s)59.2 relative roughness0.059unit strm power (lb/ft/s)9191.59292.59393.59494.50 10203040506070ElevationWidthRiffle
Cross Section X6Bankfull DimensionsFlood DimensionsMaterials3.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)8.0 W flood prone area (ft)0.63D50 Riffle (mm)6.1 width (ft)1.3 entrenchment ratio1.4D84 Riffle (mm)0.5 mean depth (ft)2.6 low bank height (ft)6 threshold grain size (mm):0.8 max depth (ft)3.1 low bank height ratio6.4 wetted parimeter (ft)0.5 hyd radi (ft)12.1 width-depth ratioBankfull FlowFlow ResistanceForces & Power2.3 velocity (ft/s)0.025 Manning's roughness0.4 channel slope (%)7.0 discharge rate (cfs)0.09 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.12 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.59 Froude number14.9 resistance factor u/u*0.25 shear velocity (ft/s)109.2 relative roughness0.29unit strm power (lb/ft/s)9090.59191.59292.59393.59494.50 102030405060ElevationWidth Riffle
Cross Section X7Bankfull DimensionsFlood DimensionsMaterials3.9 x-section area (ft.sq.)33.0 W flood prone area (ft)0.63D50 Riffle (mm)7.1 width (ft)4.6 entrenchment ratio1.4D84 Riffle (mm)0.6 mean depth (ft)1.6 low bank height (ft)6 threshold grain size (mm):0.9 max depth (ft)1.7 low bank height ratio7.4 wetted parimeter (ft)0.5 hyd radi (ft)12.9 width-depth ratioBankfull FlowFlow ResistanceForces & Power3.9 velocity (ft/s)0.016 Manning's roughness0.39 channel slope (%)15.4 discharge rate (cfs)0.03 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.13 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.95 Froude number15.2 resistance factor u/u*0.26 shear velocity (ft/s)120.3 relative roughness0.53unit strm power (lb/ft/s)92.59393.59494.5950 102030405060ElevationWidthRiffle
Cross Section X8Bankfull DimensionsFlood DimensionsMaterials4.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)8.0 W flood prone area (ft)0.63D50 Riffle (mm)5.8 width (ft)1.4 entrenchment ratio1.4D84 Riffle (mm)0.7 mean depth (ft)3.1 low bank height (ft)8 threshold grain size (mm):1.1 max depth (ft)2.7 low bank height ratio6.4 wetted parimeter (ft)0.6 hyd radi (ft)8.2 width-depth ratioBankfull FlowFlow ResistanceForces & Power2.8 velocity (ft/s)0.025 Manning's roughness0.4 channel slope (%)11.6 discharge rate (cfs)0.08 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.16 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.62 Froude number15.7 resistance factor u/u*0.29 shear velocity (ft/s)154.3 relative roughness0.5 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)9191.59292.59393.59494.5950 102030405060ElevationWidthRiffle
Cross Section X9Bankfull DimensionsFlood DimensionsMaterials5.9 x-section area (ft.sq.)41.0 W flood prone area (ft)0.63D50 Riffle (mm)5.8 width (ft)7.1 entrenchment ratio1.4D84 Riffle (mm)1.0 mean depth (ft)1.7 low bank height (ft)10 threshold grain size (mm):1.4 max depth (ft)1.2 low bank height ratio6.1 wetted parimeter (ft)1.0 hyd radi (ft)5.6 width-depth ratioBankfull FlowFlow ResistanceForces & Power2.8 velocity (ft/s)0.030 Manning's roughness0.32 channel slope (%)16.3 discharge rate (cfs)0.11 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.19 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.49 Froude number16.6 resistance factor u/u*0.32 shear velocity (ft/s)224.2 relative roughness0.57unit strm power (lb/ft/s)798081828384850 102030405060708090100ElevationWidthRiffle
68737883881000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500Elevation (ft)Station (ft)Hollowell Mitigation ProjectExisting Longitudinal Profile ‐ UT1ThalwegRight Top of BankLeft Top of Bank
68737883881000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000Elevation (ft)Station (ft)Hollowell Mitigation ProjectExisting Longitudinal Profile ‐ UT2ThalwegRight Top of BankLeft Top of Bank
80818283848586878889901000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800Elevation (ft)Station (ft)Hollowell Mitigation ProjectExisting Longitudinal Profile ‐ UT2AThalwegRight Top of BankLeft Top of Bank
78798081828384851000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300Elevation (ft)Station (ft)Hollowell Mitigation ProjectExisting Longitudinal Profile ‐ UT2BThalwegRight Top of BankLeft Top of Bank
4%7%13%23%24%22%4%2%1%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%TypeD160.16mean 0.5silt/clay4%D350.35dispersion 3.1sand89%D500.55skewness -0.05 gravel7%D650.84cobble0%D841.5boulder0%D952.8Size (mm) Size Distributionsilt/claysandgravel cobble boulder0%5%10%15%20%25%30%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.010.1110100 1000 10000
weighted percent of particles in range
percent finer thanparticle size (mm)Hollowell Sediment Sample, UT1weighted percentRifflePool# of particles80% riffle 20% pool
8%10%17%8%22%28%3%3%1%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%TypeD160.11mean 0.4silt/clay8%D350.25dispersion 4.1sand85%D500.62skewness -0.16 gravel7%D651cobble0%D841.6boulder0%D953.2Size (mm) Size Distributionsilt/claysandgravel cobble boulder0%5%10%15%20%25%30%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.010.1110100 1000 10000
weighted percent of particles in range
percent finer thanparticle size (mm)Hollowell Sediment Sample, UT2 (lower)weighted percentRifflePool# of particles70% riffle 30% pool

FINAL-Detailed Hydric Soils Study
Hollowell Mitigation Site
Wayne County NC

Prepared for:
Mr. Kayne Van Stell
Water & Land Solutions
10940 Raven Ridge Rd, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614

Prepared by:
George K Lankford Soil Scientist, LSS #1223
George K Lankford, LLC
238 Shady Grove Rd
Pittsboro, NC 27312

February 2019 Soil Scientist Seal

This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Hollowell Mitigation Site in Wayne County, NC. Any
subsequent transfer of the report by the user shall be made by transferring the complete report, including figures, maps,
appendices, all attachments and disclaimers.

FINAL-Detailed Hydric Soils Study, Hollowell Mitigation Site

Page 2 of 11
February 2019
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Study Objectives and Scope
The purpose of the study was to determine the existence and delineate the extent of hydric soils that are
potentially suitable for hydrologic restoration and mitigation. This evaluation is a soil delineation and all
boundaries shown are based on the detailed field evaluation. Potential for hydrologic restoration of soils
in this study is evaluated considering the existing land use and conditions with the sites potential for
creating a hydroperiod suitable for the landscape and soils. Practical modifications that utilize the
available natural hydrology may include, but are not limited to surface drainage modifications, plugging
drainage ditches, removal of fill materials, and microtopographic alteration such as surface roughening or
enhancing existing depressions. Removal of fill material is typically limited due to cost and
environmental impacts if an extensive area is involved. Restoration potential assumes a successful design
and ability to construct site modifications necessary to restore adequate hydrology to hydric soil areas.

This report presents an evaluation of the subject property based upon a field evaluation and detailed
hydric soil investigation for the purpose of confirming the presence of and delineating the extent of hydric
soil. The site is assessed for suitability for wetland restoration/mitigation. Potential jurisdictional wetlands
are located within the project boundaries and have been delineated. All boundaries shown are based on
the detailed field assessment. The observations and opinions stated in this report reflect conditions
apparent on the subject property at the time of the site evaluation. My findings, opinions, conclusions, and
recommendations are based on the locations and boundaries of the property as evident in the field during
the site evaluation and professional experience.
Project Information and Background
The site location is just southwest of the City of Goldsboro on the floodplain and lower terrace of the
Neuse River (Figure 1). The project is located north of Stevens Mill Rd (SR 1008) downstream of Ferry
Bridge Rd (SR 1224). This project area evaluated consist of two areas, one to the west and one to the east
separated by 2,500 feet. The west area is approximately 30 acres and the eastern areas is approximately
35 acres. Each site downstream point is about 600 to 700 feet from the Neuse River. Each site has a small
stream entering from the adjacent lower slopes.

The Neuse River floodplain at the project area is moderately wide with undulating topography of low
terraces and ridges with shallow linear depressions along small upland drainage features. Current land use
is row crop agriculture with the stream channelized and additional ditching to improve drainage. The
streams and ditch banks are maintained in an herbaceous state to limit vegetation growth to prevent
obstruction of flows. The surrounding area is regenerating clear cut. Portions of the area appear to have
been fed by slope seepage in addition to the streams. Much of the remaining seepage is directed to the
ditches and stream channels.

Weeds and native herbaceous vegetation are found along some of the ditches. In addition to numerous
weeds, species present include, but are not limited to common rush (Juncus effusus), arrowleaf tearthumb
(Polygonum sagittatum), shallow sedge (Carex lurida), fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea). Woody vegetation
along the banks is limited due to regular maintenance of the stream and ditch banks.

This evaluation focused upon areas having hydric soil characteristics and modified drainage features. The
potential for restoration or enhancement of these hydric soils was evaluated and areas suitable for wetland
mitigation are discussed.
NRCS Soil Mapping
The NRCS mapping unit is an area of soil that with similar defined soil properties and physical
characteristics as well as suitable management criteria base upon these properties. Map units across a site
are useful for general planning, but cover larger scale that often include smaller areas of dissimilar soils
FINAL-Detailed Hydric Soils Study, Hollowell Mitigation Site

Page 3 of 11
February 2019
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
not discernable without a detailed site evaluation. Properties of the map units provide the background for
interpreting the soil properties at the site.

Soil map units in and surrounding the project are formed in sandy and loamy alluvium or fluviomarine
deposits. Topography of the site is a floodplain that has a mix of linear concave features of meander scars
and shallow elevated ridges if old levees typical of a larger floodplain. Soil texture and slope have the
largest effect on the natural drainage and location affects the soil texture in these landscapes. Because of
the larger extent of the project, multiple map units are shown. The soils mapped by the USDA, Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey of Wayne County (USDA 1974) indicate six major soil mapping
units across the project that are classified as hydric by the NRCS (Table 1). The map units located in low
elevations and concave landforms are very poorly and poorly drained soil. The poorly drained soil
includes Bibb, Kinston loam, Lumbee, Torhunta, Pantego, and Weston (Woodington) loamy sand. The
higher elevation slopes contain the better drained map units; Dragston, Craven, Kalmia, Kenansville,
Norfolk, and Wagram. Note some series have been reclassified by the NRCS to a similar series having the
same taxonomy and management recommendations. For consistency the original map unit name is kept
with the updated series in parenthesis. This evaluation and report focused upon areas having a suitable
landscape position and with high potential for containing hydric soil.

Table 1. Hollowell NRCS Mapped Soil Mapping Units
Map Unit Name Drainage
Class
Hydric/
Hydric Inclusion Hydric Inclusions
Hydric Soils
Tornunta
loam very poorly Yes/-- No inclusions listed
Pantego
loam very poorly Yes/-- No inclusions listed
Bibb
sandy loam poorly Yes/Yes Johnston – 10 percent (very poorly drained)
Kinston (Kn)
loam poorly Yes/-- No inclusions listed
Lumbee
sandy loam poorly Yes/-- No inclusions listed
Weston
(Woodington)
loamy sand
poorly Yes/-- No inclusions listed
Non-Hydric Soils
Dragston
loamy sand
somewhat
poorly No/Yes Portsmouth – 3 percent (very poorly drained)
Nimmo – 2 percent (poorly drained)
Craven (Gritney)
sandy loam
moderately
well No/No No hydric inclusions listed
Kalmia
loamy sand (Winton) well No/-- No inclusions listed
Kenansville
loamy sand well No/-- No inclusions listed
Norfolk
loamy sand well No/No No hydric inclusions listed
Wagram
loamy sand well No/No No inclusions listed
Map Units arranged by Drainage Class.

Using the hydric soil map units at the Hollowell site, soils are expected to have sandy textured surface
horizons with numerous hydric characteristics representative of formation under saturated conditions. A
FINAL-Detailed Hydric Soils Study, Hollowell Mitigation Site

Page 4 of 11
February 2019
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
few common characteristics of these hydric soils are summarized in Table 2 and a NRCS soil report for
the local area is found in Appendix D. The Torhunta series typically has a moderately thick, black sandy
or loamy textures surface that can occasionally have mucky mineral textures in a natural setting. The
surface is underlain by a thinner dark grayish brown sandy loam. Pantego is known to have a thick, very
dark gray to black, loamy, surface layer that can occasionally have mucky mineral textures in a n atural
setting. It is underlain by a gray loamy or clayey loam horizon with redoximorphic features. Bibb soil
naturally has a thin dark sandy textured surface layer underlain by a sandy or loamy textured subsoil.
Inclusions of Johnston have a deep organic surface. Kinston soil will have a thin surface of dark brown,
mucky, organic layer over a gray loam that grades to a clayey soil with redoximorphic mottles. Lumbee
have a thin, very dark gray, loamy sand, surface layer and in underlain by a gray loamy sand or sandy
clay loam with redoximorphic features. Woodington soil shows a thin, darker gray, sandy surface
underlain by a lighter gray subsoil with redoximorphic mottles. Additional characteristics of these hydric
map units are found in Appendix A

The non-hydric soils found in better drained portions of the floodplain and upland slopes typically have
brown or dark brown surface horizons underlain by yellowish brown or brown subsoils. Subsoils range
from sand to silty clays that reflect the alluvial nature of the area. Of the non-hydric soils, only the
Dragston series is predicted to have hydric inclusions.

Table 2. General Characteristics for Soil Map Units at the Hollowell Site-
Series Taxonomic
Class
Drainage
Class Hydric
Seasonal
High Water
Table (in)
Farmland
classification
Torhunta loam (To)
Torhunta (90%) Typic Humaquepts very poorly Yes 0 to 12 Prime farmland
(if drained)
Pantego loam (Po)
Pantego (90%) Umbric Paleaquults very poorly Yes 0 to 12 Prime farmland
(if drained)
Bibb sandy loam - (Bb)
Bibb (80%) Typic Fluvaquents poorly Yes 0 to 12 Not Prime
farmland Johnston (10%) Cumulic
Humaquepts very poorly Yes Surface
Kinston loam - (Kn)
Kinston (90%) Fluvaquentic
Endoaquepts poorly Yes 0 to 12 Not Prime
farmland
Lumbee sandy loam (Lv)
Lumbee (100%) Typic Endoaquults poorly Yes 0 to 12 Prime farmland
(if drained)
Weston loamy sand (Woodington) - (We)
Woodington (90%) Typic Paleaquults poorly Yes 0 to 12 Statewide
importance
Source-NRCS Web Soil Survey (2018 09 17)
FINAL-Detailed Hydric Soils Study, Hollowell Mitigation Site

Page 5 of 11
February 2019
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Methodology
At the Hollowell Site, a detailed hydric soil delineation was completed in June 2018 to evaluate and
identify hydric characteristics of soils within the current landscape setting and management regime. In
January of 2019 a wetland delineation was completed for areas within the proposed conservation
easement, but outside of cultivated fields. The current hydrology and existing modification are described
with relevant soil characteristics that may affect potential hydrology. A series of soil borings were
performed across the site to evaluate soils and delineate the boundary between hydric soil and upland soil.
Soil borings were used to described current soil characteristics and evaluate the extent of hydric soil
suitable for restoration. The boring observations do not contain adequate detail to specifically classify
these soils to a series. This report addresses hydric soil found within the cultivated field and within
adjacent areas that will complement the restoration.

Soils were evaluated using morphologic characteristics to determine hydric indicators and evaluate
current hydrology. Using criteria based on "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (USDA,
NRCS, 2018, Version 8.2). The site is located in Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 133A (Southern
Coastal Plain) and Land Resource Region (LRR) P-(South Atlantic and Gulf Slope Cash Crops, Forest,
and Livestock Region). Indicators used are valid for the appropriate Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), and Land
Resource Region P (133A Southern Coastal Plain) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2010). A hydroperiod
success criteria proposed is based upon Corps mitigation guidelines (US Army Corps of Engineers 2016).

The soil boundary was delineated based on soil borings information, landscape position, topographic
relief, and professional experience. The soil boring locations were approximately located using the
Trimble Outdoor Navigator smart phone application and exported to Google Earth. The hydric soil
boundary points were delineated by placing pin flags along the hydric/non-hydric soil boundary. These
boundary points were collected with a GPS system by WLS staff and the boundaries were used to draw
the figures and calculate acreage.

Representative profiles were documented to describe the range of characteristics found across the site
(Appendix B). These characteristics include texture, color, mottling, and where present, the depth to
saturation or the water table. Other important observations were noted as observed. The report describes
the project site within the landscape setting and current management regime, including conclusions and
recommendations for suitable hydrologic restoration.
Results and Discussion
Landscape Setting
The project is located in Wayne County southwest of the Town of Goldsboro. The site is within the
Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic region and the Middle Coastal Plain landscape. At the landscape
scale the area consists of relatively broad interstream divides between stream drainages. The site sits on
the floodplain and low terrace of the Neuse River. The prominent drainage feature is the backwater
floodplain and terrace slopes along the Neuse River. Currently the site is mostly cultivated row crops
consisting of a rotation of corn and soybeans. The surrounding land use is primarily agriculture and
undeveloped forest.

The landscape has relatively moderate relief composed of poorly drained floodplains and shallow
depressions that transition to gently sloping toe slopes. It is separated from the Neuse River to the north
by low depositional ridges and old levees. Regularly maintained field ditches flow generally northeast to
the Neuse River. The project consists of two cultivated and ditched fields along two small tributaries. The
tributaries are separated by a low ridge or old upper terrace remnant. Both streams have wide, nearly level
FINAL-Detailed Hydric Soils Study, Hollowell Mitigation Site

Page 6 of 11
February 2019
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
areas of floodplain suitable for hydric soil formation. Both the east and west tracts include large areas of
cultivated fields.

Within the wide floodplain to the east is UT2 and three small tributaries. The UT2 originates within a
broad crenulation along the southern slope and flows northeast to the Neuse River. The headwater is an
area of extensive wetland seepage that is separated by a ditch along the field edge. The smaller tributaries
present originate outside of the proposed project. The majority of the proposed project lies within
cultivated field. The streams have been channelized and straightened and ditches drain surface water and
collect slope runoff. This floodplain has a low ridge present that divides the floodplain.

The west tract is surrounded by a gently undulating landscape on the terrace of the Neuse River. The
central unnamed tributary, UT1, begins to the southeast within a small headwater valley. Above the fields
is a clear-cut in the early growth stage. From its source, it flows westward into the cultivated field before
turning eastward around a low ridge feature and on to the Neuse River. This channel flows into a swamp
near the Neuse River upon leaving the project area. At the downstream reach it has a narrow buffer to the
south with the cultivated field to the north.

Within the project area the streams have been dredged and straightened. Within the fields stream and
ditch banks are regularly maintained in a low herbaceous vegetative state that result in little or no
functional buffer to water quality. Soil along the stream channels appear to have been built up with dredge
material to support agricultural land use and equipment. Within the old clear-cuts, channels are found to
retain much of dredged spoil material along the banks.

Site Soils Description
Soil borings are typical of the landscape setting and across much of the project site exhibited hydric soil
indicators within 12 inches of the soil surface. The hydric soil is within low elevation depressions with
better drained soil on the low ridges and levees (Figure 2). Soils adjacent to ditches and farm paths appear
disturbed. At the Hollowell site, more than 120 shallow borings ranging from 12 to 24 inches or deeper
were evaluated to characterize the soils and delineate boundaries (Figure 3). Soils have a similar range
across both project the east and west tracts where a thinner dark surface sandy surface horizon is
underlain by gray soils having redoximorphic mottles (Appendix A). Based upon field observations, the
actual site conditions appear representative of the expected range of soil characteristic described by
NRCS mapping units.

Soils in the east tract having areas of either clayey or sandy textured subsoil and soils within the west tract
exhibit mostly a clayey textured subsoil. The clayey subsoil is limiting in infiltration and can perch a
water table near the surface to produce hydric indicators. Soils with sandy textured subsoil exhibited
numerous redoximorphic mottles that indicate a high water table was present also. A sandy textured
horizon was found below 24 inches in a few borings, but appears to be limited. Because of the disturbance
from cultivation, any previous mucky surface textures and the redoximorphic features within the plow
layer have been destroyed. A water table was not observed near the surface, but was occasionally
encountered below 30 inches.

A typical surface within the east tract consists of very dark gray to black sandy loam 5 to 10 inches in
thickness. These sandy alluvial soils are present throughout the floodplain and the shallow rises. Soils in
the west consists of very dark gray to black sandy loam surface layer 5 to 10 inches in thickness.
Immediately below is a gray clayey horizon having weak structure with limited porosity to a depth of 25
inches or more.

FINAL-Detailed Hydric Soils Study, Hollowell Mitigation Site

Page 7 of 11
February 2019
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
The variations of observed soil characteristics appear primarily related to broad elevation differences in
the landscape between the nearly level to concave surfaces and the gentle slope along the ridges and
slopes. In the lower elevation soils have dark upper horizons extending to 25 inches or more in depth,
becoming thinner outward toward the edges of the floodplain. The main factor driving hydrology of
natural wetlands in this landscape are slow surface drainage combined with a high water table and short-
term ponding in shallow depressions.

Hydric Indicators
A number of hydric indicators are present. The most commonly observed are the A12-Thick Dark Surface
and F3-Depleted Matrix. Other include A11-Depleted Below Dark Surface, F2-Loamy Gleyed Matrix, F6-
Redox Dark Surface and the F8-Redox Depressions indicators. Within adjacent wetland the A7-5cm
Mucky Mineral indicators was also present. A number of these indicators are only formed where long
periods of saturation occur.

In the east tract, a dark, thick, sandy surface readily support the A11 or A12 indicators and the F2, F3, and
F6 indicators. Soils at the west site have a shallow surface of dark sandy textured soil underlain by a gray,
clayey subsoil with almost all borings meet the F3 indicator with areas have a darker and deeper surface
having A11 or A12 indicators. The F8 and A7 indicators are found in the wetlands outside of the
cultivated field, but were likely present prior to cultivation. Once cultivation destroys these indicators,
reformation is prevented where natural hydrology is removed.

Many of these indicators depend on extended hydroperiods and accumulated organics to develop the
distinguishing characteristics. It appears that historically, the east tract appears to have been naturally
wetter with longer hydroperiods than the west tract. The biological processes necessary to create these
characteristics cannot occur after these soils are drained.

Existing hydrology
Historically, the expected natural communities were likely a mosaic of cypress-gum swamp in the wider,
mostly level floodplain areas bordered by bottomland hardwood forest and mixed hardwoods where the
higher relief limits hydroperiods. Hydrology is derived from a combination of overbank events from the
small streams, high groundwater, upland runoff, and the groundwater seepages present along the lower
slopes. Combined with slow runoff from these nearly level landforms, this area contained jurisdictional
wetlands throughout the delineated hydric soils. Many seepage areas along the slopes are active at least
part of the year with a few active year-round. Groundwater discharge provides a significant source for this
landscape.

The channelized and dredged streams have lateral ditches fields appear to have surface modification and
shallow crowning to effectively reduce surface ponding and lowers groundwater that reduces the natural
hydroperiods. The streams represent a significant source of hydrology at the site along with numerous
seepage areas present along the edges of the floodplain. Many of the shallow ditches are placed to remove
slope seepage adjacent to the fields. Currently, groundwater drops with distance from these slopes due to
the ditches. The streams and seeps appear more than adequate to provide hydrology to support restoring
wetlands within the hydric soils found at this site. Significant rainfall events were not observed, but
upland runoff may provide additional sources.
Hydroperiod Guidance of Restored Soils
Based upon this detailed study of soils at this site, ditching and management for row crops have removed
the natural hydrology. Hydric indicators are present throughout the lower elevations and the depressions
that exhibit a range of observed soil characteristics reflecting the alluvial nature of these soils. Mitigation
guidance for soils in the Coastal Plain for hydric soils found at this site suggests a hydroperiod of 12 to 16
FINAL-Detailed Hydric Soils Study, Hollowell Mitigation Site

Page 8 of 11
February 2019
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
percent saturation during the growing season during where the water table is within 12 inches of the
surface (Table 3). Not all series have direct guidance. Where direct guidance was not available, the
taxonomic classification was used to determine a similar soil for a proposed hydroperiod.

Table 3. Wetland Hydroperiod Table for Soil at the Hollowell Site
Mapping
Unit/Series Taxonomic Classification Hydroperiod
Range*
Torhunta
loam
Coarse-loamy, siliceous, active, acid, thermic
Typic Humaquepts 12 to 16%
Pantego
loam
Fine-loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic
Umbric Paleaquults 12 to 16%
Bibb
sandy loam
Coarse-loamy, siliceous, active, acid, thermic
Typic Fluvaquents 12 to 16%
Kinston
loam
Fine-loamy, siliceous, semiactive, acid, thermic
Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts **12 to 16%
Lumbee
sandy loam
Fine-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal, siliceous,
subactive, thermic
Typic Endoaquults
**12 to 16%
Weston
loamy sand (Woodington)
Coarse-loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic
Typic Paleaquults **12 to 16%
*Hydroperiod follows US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update. North Carolina Interagency Review Team - October 24, 2016.
** Based series with similar taxonomy.
Following the suggested mitigation guidance and observed site soils, hydrologic success for these soils
should be expected to range from 9 to 12 percent in areas along the ridges and levees where hydric soil
transitions to upland areas. Areas in the lower elevations and concave –concave landforms will likley
range from 12 to 16 percent due to their landscape position. Limited areas in the lower elevations may be
saturated for periods greater than 16 percent, depending on the stream design and surface drainage after
construction.
Summary Conclusions and Recommendations
The Hollowell project consists of two tracts, the east and west tracts, currently in agricultural row crops
and located on the floodplain of the Neuse River within a landscape suitable for natural wetland
communities. The NRCS soil survey map units indicate the site may contain units of hydric soil and units
with potential hydric inclusions. To allow the current land use, the streams have been dredged and
straightened with ditches draining surface water and seepage areas. Jurisdictional wetlands are present
outside of the cultivated fields. The observed site soils have characteristics similar to soil map units know
to be hydric. Soils have a dark sandy surface underlain by a depleted layer usually containing
redoximorphic features. The hydric soil indicators present at the site are the A11-Depleted Below Dark
Surface, A12-Thick Dark Surface, and F3-Depleted Matrix. In a few areas the F2-Loamy Gleyed Matrix
and F6-Redox Dark Surface indicators were also observed. The A7-5cm Mucky Mineral and F8-Redox
Depressions indicators were found outside of the cultivated field and most likely were present prior to
cultivation that destroyed these indicators. These indicators point to a historically saturated condition
having a range of hydroperiods.

Drainage modifications at this site are due to agricultural use and management intended to increased
surface drainage and include dredged streams, ditching, and shallow surface contouring. Active
cultivation increases soil compaction, promotes loss of organic matter in the surface, and alters a normal
FINAL-Detailed Hydric Soils Study, Hollowell Mitigation Site

Page 9 of 11
February 2019
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
oxidation-reduction cycle characteristic of wetlands. The drainage significantly affects hydrology and soil
and surface biology.

Local hydrology is derived from a number of sources at this site. Beside the streams, seepage areas of
groundwater discharge are present along many portions of the slope. The seeps and streams appear to
provide an adequate hydrology source to support restored wetlands. Adjacent wetlands will be connected
to the restored site and provide additional hydrology and habitat connectivity.

Based upon this detailed study of site soils, the channelization and increased surface drainage have
primarily resulted in the loss of surface storage and lowered the groundwater table. Large areas of the
project soils exhibit a shallow, restrictive, clayey horizon and combined with the natural landscape
suggest the site can be modified to increase site storage with appropriate hydrology for a natural self-
sustaining wetland system. Stream restoration will raise the local groundwater and allow overbank
flooding to resume. Plugging and backfilling the ditches will reduce rapid drainage. Some open ditch is
allowable if the plugging material and construction are adequate to prevent inappropriate surface drainage
and protect against erosion prior to vegetative establishment.
Management Considerations
Due to compaction and long-term agricultural use, a shallow ripping of the surface to a depth of 8 to 12
inches above or slightly into the clayey horizon where present is suggested to decompact surface soil and
provide microtopographic relief. All construction and decompaction activities should limited or not
undertaken when soils are saturated. Equipment and tillage of wet soils permanently damages soils by
creating clods, ruts, and increasing compaction. Benefits of decompaction include, reduced runoff
velocity, higher infiltration rate, improved soil structural properties and site storage. Other benefits
include enhanced surface and subsurface biogeochemical cycling and storage. Additionally, this will
improve planting conditions to increase survival and enhance long -term growth. Surface roughening and
creation of shallow depressions throughout the restoration area will reestablish more natural conditions
and provide an appropriate landscape for diverse habitat. Outside of immediate floodplains of the stream,
reestablishment of a general flow paths such as found under natural conditions should be considered
where appropriate because a more tortuous flow path increases residence time of water moving through
the wetland while provide unique habitat.
Conclusion
Given the observed soil characteristics indicating past wetland hydrology and because of the favorable
landscape position combined with the potential sources for reconnecting existing hydrologic inputs, this
site appears suitable for hydrologic wetland restoration. After restoration of the streams and the ditches
are plugged/filled, surface detention and storage will increase across the site resulting in a more natural
hydroperiod representative of an appropriate wetland.

Successful hydrologic restoration at this site can provide numerous soils related functional uplifts. These
include, storage of floodwaters, trapping of sediments and pollutants from agricultural runoff, nutrient
cycling and a wide range of soil habitat. The wetland will increase infiltration of runoff and reestablish a
natural oxidation-reduction cycle that improves nutrient and chemical transformations. Other benefits
include increased organic carbon accumulation/capture, improved soil structure (surface primarily), and
increases in diversity and beneficial microbial and fungal populations important for soil health. Large
scale benefits may include diverse wildlife habitat and community connectivity.

This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Hollowell Mitigation Site in
Wayne County, NC. Any subsequent transfer of the report by the user shall be made by transferring the
complete report, including figures, maps, appendices, all attachments and disclaimers.

FINAL-Detailed Hydric Soils Study, Hollowell Mitigation Site

Page 10 of 11
February 2019
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
References
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
Web Soil Survey. Available online at the following link: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.
Accessed [September/16/2018].
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update. North Carolina Interagency Review Team - October 24, 2016. SAW-2013-00668-PN
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C.
V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
USDA 1974. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Soil
Survey of Wayne County North Carolina. June 1974)
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Field Indicators
of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.).
USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
Vepraskas, M. J. 1994. Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions. Tech. Bulletin 301.
North Carolina Ag. Research Service, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, North Carolina.
FINAL-Detailed Hydric Soils Study, Hollowell Mitigation Site

Page 11 of 11
February 2019
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Figures

APPENDICES

Appendix A Table of Soil Map Unit Characteristics
Appendix B Soil Boring Log
Appendix C Photos
Appendix D NRCS Web Soil Survey Report

SCALE 1:24000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Feet
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Miles
Declination
MN 9.54° WGN 1.66° E

MNGN
Legend
Proposed Easement Boundary
Map Name: GRANTHAM
Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 ft.
Figure 1. Hollowell Mitigation Site
Wayne County, NC
Figure 1. USGS Vicinity Map
SCALE 1:3600
0 100 200 300 400 500
Feet
0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.09
Miles
115
116
117
67
69
80
93
(C) Copyright 2016, Trimble Navigation Limited, OpenStreetMap contributors
NE
SESW
NW
N
E
S
W
LEGEND
Proposed Easement Bou
Hydric Soil
Wetland
Upland Area
Stream
Drainage Feature
Soil Profile
Scale: 1 inch = 300 ft.
Horizontal Datum: WGS84
Figure 2A Aerial View - EasternTract
Hydric Soils
Hollowell Mitigation Site
SCALE 1:3600
0 100 200 300 400 500
Feet
0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.09
Miles
107
118
119
120
30
31
60
(C) Copyright 2016, Trimble Navigation Limited, OpenStreetMap contributors
NE
SESW
NW
N
E
S
W
LEGEND
Proposed Easement Bou
Hydric Soil
Wetland
Upland Area
Stream
Drainage Feature
Soil Profile
Scale: 1 inch = 300 ft.
Horizontal Datum: WGS84
Figure 2B Aerial View - Western Tract
Hydric Soils
Hollowell Mitigation Site
SCALE 1:3600
0 100 200 300 400 500
Feet
0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.09
Miles
115
116
117
67
69
80
93
4101
4103
461462463464 465
466
468
470
471 472
473
474475
476
477
478
479
481
482
483484
485486
487
488
489
490
491
492
494
495
496
UT 2
UT 2A
UT 2C
UT 2B
W1
W2
(C) Copyright 2016, Trimble Navigation Limited, OpenStreetMap contributors
NE
SESW
NW
N
E
S
W
LEGEND
Proposed Easement Bou
Hydric Soil
Wetland
Upland Area
Stream
Drainage Feature
Soil Profile
4 Soil Boring
Scale: 1 inch = 300 ft.
Horizontal Datum: WGS84
Figure 3A. Aerial View - Eastern Tract
Soil Boring Points
Hollowell Mitigation Site
SCALE 1:3600
0 100 200 300 400 500
Feet
0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.09
Miles
107
118
119
120
30
31
60
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409410
4100
4101
4101
4102
4104
4105
410641084109
411
4110
4111
4112
412
413414
415
416417
418
419
420
421
422423
424
425426
427428 429
432
433434
435436437438439440
441
442
443444
445
446
447448
449
450451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
497498499
W3
W4
UT 1
HS 2
W5
(C) Copyright 2016, Trimble Navigation Limited, OpenStreetMap contributors
NE
SESW
NW
N
E
S
W
LEGEND
Proposed Easement Bou
Hydric Soil
Wetland
Upland Area
Stream
Drainage Feature
Soil Profile
4 Soil Boring
Scale: 1 inch = 300 ft.
Horizontal Datum: WGS84
Figure 3B Aerial View - Western Tract
Soil Boring Points
Hollowell Mitigation Site
Appendix A Table of Soil Map Unit Characteristics
Page 1 of 1
February 2019

Table 2. Hollowell - Characteristics of NRCS Mapping Units
Wetter ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------→ Drier
Mapping Unit/Series Tornunta Pantego Bibb Kinston Lumbee Weston
(Woodington)
Topographic Slope Setting
(down/across) linear-linear linear-concave concave-linear- linear-linear concave-linear- linear-concave
Natural Drainage Class very poorly very poorly poorly poorly poorly poorly
Runoff Class very low very low low very high negligible very low
Flooding/Ponding
Frequency none/none rare/none frequent/none frequent/none rare/none none/none
Hydrologic Soil Group A/D B/D A/D B/D B/D A/D
Permeability moderately rapid moderate moderate moderate moderate moderately rapid
Ksat
(most limiting layer)
mod high to high mod high to high high mod high to high mod high to high high
0.57 to 1.98 in/hr 0.57 to 1.98 in/hr 1.98 to 5.95 in/hr 0.57 to 1.98 in/hr 0.57 to 1.98 in/hr 1.98 to 5.95 in/hr
Available Water Capacity
(water storage in profile) low (~5.8 in) high (~10.2 in) mod (~7.2 in) high (~9.2 in) low (~4.4 in) mod (~7.0 in)
Taxonomic Classification Typic
Humaquepts
Umbric
Paleaquults
Typic
Fluvaquents
Fluvaquentic
Endoaquepts
Typic
Endoaquults Typic Paleaquults
*Hydroperiod Range 12 to 16% 12 to 16% 12 to 16% **12 to 16% **12 to 16% **12 to 16%
*Hydroperiod follows US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. North Carolina
Interagency Review Team - October 24, 2016.
** Based series with similar taxonomy.

Appendix B
Hollowell Site-Wayne County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
Page 1 of 3

Table. Representative Soil Profiles at Hollowell Mitigation Site (MLRA 133A, LRR P)
Depth
(inches)
Color Mottle Percentage
(Location*) Texture** Notes Matrix Mottle

SB 30 (June 21, 2018)
West Tract
Hydric Indicators WT absent
F3-Depleted Matrix
F8-Redox Depressions
0-9 7.5 YR 3/2 7.5 YR 4/6 5% (PL) SL
9-18 7.5 YR 4/1 7.5 YR 5/6 5% (PL) SCL
18-27 7.5 YR 4/1 7.5 YR 5/6 15% (M) SC
SB 31 (June 21, 2018)
West Tract
Hydric Indicators WT absent
A12-Thick Dark Surface
F2-Loamy Gleyed Matrix
0-8 N 2.5/- CL
8-15 2.5 Y 2.5/1 2.5 YR 4/4 15% (PL) SC restrictive
15-25 2.5 Y 4/1 10 YR 4/6 25% (M) SC restrictive
SB 60 (June 27, 2018)
West Tract
Hydric Indicators WT absent
A12-Thick Dark Surface
F8-Redox Depressions (relict due to land use?)
0-5 10 YR 3/1 SL
5-12 10 YR 2/1 SCL
12-24 7.5 YR 4/1 7.5 YR 4/6 25% (M) SC restrictive
SB 67 (June 27, 2018)
East Tract
Hydric Indicators WT absent
F3-Depleted Matrix
F6-Redox Dark Surface
0-8 10 YR 3/1 SL
8-13 10 YR 4/1 10 YR 4/3 5% (PL) SiL
13-22 10 YR 4/1 10 YR 5/8 15% (PL) SC
SB 69 (June 27, 2018)
East Tract (adjacent clear-cut)
Hydric Indicators WT absent
F3-Depleted Matrix
F6-Redox Dark Surface
0-6 10 YR 2/1 10 YR 3/3 5% (PL) fSL ~100% coated sand grains
6-12 10 YR 4/1 10 YR 5/2
10 YR 5/4
10% (M)
2% (PL) SL
12-20 10 YR 5/1 7.5 YR 5/8 5% (PL) SC restrictive
SB 80 (June 28, 2018)
East Tract
Hydric Indicators WT at -33
none (outside of hydric soil boundary)
0-10 10 YR 2/1 SL
10-27 10 YR 2/1 SCL
27-34 10 YR 2/2 SL
34-38 10 YR 3/3 LS
Appendix B
Hollowell Site-Wayne County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
Page 2 of 3

Table. Representative Soil Profiles at Hollowell Mitigation Site (MLRA 133A, LRR P)
Depth
(inches)
Color Mottle Percentage
(Location*) Texture** Notes Matrix Mottle

SB 93 (June 28, 2018)
East Tract
Hydric Indicators WT -absent
A12-Thick Dark Surface
0-8 10 YR 2/1 SL ~70% coated sand grains
8-25 10 YR 2/1 10 YR 5/2
10 YR 3/4
5% (M)
2% (PL) S
25-28 10 YR 5/1 10 YR 6/2 5% (PL) S
SB 115 (November 7, 2018)
Wetland W1
Hydric Indicators WT -8
F6-Redox Dark Surface
0-4 10 YR 2/1 fLS ~100% coated sand grains
4-10 10 YR 2/1 10 YR 4/1
10 YR 4/4
4% (PL)
2% (PL) SL
10-15 10 YR 3/1 10 YR 2/1 10% (PL) S
15-25 10 YR 3/3 10 YR 3/1 15% (PL) SL
SB 116 (January 16, 2019)
Wetland W2
Hydric Indicators WT -4
A7-Mucky Mineral
A12-Thick Dark Surface
F2-Loamy Gleyed Matrix
0-7 7.5 YR 2.5/1 mucky SL
7-20 N 2.5/- SiL
20-26 7.5 YR 5/2 7.5 YR 3/2 2% (PL) CL
SB 117 (January 16, 2019)
Wetland W2 (upland point)
Hydric Indicators WT -18
No indicators
0-2 7.5 YR 2.5/1 SL
2-7 7.5 YR 4/3 SL
7-20 7.5 YR 6/3 7.5 YR 4/6 4% (PL) SL
20-27 7.5 YR 6/4 7.5 YR 5/8 20% (PL) SCL
SB 118 (January 16, 2019)
Wetland W3
Hydric Indicators WT -4
F3-Depleted Matrix
F8-Redox Depressions
0-4 10 YR 2/2 SL
4-8 10 YR 4/2 10 YR 3/6 5% (PL) SL
8-12 7.5 YR 4/1 7.5 YR 3/4 10% (PL) SCL
12-19 7.5 YR 5/1 10 YR 4/6 20% (PL) SC
Appendix B
Hollowell Site-Wayne County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
Page 3 of 3

Table. Representative Soil Profiles at Hollowell Mitigation Site (MLRA 133A, LRR P)
Depth
(inches)
Color Mottle Percentage
(Location*) Texture** Notes Matrix Mottle

SB 119 (January 16, 2019)
Wetland W4
Hydric Indicators WT at -9
A7-Mucky Mineral
A12-Thick Dark Surface
F2-Loamy Gleyed Matrix
0-7 N 2.5/- Mucky L
7-18 7.5 YR 2.5/1 SL
18-28 7.5 YR 4/2 7.5 YR 5/1 15% (PL) SL
SB 120 (January 17, 2019)
Wetland W5
Hydric Indicators WT at -5
F3-Depleted Matrix
F8-Redox Depressions
0-3 7.5 YR 3/2 SiL
3-14 7.5 YR 5/1 5 YR 4/6 20% (PL) C
14-22 7.5 YR 5/1 7.5 YR 4/6
7.5 YR 4/1
25% (PL)
5% (PL) C
SB 107 (January 17, 2019)
Wetland W5
Hydric Indicators WT at -15
A11-Depleted Below Dark Surface
F3-Depleted Matrix
0-6 10 YR 3/2 SiL
6-19 7.5 YR 4/1 7.5 YR 3/3 5% (PL) SCL
19-23 7.5 YR 4/1 7.5 YR 4/6 20% (PL) SC
WT = observed apparent water table
*PL =pore lining, M = matrix
**Texture (follows USDA textural classification)
S = sand, L = loam, Si = silt, C = clay
f = fine, c = coarse (textural modifiers for sand)

Soil Scientist Seal
Appendix B
Hollowell Site – Wayne County, NC
Photo Log
September 2018
1

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

1. Profile # 30. Hydric Indicators F3-Depleted Matrix and F8-Redox Depressions along UT1.

2. Field after planting and profile #30.
Appendix B
Hollowell Site – Wayne County, NC
Photo Log
September 2018
2

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

3. Profile # 67. Hydric Indicators F3-Depleted Matrix and F6-Redox Dark Surface along UT2..

4. Field and landscape at profile #67.
Appendix B
Hollowell Site – Wayne County, NC
Photo Log
September 2018
3

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

5. Profile # 93. Hydric Indicators A12-Thick Dark Surface and S7- Dark Surface along UT2.

6. Field and landscape at profile #93.
Soil Map—Wayne County, North Carolina
(Hollowell)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/16/2018
Page 1 of 439154003915700391600039163003916600391690039172003915400391570039160003916300391660039169003917200760300760600760900761200761500761800762100762400762700763000
760300 760600 760900 761200 761500 761800 762100 762400 762700 763000 763300
35° 21' 53'' N 78° 8' 9'' W35° 21' 53'' N78° 6' 8'' W35° 20' 49'' N
78° 8' 9'' W35° 20' 49'' N
78° 6' 8'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
0 500 1000 2000 3000
Feet
0 200 400 800 1200
Meters
Map Scale: 1:14,000 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:20,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Wayne County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 15, Oct 3, 2017
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Oct 29, 2014—Nov
28, 2017
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Soil Map—Wayne County, North Carolina
(Hollowell)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/16/2018
Page 2 of 4
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
AyA Aycock very fine sandy loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes
36.3 4.1%
Bb Bibb sandy loam 51.4 5.8%
Ch Chewacla loam 41.9 4.7%
CrC2 Craven sandy loam, 6 to 10
percent slopes, eroded
(Gritney)
49.3 5.6%
Dr Dragston loamy sand 6.9 0.8%
Ex Exum very fine sandy loam 5.7 0.6%
GoA Goldsboro loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes, Southern
Coastal Plain
0.8 0.1%
Jo Johns sandy loam 19.3 2.2%
KaA Kalmia loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes
34.8 3.9%
KaD Kalmia loamy sand, 10 to 15
percent slopes (Winton)
13.1 1.5%
Ke Kenansville loamy sand 51.0 5.8%
Kn Kinston loam 33.8 3.8%
Le Leaf loam 12.2 1.4%
Lv Lumbee sandy loam 24.5 2.8%
Ly Lynchburg sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
0.5 0.1%
M-W Miscellaneous water 1.3 0.1%
Na Nahunta very fine sandy loam 10.5 1.2%
NoA Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes
13.4 1.5%
NoB Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6
percent slopes
86.8 9.8%
NoC Norfolk loamy sand, 6 to 10
percent slopes
52.1 5.9%
Po Pantego loam 42.5 4.8%
Ra Rains sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
5.8 0.7%
Rm Rimini sand 1.6 0.2%
RuA Ruston loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes (Orangeburg)
2.1 0.2%
RuB Ruston loamy sand, 2 to 6
percent slopes (Orangeburg)
22.4 2.5%
To Torhunta loam 25.5 2.9%
Tr Troup sand 61.8 7.0%
Soil Map—Wayne County, North Carolina Hollowell
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/16/2018
Page 3 of 4
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
W Water 16.5 1.9%
WaB Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6
percent slopes
34.2 3.9%
WaC Wagram loamy sand, 6 to 10
percent slopes
49.1 5.6%
WaD Wagram loamy sand, 10 to 15
percent slopes
14.3 1.6%
We Weston loamy sand
(Woodington)
61.0 6.9%
WhA Wickham loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes
1.7 0.2%
Totals for Area of Interest 884.2 100.0%
Soil Map—Wayne County, North Carolina Hollowell
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/16/2018
Page 4 of 4
Rater(s): K. VanStellDate: 2/5/19FLevel 3 - GeomorphologyPoorFairGood1 Concentrated Flow (Hydrology)Potential for concentrated flow/impairments immediately upstream of the project and no treatments are in placeSome potential for concentrated flow/impairments to reach restoration site, however, measures are in place to protect resources No potential for concentrated flow/impairments from adjacent land use G2 Impervious cover (Hydrology) Greater than 25% Between 10% and 25%Less than 10% G3 Land Use Change (Hydrology)Rapidly urbanizing/urbanSingle family homes/suburbanRural communities/slow growth or primarily forestedG4 Distance to Roads (Hydrology)Roads located in or adjacent to project reach and/or major roads proposed in 10 year DOT plansNo roads in or adjacent to project reach. No more than one major road proposed in 10 year DOT plans. No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No proposed roads in 10 year DOT plans.G5 Percent Forested (Hydrology)<= 20%>20% and <70%>=70%F6 Riparian Vegetation (Geomorphology)<50% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor width50-80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor width>80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor widthP7 Sediment Supply (Geomorphology)High sediment supply from upstream bank erosion and surface runoffModerate sediment supply from upstream bank erosion and surface runoffLow sediment supply. Upstream bank erosion and surface runoff is minimalG8Located on or downstream of a 303(d) listed stream TMDL list (Physicochemical)On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and no TMDL/WS Mgmt plan to address deficiencies On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and TMDL/WS Mgmt plan addressing deficiencies Not on 303(d) listG9 Agricultural Land Use (Physicochemical)Livestock access to stream and/or intensive cropland immediately upstream of project reach.Livestock access to stream and/or intensive cropland upstream of project reach. A sufficient reach of stream is between Ag. land use and project reach.There is little to no agricultural land uses or the livestock or cropland is far enough away from project reach to cause no impact to water quality or biology.P10 NPDES Permits (Physicochemical)Many NPDES permits within catchment or some within one mile of project reachA few NPDES permits within catchment and none within one mile of project reachNo NPDES permits within catchment and none within one mile of project reachG11Specific Conductance (uS/cm at 25oC) (Physicochemical)Piedmont = >229; Blue Ridge = >66Piedmont = 78-229; Blue Ridge = 41-66Piedmont = <78; Blue Ridge = <41N/A12 Watershed impoundments (Biology)Impoundment(s) located within 1 mile upstream or downstream of project area and/or has a negative effect on project area and fish passageNo impoundment within 1 mile upstream or downstream of project area OR impoundment does not adversely affect project area but a blockage could exist outside of 1 mile and impact fish passageNo impoundment upstream or downstream of project area OR impoundment provides beneficial effect on project area and allows for fish passageG13 Organism Recruitment (Biology)Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach is concrete, piped, or hardened. Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach has native bed and bank material, but is impaired.Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach has native bed and bank material.F14Percent of Catchment being Enhanced orRestoredLess than 40% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.40 to 60% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.Greater than 60% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.G15 OtherCategoriesDescription of Catchment ConditionRating (P/F/G)Catchment Assessment FormOverall Catchment Condition CATCHMENT ASSESSMENTRestoration PotentialPurpose: This form is used to determine the project's restoration potential.
Project Name: Hollowell
Reach ID: UT1‐R2
Restoration Potential:Level 3 ‐ Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type: Gc
Proposed Stream Type: E Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)
0.09 Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Region: Coastal Plain Proposed Condition Score (PCS)0.45 Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS)0
Drainage Area (sqmi):0.406 Change in Functional Condition (PCS ‐ ECS)0.36 Proposed BMP FFS ‐ Existing BMP FFS 0
Proposed Bed Material:Sand Percent Condition Change 400% Functional Change (%)
Existing Stream Length (ft) 1720 Existing Stream Length (ft)1720
Proposed Stream Length (ft):2008 Proposed Stream Length (ft)2008
Stream Slope (%): 0.4 Additional Stream Length (ft) 288
Flow Type: Perennial Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)155 Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 155
River Basin: Neuse Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)904 Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 904
Stream Temperature: Warmwater Proposed FFS ‐ Existing FFS 749 Total Proposed FFS ‐ Total Existing FFS 749
Data Collection Season: Winter/Spring Functional Change (%)484% Functional Change (%)483%
Valley Type: Unconfined Alluvial
Catchment Hydrology 0.30 0.30
Reach Runoff 0.30 0.30
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity 0.00 1.00
Large Woody Debris
Lateral Stability 0.44 1.00
Riparian Vegetation 0.03 0.83
Bed Material
Bed Form Diversity 0.10 1.00
Plan Form 0.00 1.00
Temperature
Bacteria
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Macros
Fish
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 70 0.3 0.30
Curve Number 70 0.3
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 2.7 0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 0
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)15 0.44
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 5 0.06
Right Canopy Coverage (%)5 0.06
Left Buffer Width (ft)00
Right Buffer Width (ft)00
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)
Pool Spacing Ratio 80
Pool Depth Ratio 10
Percent Riffle 80 0.3
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.04 0 0.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 70 0.3 0.30
Curve Number 70 0.3
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 11
Entrenchment Ratio 51
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)01
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 100 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)200 1
Right Buffer Width (ft)250 1
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)320 0.5
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)320 0.5
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)
Pool Spacing Ratio
Pool Depth Ratio 1.5 1
Percent Riffle 70 1
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.3 1 1.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functioning
Biology
Organic CarbonPhysicochemical
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning
0.96
Large Woody Debris
Bed Form Diversity 0.10
Bed Form Diversity 1.00
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity
Geomorphology
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT
0.83
Hydrology
1.00
Macros
Physicochemical Organic Carbon
Biology Macros
1.00
1.00
Functioning At Risk
0.09
0.14 Not Functioning
0.30
Reach Runoff 0.30
0.44
0.30 Functioning At Risk
0.45
Measurement Method
Hydraulics
1. Users input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull‐down menu
Functional Category  
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Hydrology
0.14 0.96
PCS
1.00
Geomorphology
ECS
Site Information and 
Performance Standard Stratification
Notes
0.30 Functioning At Risk
Hydrology
Geomorphology
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Function‐Based Parameters
Geomorphology
Floodplain Connectivity
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
0.00
1.00
0.82
Measurement Method
0.03
Roll Up Scoring
Not Functioning
Hydrology 0.30 0.30
Hydraulics 0.00
Functional ChangeProposed ParameterExisting ParameterFunctional Category
Large Woody Debris
0.00 Not Functioning0.00
Reach Runoff
Physicochemical
Biology
Rater(s): K. VanStell
Date: 2/5/19
F
Level 3 - Geomorphology
Poor Fair Good
1 Concentrated Flow (Hydrology)
Potential for concentrated flow/impairments
immediately upstream of the project and no
treatments are in place
Some potential for concentrated flow/impairments
to reach restoration site, however, measures are
in place to protect resources
No potential for concentrated flow/impairments
from adjacent land use G
2 Impervious cover (Hydrology)Greater than 25% Between 10% and 25%Less than 10% G
3 Land Use Change (Hydrology)Rapidly urbanizing/urban Single family homes/suburban Rural communities/slow growth or primarily
forested G
4 Distance to Roads (Hydrology)
Roads located in or adjacent to project reach
and/or major roads proposed in 10 year DOT
plans
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No more
than one major road proposed in 10 year DOT
plans.
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No
proposed roads in 10 year DOT plans.G
5 Percent Forested (Hydrology)<= 20%>20% and <70%>=70%F
6 Riparian Vegetation (Geomorphology)<50% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width
50-80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width
>80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width P
7 Sediment Supply (Geomorphology)High sediment supply from upstream bank erosion
and surface runoff
Moderate sediment supply from upstream bank
erosion and surface runoff
Low sediment supply. Upstream bank erosion and
surface runoff is minimal G
8
Located on or downstream of a 303(d)
listed stream TMDL list
(Physicochemical)
On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and no
TMDL/WS Mgmt plan to address deficiencies
On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and
TMDL/WS Mgmt plan addressing deficiencies Not on 303(d) list G
9 Agricultural Land Use (Physicochemical)Livestock access to stream and/or intensive
cropland immediately upstream of project reach.
Livestock access to stream and/or intensive
cropland upstream of project reach. A sufficient
reach of stream is between Ag. land use and
project reach.
There is little to no agricultural land uses or the
livestock or cropland is far enough away from
project reach to cause no impact to water quality
or biology.
P
10 NPDES Permits (Physicochemical)Many NPDES permits within catchment or some
within one mile of project reach
A few NPDES permits within catchment and none
within one mile of project reach
No NPDES permits within catchment and none
within one mile of project reach G
11 Specific Conductance (uS/cm at 25oC)
(Physicochemical)Piedmont = >229; Blue Ridge = >66 Piedmont = 78-229; Blue Ridge = 41-66 Piedmont = <78; Blue Ridge = <41 N/A
12 Watershed impoundments (Biology)
Impoundment(s) located within 1 mile upstream or
downstream of project area and/or has a negative
effect on project area and fish passage
No impoundment within 1 mile upstream or
downstream of project area OR impoundment
does not adversely affect project area but a
blockage could exist outside of 1 mile and impact
fish passage
No impoundment upstream or downstream of
project area OR impoundment provides beneficial
effect on project area and allows for fish passage
G
13 Organism Recruitment (Biology)Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach is concrete, piped, or hardened.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach has native bed and bank material,
but is impaired.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach has native bed and bank material.F
14 Percent of Catchment being Enhanced or
Restored
Less than 40% of the total catchment area is
draining to the project reach.
40 to 60% of the total catchment area is draining
to the project reach.
Greater than 60% of the total catchment area is
draining to the project reach.G
15 Other
Categories Description of Catchment Condition Rating
(P/F/G)
Catchment Assessment Form
Overall Catchment Condition
CATCHMENT ASSESSMENT
Restoration Potential
Purpose: This form is used to determine the project's restoration potential.
Project Name: Hollowell
Reach ID: UT2‐R2
Restoration Potential:Level 3 ‐ Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type: F
Proposed Stream Type: E Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)
0.10 Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Region: Coastal Plain Proposed Condition Score (PCS)0.45 Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS)0
Drainage Area (sqmi):0.4 Change in Functional Condition (PCS ‐ ECS)0.35 Proposed BMP FFS ‐ Existing BMP FFS 0
Proposed Bed Material:Sand Percent Condition Change 350% Functional Change (%)
Existing Stream Length (ft) 801 Existing Stream Length (ft)801
Proposed Stream Length (ft):892 Proposed Stream Length (ft)892
Stream Slope (%): 0.45 Additional Stream Length (ft) 91
Flow Type: Perennial Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)80 Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 80
River Basin: Neuse Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)401 Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 401
Stream Temperature: Warmwater Proposed FFS ‐ Existing FFS 321 Total Proposed FFS ‐ Total Existing FFS 321
Data Collection Season: Winter/Spring Functional Change (%)401% Functional Change (%)401%
Valley Type: Unconfined Alluvial
Catchment Hydrology 0.30 0.30
Reach Runoff 0.30 0.30
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity 0.00 1.00
Large Woody Debris
Lateral Stability 0.64 1.00
Riparian Vegetation 0.00 0.83
Bed Material
Bed Form Diversity 0.20 1.00
Plan Form 0.00 1.00
Temperature
Bacteria
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Macros
Fish
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 70 0.3 0.30
Curve Number 70 0.3
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 4.9 0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 0
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)10 0.64
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 0 0
Right Canopy Coverage (%)00
Left Buffer Width (ft)00
Right Buffer Width (ft)00
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)
Pool Spacing Ratio 7 0.3
Pool Depth Ratio 1.1 0
Percent Riffle 80 0.3
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.04 0 0.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 70 0.3 0.30
Curve Number 70 0.3
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 11
Entrenchment Ratio 51
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)01
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 100 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)200 1
Right Buffer Width (ft)220 1
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)320 0.5
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)320 0.5
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)
Pool Spacing Ratio 51
Pool Depth Ratio 1.5 1
Percent Riffle 70 1
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.3 1 1.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Large Woody Debris
0.00 Not Functioning0.00
Reach Runoff
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Function‐Based Parameters
Geomorphology
Floodplain Connectivity
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
0.00
1.00
0.75
Measurement Method
0.00
Roll Up Scoring
Not Functioning
Hydrology 0.30 0.30
Hydraulics 0.00
Functional ChangeProposed ParameterExisting ParameterFunctional Category
Hydraulics
1. Users input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull‐down menu
Functional Category  
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Hydrology
0.21 0.96
PCS
1.00
Geomorphology
ECS
Site Information and 
Performance Standard Stratification
Notes
0.30 Functioning At Risk
Hydrology
Geomorphology
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
1.00
1.00
Functioning At Risk
0.10
0.21 Not Functioning
0.30
Reach Runoff 0.30
0.64
0.30 Functioning At Risk
0.45
Measurement Method
Physicochemical Organic Carbon
Biology Macros
Bed Form Diversity 0.20
Bed Form Diversity 1.00
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity
Geomorphology
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT
0.83
Hydrology
1.00
Macros
Functioning
Biology
Organic CarbonPhysicochemical
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning
0.96
Large Woody Debris
FLOOD HAZAR D INFORMATION
SPECIAL FLOODHAZARD AREAS
OTHER AREAS OFFLOOD HAZARD
OTHERAREAS
GENERALSTRUCTURES
Without Base Flood Ele vation (BFE)
With BF E or Depth
Regulator y Flood way
Are as Dete rmined to be Outside the 0.2% A nnual C hance Flood plain
Non-accred ite d Le vee, Dik e, or F loodwall
Zone A ,V, A99 Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Zone X
HTTP://FRIS.NC.GOV/FR IS
THE INFORMAT ION DEPICTED ON THIS M AP AND SUPP OR TINGDOCUMENTATION AR E ALSO AVAILAB LE IN DIGI TAL FORMAT AT
NORTH CAROLIN A FLO ODPLAIN MAPPING PROG RAM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPNORTH C AROLIN A
PANEL
SE E FIS REPOR T F OR ZONE DESCR IPTIONS AND INDEX MAP
Cross Sections with 1% Annual ChanceWater Sur face Elevation (B FE)
Coas tal Transe ct
OTHERFEATURES
Prof ile B aseline
Hydrog raphic F eature
Limit of Study
Limit of Mode rate Wave Action (LiM WA )
Jurisdiction B oundar y
Accred ited or P rovis ionally AccreditedLevee, Dik e, or F loodwall
Coas tal Transe ct B aseline
SCA LE
1 inc h = 1,00 0 fe et
Map Projec tion:North Carolina State Plane Projection Feet (Zone 3200)Datum: NAD 1983 (Horizontal), NAVD 1988 (Vertical)
PANEL LOCATOR
LOGO LOGO
NOTES TO US ERS
For informat ion and qu estions abo ut this map, availab le prod ucts asso ciated with t his FIRM including historic ve rsio ns o f this FIRM, how to o rd er pro ducts o r th e National Flood Insura nce Program in ge neral,plea se call the FEMA Ma p Informa tion eXchang e at 1-87 7-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336 -26 27) or visit the FEMA Ma p Service Cente r we bsite at http://msc.fema .gov. An acco mpanyin g Floo d Insurance Stu dy rep ort , Letter of MapRevision (LOMR) or Lett er o f Map Amendment (LOMA) revising portion s of this pan el, and digital versions of th isFIRM may be a vailab le. Visit the North Ca ro lin a Floo dpla in Mapping Pro gra m w ebsit e at ht tp://www.ncf lood maps.co m,or cont act t he FEMA Map Service Ce nter.
Commun ities annexin g lan d on a djacent FIR M pane ls must obta in a current copy of t he adjacent pa nel a s we ll asthe curren t FIRM Ind ex. These may b e ordered d irec tly from the Map Service Center at t he number liste d abo ve.
For communit y an d co untywide map d ates re fer to the Flood Insu ran ce Study report fo r th is jurisdiction.
To d etermin e if floo d insurance is a vailab le in the community, co ntact yo ur Insu ra nce agent o r call th e NationalFlood I nsuran ce Program at 1-8 00-638-662 0.
Flood I nsuran ce Study (FI S) mean s an ex amin atio n, evalu atio n, and determination of f lood hazards, corresp ondingwater su rfa ce e levations , floo d hazard risk zone s, a nd oth er f lood data in a community issued by the North Ca ro lin aFloodplain Map ping Program (NCFMP). Th e Floo d Insurance Stud y (FIS) is comprised of the following produ ctsused togeth er: the Digital Flood Ha zard Dat abase, the Water Su rfa ce Ele vation Ra sters, the d igitally derived,autoge nerated Flood In surance Ra te Map and th e Floo d Insuranc e Survey Report. A Flood In surance Survey is acompilation and pre sen tatio n of flood risk data for sp ecific w atercourse s, lakes, and coastal flood hazard areas with ina co mmunity. This report contains detailed floo d eleva tion data, d ata tab les and FI RM in dices. Wh en a flood stud y iscompleted for the NFI P, the digital informa tion , re ports a nd ma ps a re assemb led into an FIS. Information shown onthis FIRM is p rovid ed in digita l forma t by the NCFMP. Base map inf ormatio n sh own on this FIRM wa s p rovid ed indigital format b y th e NCFMP. The source of this informa tion can be de termine d from th e meta data a vailab le in thedigital FL OOD dat abase and in t he Te chnic al Support Da ta N oteb ook (TSDN).
ACC RED ITED LEVEE NO TES TO USERS: If a n accredited lev ee note appe ars on this pan el check w ith your loca lcommunity to obtain mo re info rmatio n, su ch as th e estimated lev el of protection provided (which may ex ceed the1-p ercent -an nual-chance level) and Eme rge ncy Act ion Pla n, on t he le vee syst em(s) show n a s providing p ro tection.To mitigate f lood risk in residual risk area s, p rop ert y own ers an d residents are e ncou ra ged to con sider floo dinsurance and flood proofing or othe r p ro tective measures. For more information on floo d in surance, interestedparties should vis it the FEMA We bsite at http://ww w.fema.gov/busin ess/nfip/in dex.sht m.
PRO VISIONALLY AC CREDITED LEVEE NOTES TO USERS: If a Pro visionally Accre dite d Levee (PAL) noteappears on th is panel, check with your lo cal co mmun ity to ob tain more information, such as the e stimated level ofprotection p ro vided (w hich may exceed the 1-percent-annu al-chance level) and Emergen cy Action Plan, on thelevee system(s) show n as providin g protectio n. To maintain accreditation, the levee o wner or co mmun ity isrequired t o su bmit the da ta and document ation necessary to c omply with Section 6 5.10 o f the NFIP reg ula tions.If the communit y or own er does not p ro vide the nec essary d ata an d documen tatio n or if the da ta and doc umenta tionprovided indicate s th e le vee syste m doe s no t comply with Se ction 65 .10 requirement s, FEMA will revise the floo dhazard and risk info rmatio n for this a rea to reflect d e-accredit atio n of the levee sy stem. To mitigate floo d ris k inresidual risk areas, property owne rs and residents are encourage d to conside r f lood insurance and floo dproofingor o ther protective measures. For more info rmatio n on flood insurance, in tereste d parties shou ld visit the FEMAWebsite at http ://www.f ema.go v/bu siness/n fip/index.shtm.
LIMIT OF MODERATE WAVE ACTION NO TES TO USERS: For s ome coastal floo ding zon es t he AE Zon ecategory ha s b een divided by a Limit of Moderate Wave Action (LiMWA). The LiMWA rep resents the approxima telandward limit of the 1.5-foot b re aking wave. The effect s of wave hazards b etween the VE Zone and th e LiMWA(or be tween th e s horeline an d the L iMWA fo r a re as wh ere VE Zones are not iden tified) will be simila r t o, but lesssevere than those in the VE Zon e.
COAS TAL BARR IE R RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBR S) NOTE
This map may includ e approximate bo undaries o f the CBRS fo r informa tiona l pu rp oses on ly. Floo d in surance is n otavailable within CBRS areas for stru ctu res tha t are newly b uilt or s ubst antially improved on or after the date(s)indica ted on the ma p. For more informat ion see http://www.fws.gov/cb ra, the FIS Report, or call the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service Cu stomer Service Cente r a t 1-800-344 -WILD.
CBRS Area Other wise Protected Area
Channel, C ulve r t, or Storm Se wer
0.2% A nnual Chance F lood Hazar d, Areas of 1% A nnual Chance F lood with Ave rage De pth Les s T han One F oot or With Drainag e Are as of Les s Than One Square M ileFuture Conditions 1% A nnual Chance F lood Haz ardArea with Re duced Flood R is k d ue to Le veeSee Notes
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
25 48
1:12,00 0
%,012 18.2
!(8
2240000 FEET580000 FEET
2240000 FEET600000 FEET 2260000 FEET 600000 FEET
2260000 FEET
580000 FEET
This digit al Flood In surance Ra te Map (FIRM) wa s p rod uce d through a uniquecooperative p artnership betw een the State of No rth Caro lina and th e FederalEmergency Mana gemen t Agen cy (FEMA). The Sta te o f North Carolina hasimplemented a long term approach to flo odplain man ageme nt to decre ase thecosts ass ociated with floo din g. This is demo nstrate d by the State 's commitmentto map floo d ha zard are as at t he loc al level. As a part of this e ffort, the Sta te ofNorth Carolina has joined in a Co operating Technical State ag re ement withFEMA to produce and maintain this d igital FIRM.
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PRO GRAM))))))))))))i8435
i8407
i8372 i8341i8356 i8275 i8226i8253 i8211
i8043
i8435
i8059
i8304
i821187.787.5
83.884.887.3
83.88 9 .3
83.783.787.1
83.886.8
8
6
.
8
83.783.8
83.8
84.8
8 3 .8
8 4 .4
8 3 .8
8 4 .2
84.1
83.58 4 .0
84.0 83.983.984.883.68 3 .9 8 4 .0
84.683.883.784.584.384.184.484.083.984.083.9i8407
i8145
i8088
i8372
i8341
i8356
i8275
i8226i8253
i8043i8059
i8145
i8088i8304
K a re n C ir FerryB ridgeRdC ra b a p p le LnKennedy Dr
K A n d M D rMillCreekRdN e u s e Is la n d s L nRichardsonBridgeRdLassiter RdSwine RdWilliford Rd Buckleberry RdBuckleberry RdS te v e n s M ill R d
B rogdenRd<Mill Creek(South)
Moccasin
Creek
BurdenCreekNeuse RiverFal
l
i
ngCr
eekMoc
c
as
i
nCr
e
ekMoccasinCreekMoccasi
nCreekNeuseRiverNeuseRiverWAYNE COUNTYUNINCORPORATED ARE AS370254
JOHNSTON COUNTYUNINCORPORATED ARE AS370138
ZO NE AE
ZO NE AE
ZONE AE
ZO NE AE
ZO NE AE
ZO NE AE
ZONE AE
ZONE AE
ZO NE AE
ZONE AE
i077
i088
i074
i028
i059
i113
i321
i094
i316
i165
i308
i221
i286
i274
i253
i229
i015
i023
i138
i221
i259
i253
Z461 0Z
Z4 611Z
Z4 612Z
Z461 3Z
EZ0183
78°8'0"W
78°8'0"W
78°8'30"W
78°8'30"W
78°9'0"W
78°9'0"W
78°9'30"W
78°9'30"W
78°10'0"W
78°10'0"W
78°10'3 0"W
78°1 0'30"W
78°11'0"W
78°11'0"W
78°11'30"W
78°11'30"W
35°23'3 0"N
35°23'30"N
35°23'0 "N
35°23'0"N
35°22'3 0"N 35°22'30"N
35°22'0 "N 35°22'0"N
35°21'3 0"N
35°21'30"N
35°21'0 "N 35°21'0"N
35°20'3 0"N 35°20'30"N
Wilson
Johnston Greene
Wayne
LenoirSampson
Duplin
2665 2675 2685 2695 3605 3615 3625 3635 3645
3633 3643
2650 3600 3610 3620 3630 3640 3650
2666 2686 3606 3626 3646
2664 2674 2684 2694 3604 3614 3624 3634 3644
2662 2683 2693 3603 3613 3623
2652 2682 2692 3602 3612 3622 3632 3642
2651 2660 2680 3601 3611 3621 3631 3641 3651
2528 2548 2568 2588 3509 3519 3529 3539 3549 3559
3508 3518 3528 3538 3548 3558
2506 2527 2537 2547 2557 2567 2577 2587 2597 3506 3527 3537 3547 3557
2526 2536 2546 2556 2566 2576 2586 2596 3526 3536 3546 3556
2505 2515 2525 2535 2545 2555 2565 257 5 2585 2595 3505 3515 3524 354425142524253425442554256425742584259435043514
2523 2533 2543 2553 2563 257 3 2583 2593 3502 3522 3542254225522562257225822592
2560 3501 3511 3521 3531 3540
I
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
0 300 600150Meters
BM5 510 D Nor th C arolina Ge ode tic Sur ve y be nch mark
BM5 510 ?BM5 510z
National Geod etic Sur vey benc h markContractor Es t. NCF M P Sur vey b ench m ark
Panel Contain s:
COMMUNIT Y CID PANE L SUFFIX
2548370138 K2548WAYNE COUNT Y 370254 KJOHNSTON COUNTY
VERSION NU MBER2.3.3.2
MAP NUMBER 3720254800K
MAP RE VISEDJune 20, 2018
FLOOD HAZAR D INFORMATION
SPECIAL FLOODHAZARD AREAS
OTHER AREAS OFFLOOD HAZARD
OTHERAREAS
GENERALSTRUCTURES
Without Base Flood Ele vation (BFE)
With BF E or Depth
Regulator y Flood way
Are as Dete rmined to be Outside the 0.2% A nnual C hance Flood plain
Non-accred ite d Le vee, Dik e, or F loodwall
Zone A ,V, A99 Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Zone X
HTTP://FRIS.NC.GOV/FR IS
THE INFORMAT ION DEPICTED ON THIS M AP AND SUPP OR TINGDOCUMENTATION AR E ALSO AVAILAB LE IN DIGI TAL FORMAT AT
NORTH CAROLIN A FLO ODPLAIN MAPPING PROG RAM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPNORTH C AROLIN A
PANEL
SE E FIS REPOR T F OR ZONE DESCR IPTIONS AND INDEX MAP
Cross Sections with 1% Annual ChanceWater Sur face Elevation (B FE)
Coas tal Transe ct
OTHERFEATURES
Prof ile B aseline
Hydrog raphic F eature
Limit of Study
Limit of Mode rate Wave Action (LiM WA )
Jurisdiction B oundar y
Accred ited or P rovis ionally AccreditedLevee, Dik e, or F loodwall
Coas tal Transe ct B aseline
SCA LE
1 inc h = 1,00 0 fe et
Map Projec tion:North Carolina State Plane Projection Feet (Zone 3200)Datum: NAD 1983 (Horizontal), NAVD 1988 (Vertical)
PANEL LOCATOR
LOGO LOGO
NOTES TO US ERS
For informat ion and qu estions abo ut this map, availab le prod ucts asso ciated with t his FIRM including historic ve rsio ns o f this FIRM, how to o rd er pro ducts o r th e National Flood Insura nce Program in ge neral,plea se call the FEMA Ma p Informa tion eXchang e at 1-87 7-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336 -26 27) or visit the FEMA Ma p Service Cente r we bsite at http://msc.fema .gov. An acco mpanyin g Floo d Insurance Stu dy rep ort , Letter of MapRevision (LOMR) or Lett er o f Map Amendment (LOMA) revising portion s of this pan el, and digital versions of th isFIRM may be a vailab le. Visit the North Ca ro lin a Floo dpla in Mapping Pro gra m w ebsit e at ht tp://www.ncf lood maps.co m,or cont act t he FEMA Map Service Ce nter.
Commun ities annexin g lan d on a djacent FIR M pane ls must obta in a current copy of t he adjacent pa nel a s we ll asthe curren t FIRM Ind ex. These may b e ordered d irec tly from the Map Service Center at t he number liste d abo ve.
For communit y an d co untywide map d ates re fer to the Flood Insu ran ce Study report fo r th is jurisdiction.
To d etermin e if floo d insurance is a vailab le in the community, co ntact yo ur Insu ra nce agent o r call th e NationalFlood I nsuran ce Program at 1-8 00-638-662 0.
Flood I nsuran ce Study (FI S) mean s an ex amin atio n, evalu atio n, and determination of f lood hazards, corresp ondingwater su rfa ce e levations , floo d hazard risk zone s, a nd oth er f lood data in a community issued by the North Ca ro lin aFloodplain Map ping Program (NCFMP). Th e Floo d Insurance Stud y (FIS) is comprised of the following produ ctsused togeth er: the Digital Flood Ha zard Dat abase, the Water Su rfa ce Ele vation Ra sters, the d igitally derived,autoge nerated Flood In surance Ra te Map and th e Floo d Insuranc e Survey Report. A Flood In surance Survey is acompilation and pre sen tatio n of flood risk data for sp ecific w atercourse s, lakes, and coastal flood hazard areas with ina co mmunity. This report contains detailed floo d eleva tion data, d ata tab les and FI RM in dices. Wh en a flood stud y iscompleted for the NFI P, the digital informa tion , re ports a nd ma ps a re assemb led into an FIS. Information shown onthis FIRM is p rovid ed in digita l forma t by the NCFMP. Base map inf ormatio n sh own on this FIRM wa s p rovid ed indigital format b y th e NCFMP. The source of this informa tion can be de termine d from th e meta data a vailab le in thedigital FL OOD dat abase and in t he Te chnic al Support Da ta N oteb ook (TSDN).
ACC RED ITED LEVEE NO TES TO USERS: If a n accredited lev ee note appe ars on this pan el check w ith your loca lcommunity to obtain mo re info rmatio n, su ch as th e estimated lev el of protection provided (which may ex ceed the1-p ercent -an nual-chance level) and Eme rge ncy Act ion Pla n, on t he le vee syst em(s) show n a s providing p ro tection.To mitigate f lood risk in residual risk area s, p rop ert y own ers an d residents are e ncou ra ged to con sider floo dinsurance and flood proofing or othe r p ro tective measures. For more information on floo d in surance, interestedparties should vis it the FEMA We bsite at http://ww w.fema.gov/busin ess/nfip/in dex.sht m.
PRO VISIONALLY AC CREDITED LEVEE NOTES TO USERS: If a Pro visionally Accre dite d Levee (PAL) noteappears on th is panel, check with your lo cal co mmun ity to ob tain more information, such as the e stimated level ofprotection p ro vided (w hich may exceed the 1-percent-annu al-chance level) and Emergen cy Action Plan, on thelevee system(s) show n as providin g protectio n. To maintain accreditation, the levee o wner or co mmun ity isrequired t o su bmit the da ta and document ation necessary to c omply with Section 6 5.10 o f the NFIP reg ula tions.If the communit y or own er does not p ro vide the nec essary d ata an d documen tatio n or if the da ta and doc umenta tionprovided indicate s th e le vee syste m doe s no t comply with Se ction 65 .10 requirement s, FEMA will revise the floo dhazard and risk info rmatio n for this a rea to reflect d e-accredit atio n of the levee sy stem. To mitigate floo d ris k inresidual risk areas, property owne rs and residents are encourage d to conside r f lood insurance and floo dproofingor o ther protective measures. For more info rmatio n on flood insurance, in tereste d parties shou ld visit the FEMAWebsite at http ://www.f ema.go v/bu siness/n fip/index.shtm.
LIMIT OF MODERATE WAVE ACTION NO TES TO USERS: For s ome coastal floo ding zon es t he AE Zon ecategory ha s b een divided by a Limit of Moderate Wave Action (LiMWA). The LiMWA rep resents the approxima telandward limit of the 1.5-foot b re aking wave. The effect s of wave hazards b etween the VE Zone and th e LiMWA(or be tween th e s horeline an d the L iMWA fo r a re as wh ere VE Zones are not iden tified) will be simila r t o, but lesssevere than those in the VE Zon e.
COAS TAL BARR IE R RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBR S) NOTE
This map may includ e approximate bo undaries o f the CBRS fo r informa tiona l pu rp oses on ly. Floo d in surance is n otavailable within CBRS areas for stru ctu res tha t are newly b uilt or s ubst antially improved on or after the date(s)indica ted on the ma p. For more informat ion see http://www.fws.gov/cb ra, the FIS Report, or call the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service Cu stomer Service Cente r a t 1-800-344 -WILD.
CBRS Area Other wise Protected Area
Channel, C ulve r t, or Storm Se wer
0.2% A nnual Chance F lood Hazar d, Areas of 1% A nnual Chance F lood with Ave rage De pth Les s T han One F oot or With Drainag e Are as of Les s Than One Square M ileFuture Conditions 1% A nnual Chance F lood Haz ardArea with Re duced Flood R is k d ue to Le veeSee Notes
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
2568
1:12,00 0
%,012 18.2
!(8
2260000 FEET580000 FEET
2260000 FEET600000 FEET 2280000 FEET 600000 FEET
2280000 FEET
580000 FEET
This digit al Flood In surance Ra te Map (FIRM) wa s p rod uce d through a uniquecooperative p artnership betw een the State of No rth Caro lina and th e FederalEmergency Mana gemen t Agen cy (FEMA). The Sta te o f North Carolina hasimplemented a long term approach to flo odplain man ageme nt to decre ase thecosts ass ociated with floo din g. This is demo nstrate d by the State 's commitmentto map floo d ha zard are as at t he loc al level. As a part of this e ffort, the Sta te ofNorth Carolina has joined in a Co operating Technical State ag re ement withFEMA to produce and maintain this d igital FIRM.
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PRO GRAM))))))))))))
i8043
i7516
i7779
i7598
i7899
i8043
i7869
i8006
i7991
i7800
83.782.494.1
82.486.98
2
.
4 88.590.38 2 .4
83.782.482.482.482.482.492.1
8
2
.
4
82.482.482.4
82.48
3
.575.281.37 9 .7
75.88
3
.
4
8
3
.
3 80.2i7899
i7516
i7869
i7779
i7598
i8006
i7991
i7800
N e u s e Is landsLnB j D r
Serenity CirP
e
g
g
y

L
n
Treetop RdElmAve
S
o
uthfork Pl
PleasantP inesDr
E w in g D rKnollw o o d D r
Forest CtMa
r
y

L
n
T
o
lar
S
t
P
a
t
e

C
ir
Randys DrUnion StNe
a
l Dr
Oak ValleyFarmsDr
A
ngela DrSpri
ngBr
a
nchRd
Summ itD r
W insto n D rMe
mo
r
y
LnJ
j
L
n
Perk i n s S t
Bl
e
s
s
e
d
LnHen ry s H illD rJames Hinson RdMannLnRosewood RdFerryBridgeRdBlackJackChurchRdQuakerD rBlack Jack Church RdS e r e n ity D rStevensMillRdO ldS m ithfieldR d<
BeaverdamCreekCharlesBranch
FallingCreekEasternTributarytoCharlesBranch
NeuseRiverNeuseRiverNe u s e Ri v e rNeuseRiver
WAYNE COUNTYUNINCORPORATED ARE AS370254
ZONE AE ZO NE AE
ZO NE AE
ZO NE AE
ZONE AE
ZO NE AE
ZO NE AE
ZO NE AE
i004
i097
i038
i110i103
i081
i008
i070
i035
i058
i013
i088
i062
i028
i025
i066
i051
i041 i017
EZ0 161
EZ0178
EZ0181
EZ0182
78°4'0"W
78°4'0"W
78°4'30"W
78°4'30"W
78°5'0"W
78°5'0"W
78°5'30"W
78°5'30"W
78°6'0"W
78°6'0"W
78°6'30"W
78°6'30"W
78°7'0"W
78°7'0"W
78°7'30"W
78°7'30"W
35°23'3 0"N
35°23'30"N
35°23'0 "N
35°23'0"N
35°22'3 0"N
35°22'30"N
35°22'0 "N
35°22'0"N
35°21'3 0"N
35°21'30"N
35°21'0 "N
35°21'0"N
35°20'3 0"N
35°20'30"N
Wilson
Johnston Greene
Wayne
LenoirSampson
Duplin
2665 2675 2685 2695 3605 3615 3625 3635 3645
3633 3643
2650 3600 3610 3620 3630 3640 3650
2666 2686 3606 3626 3646
2664 2674 2684 2694 3604 3614 3624 3634 3644
2662 2683 2693 3603 3613 3623
2652 2682 2692 3602 3612 3622 3632 3642
2651 2660 2680 3601 3611 3621 3631 3641 3651
2528 2548 2568 2588 3509 3519 3529 3539 3549 3559
3508 3518 3528 3538 3548 3558
2506 2527 2537 2547 2557 2567 2577 2587 2597 3506 3527 3537 3547 3557
2526 2536 2546 2556 2566 2576 2586 2596 3526 3536 3546 3556
2505 2515 2525 2535 2545 2555 2565 257 5 2585 2595 3505 3515 3524 354425142524253425442554256425742584259435043514
2523 2533 2543 2553 2563 257 3 2583 2593 3502 3522 3542254225522562257225822592
2560 3501 3511 3521 3531 3540
I
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
0 300 600150Meters
BM5 510 D Nor th C arolina Ge ode tic Sur ve y be nch mark
BM5 510 ?BM5 510z
National Geod etic Sur vey benc h markContractor Es t. NCF M P Sur vey b ench m ark
Panel Contain s:
COMMUNIT Y CID PANE L SUFFIX
2568370254 KWAYNE COUNT Y
VERSION NU MBER2.3.3.2
MAP NUMBER 3720256800K
MAP RE VISEDJune 20, 2018

Appendix C - Site Analysis Data

WLS Neuse 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Hollowell Mitigation Project

Stream Design Parameters and Morphology Tables
NC Rural Coastal Plain Regional Curve Comparison
NC Coastal Plain Headwater Channel Form Comparison
USGS Regression Flow Analysis
Design Channel Report
BMP Design Calculations
Sediment Transport Calculations
Culvert Crossings Analysis

Design Plan ‐ Proposed Design Criteria
Hollowell Mitigation Project
Stream Reach: UT1‐R1
Parameter MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 17.6 17.6
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 9.1 10.6 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 1.12 1.25 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 10.4 13.6 10.0 15.0
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 46.9 48.8 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 20.0 40.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 3.1 3.7 >2.2 >2.2 4.3 8.6
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 2.22 2.95 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.4
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.7 3.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1
Meander Length, Lm (ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf  ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A
Sinuosity, K ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0050 0.0150
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Slope Riffle, Sriff (ft/ft) 0.0020 0.0070 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.004 0.006
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan 0.1 0.2 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.5
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0000 0.0031 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.0000 0.0010
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 2.9 3.3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 2.0 2.7
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.6 2.6 1.5 3.5 7.7 10.5
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) 10.1 18.7 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 5.6 7.0
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 0.9 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.2 1.5
Pool‐Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 21.0 78.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 20.0 40.0
Pool‐Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 2.3 7.4 3.5 7.0 4.3 8.6
0.0390
‐‐‐ 1.2
0.1 2.1
4.6
0.3
18.0
0.3
1.03 1.03
0.0040 0.0040
0.0039
incised E5/ ditched DA/E5 DA/E5
2.5 ‐‐‐ 2.5
Existing Site Data Composite Reference Ratios Proposed Design Values
0.194 ‐‐‐0.194
DA
Design Plan ‐ Proposed Design Criteria
Hollowell Mitigation Project
Stream Reach: UT1‐R2
Parameter MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 10.1 16.2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 8.2 11.1 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 1.5 2 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 5 12.3 10.0 15.0
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 30 70 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 30.0 60.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 1.3 1.5 >2.2 >2.2 4.0 7.9
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 1.3 3.1 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 0.9 1.6 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.2
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.7 2.7 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1
Meander Length, Lm (ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 53.0 100.0
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 7.0 14.0 7.0 13.2
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 15.0 23.0
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 30.0 55.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf  ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 3.5 8.0 4.0 7.3
Sinuosity, K 1.2 1.4
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0050 0.0150
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Slope Riffle, Sriff (ft/ft) 0.0030 0.0040 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.004 0.006
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.7
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0000 0.0031 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.0010 0.0030
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 2.9 3.3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1.1 1.4
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 1.9 1.7 1.5 3.5 1.9 2.4
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) 10.1 18.7 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 9.1 11.3
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 0.9 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.2 1.5
Pool‐Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 33.0 104.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 27.0 53.0
Pool‐Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 4.0 9.4 3.5 7.0 3.6 7.0
Existing Site Data Composite Reference Ratios Proposed Design Values
0.388 ‐‐‐0.388
incised E5/ ditched E5 E5/C5
4.3 ‐‐‐ 4.3
0.0039
‐‐‐ 4.4
0.4 1.0
7.6
0.6
13.0
0.7
1.04 1.18
0.0040 0.0040
0.0035
DA
Design Plan ‐ Proposed Design Criteria
Hollowell Mitigation Project
Stream Reach: UT2‐R1
Parameter MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 17.6 17.6
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 9.1 10.6 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 1.12 1.25 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 10.4 13.6 10.0 15.0
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 46.9 48.8 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 20.0 40.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 3.1 3.7 >2.2 >2.2 4.3 8.6
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 2.22 2.95 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.4
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.7 3.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1
Meander Length, Lm (ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf  ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A
Sinuosity, K ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0050 0.0150
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Slope Riffle, Sriff (ft/ft) 0.0045 0.0080 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.005 0.008
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan 0.1 0.1 1.2 1.5 0.9 1.5
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0000 0.0031 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.0000 0.0020
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 2.9 3.3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 2.0 2.7
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.6 2.6 1.5 3.5 7.7 10.5
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) 10.1 18.7 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 5.6 7.0
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 0.9 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.2 1.5
Pool‐Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 21.0 78.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 20.0 40.0
Pool‐Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 2.3 7.4 3.5 7.0 4.3 8.6
Existing Site Data Composite Reference Ratios Proposed Design Values
0.067 ‐‐‐0.067
incised E5/ ditched DA/E5 DA/E5
1.1 ‐‐‐ 1.1
0.0750
‐‐‐ 1.2
0.1 0.9
4.6
0.3
18.0
0.3
1.03 1.07
0.0070 0.0070
0.0054
DA
Design Plan ‐ Proposed Design Criteria
Hollowell Mitigation Project
Stream Reach: UT2‐R2
Parameter MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 10 16.2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 8.2 11.1 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 1.5 2 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 5 12.3 10.0 15.0
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 30 70 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 25.0 45.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 1.3 1.5 >2.2 >2.2 3.6 6.4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 1.3 3.1 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 0.9 1.6 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.2
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.7 2.7 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1
Meander Length, Lm (ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 70.0 100.0
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 7.0 14.0 10.0 14.2
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 15.0 21.0
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 2.0 3.0 2.1 3.0
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 27.0 55.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf  ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 3.5 8.0 3.8 7.8
Sinuosity, K 1.2 1.4
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0050 0.0150
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Slope Riffle, Sriff (ft/ft) 0.0030 0.0040 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.005 0.008
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 0.8 1.3
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0000 0.0031 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.0010 0.0030
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 2.9 3.3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1.1 1.4
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 1.9 1.7 1.5 3.5 2.0 2.6
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) 10.1 18.7 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 8.4 10.5
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 0.9 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.2 1.5
Pool‐Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 33.0 104.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 27.0 50.0
Pool‐Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 4.0 9.4 3.5 7.0 3.8 7.1
Existing Site Data Composite Reference Ratios Proposed Design Values
0.247 ‐‐‐0.247
incised E5/ ditched E5 E5/C5
3.0 ‐‐‐ 3.0
0.0040
‐‐‐ 3.8
0.3 0.8
7.0
0.5
13.0
0.7
1.04 1.16
0.0044 0.0044
0.0060
DA
Design Plan ‐ Proposed Design Criteria
Hollowell Mitigation Project
Stream Reach: UT2A
Parameter MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 17.6 17.6
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 9.1 10.6 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 1.12 1.25 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 10.4 13.6 10.0 15.0
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 46.9 48.8 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 20.0 50.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 3.1 3.7 >2.2 >2.2 4.3 10.8
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 2.22 2.95 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.4
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.7 3.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1
Meander Length, Lm (ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf  ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A
Sinuosity, K 1.2 1.4
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0050 0.0150
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Slope Riffle, Sriff (ft/ft) 0.0060 0.0580 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.016 0.019
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan 3.0 29.0 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.5
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0000 0.0010 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.0000 0.0010
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 2.9 3.3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.7 1.2
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.6 2.6 1.5 3.5 2.7 4.6
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) 10.1 18.7 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 5.6 7.0
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 0.9 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.2 1.5
Pool‐Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 21.0 78.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 30.0 60.0
Pool‐Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 2.3 7.4 3.5 7.0 6.5 12.9
0.0020
‐‐‐ 1.2
0.1 1.4
4.6
0.3
18.0
0.3
1.01 1.01
0.0020 0.0020
0.0020
incised E5/ ditched DA/E5 DA
1.6 ‐‐‐ 1.6
Existing Site Data Composite Reference Ratios Proposed Design Values
0.110 ‐‐‐0.110
DA
y = 9.43x 0.74
R² = 0.96
y = 14.52x0.66
R² = 0.88
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Bankfull X-Sec. Area (Sq. Ft.)Watershed Area
(Sq. Mi.)
NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve
Sweet and Geratz (2003)UT1-R1
UT1-R2 UT2-R1
UT2-R2 UT2B
UT2A Doll, et al. (2003)
Power (Sweet and Geratz (2003))Power (Doll, et al. (2003))
y = 8.79x 0.76
R² = 0.92
y = 16.56x0.72
R² = 0.89
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Bankfull Discharge (cfs)Watershed Area
(Sq. Mi.)
NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve
Sweet and Geratz (2003)UT1-R1
UT1-R2 UT2-R1
UT2-R2 UT2B
UT2A Doll, et al. (2003)
Power (Sweet and Geratz (2003))Power (Doll, et al. (2003))
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
10 100 1000Valley Slope (ft/ft)Drainage Area (acres)
Poorly Defined Moderately Defined
Well Defined Mill Swamp-UT1a
Mill Swamp-UT1b Mill Swamp-UT1c
UTJR-UT1a UTJR-UT1b
UTJR-UT1c Duke Swamp-UT1a
UTHB South Ref Reach U/S UTHB North Ref Reach U/S
UTHB North Ref Reach D/S Hollowell UT1-R1
Hollowell UT1-R2 Hollowell UT2-R1
Hollowell UT2-R2 Hollowell UT2-R3
Hollowell UT2A Hollowell UT2B
Channel Form Data Comparisons for CP Headwater Stream References
Moderately Defined
Channels
Well Defined
Channels
Poorly Defined
Channels
UT2B
UT2-R3
UT2-R1
UT1-R1
UT2-R2 UT1-R2UT2A
Site Description DA (sq. mi.)
Hollowell (UT1‐R1)0.288
T‐yr recurrence interval
AEP‐annual 
exceedance 
probability
P‐percent annual 
exceedance probability
Q‐discharge estimate 
(cfs)Notes
1 1.00 100.0% 2.5 extrapolated
1.2 0.83 83.3% 2.9 extrapolated
1.5 0.67 66.7% 3.5 extrapolated Qgs = 0.66*Q2
2 0.5 50.0% 5.2 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
5 0.2 20.0% 8.1 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
10 0.1 10.0% 10.4 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
25 0.04 4.0% 13.4 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
50 0.02 2.0% 15.6 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
100 0.01 1.0% 18.0 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
200 0.005 0.5% 20.4 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
500 0.002 0.2% 23.4 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
y = 3.3693ln(x) + 2.5054
R² = 0.9992
1.0
10.0
100.0
1,000.0
1.0 10.0 100.0 1,000.0Flow Rate / Discharge (cfs)Recurrence Interval (yrs)
USGS Regional Regression Flow Data, 2011
for small streams in Hydrologic Region 4 (Rural Coastal Plain, 0.10 sq mi ≤ 53.5 sq. mi.)
Regression Flows
Log. (Regression Flows)
Site Description DA (sq. mi.)
Hollowell (UT1‐R2)0.406
T‐yr recurrence interval
AEP‐annual 
exceedance 
probability
P‐percent annual 
exceedance probability
Q‐discharge estimate 
(cfs)Notes
1 1.00 100.0% 2.9 extrapolated
1.2 0.83 83.3% 3.6 extrapolated
1.5 0.67 66.7% 4.3 extrapolated Qgs = 0.66*Q2
2 0.5 50.0% 6.4 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
5 0.2 20.0% 10.0 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
10 0.1 10.0% 12.8 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
25 0.04 4.0% 16.5 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
50 0.02 2.0% 19.3 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
100 0.01 1.0% 22.2 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
200 0.005 0.5% 25.2 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
500 0.002 0.2% 29.1 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
y = 4.1927ln(x) + 2.9966
R² = 0.9993
1.0
10.0
100.0
1,000.0
1.0 10.0 100.0 1,000.0Flow Rate / Discharge (cfs)Recurrence Interval (yrs)
USGS Regional Regression Flow Data, 2011
for small streams in Hydrologic Region 4 (Rural Coastal Plain, 0.10 sq mi ≤ 53.5 sq. mi.)
Regression Flows
Log. (Regression Flows)
Site Description DA (sq. mi.)
Hollowell (UT2A)0.108
T‐yr recurrence interval
AEP‐annual 
exceedance 
probability
P‐percent annual 
exceedance probability
Q‐discharge estimate 
(cfs)Notes
1 1.00 100.0% 1.3 extrapolated
1.2 0.83 83.3% 1.6 extrapolated
1.5 0.67 66.7% 2.0 extrapolated Qgs = 0.66*Q2
2 0.5 50.0% 2.9 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
5 0.2 20.0% 4.5 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
10 0.1 10.0% 5.8 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
25 0.04 4.0% 7.4 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
50 0.02 2.0% 8.6 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
100 0.01 1.0% 9.8 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
200 0.005 0.5% 11.1 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
500 0.002 0.2% 12.7 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
y = 1.8281ln(x) + 1.4294
R² = 0.9988
1.0
10.0
100.0
1,000.0
1.0 10.0 100.0 1,000.0Flow Rate / Discharge (cfs)Recurrence Interval (yrs)
USGS Regional Regression Flow Data, 2011
for small streams in Hydrologic Region 4 (Rural Coastal Plain, 0.10 sq mi ≤ 53.5 sq. mi.)
Regression Flows
Log. (Regression Flows)
Site Description DA (sq. mi.)
Hollowell (UT2B)0.478
T‐yr recurrence interval
AEP‐annual 
exceedance 
probability
P‐percent annual 
exceedance probability
Q‐discharge estimate 
(cfs)Notes
1 1.00 100.0% 3.1 extrapolated
1.2 0.83 83.3% 3.9 extrapolated
1.5 0.67 66.7% 4.7 extrapolated Qgs = 0.66*Q2
2 0.5 50.0% 7.1 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
5 0.2 20.0% 11.0 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
10 0.1 10.0% 14.1 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
25 0.04 4.0% 18.2 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
50 0.02 2.0% 21.3 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
100 0.01 1.0% 24.6 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
200 0.005 0.5% 27.9 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
500 0.002 0.2% 32.2 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
y = 4.6497ln(x) + 3.2587
R² = 0.9993
1.0
10.0
100.0
1,000.0
1.0 10.0 100.0 1,000.0Flow Rate / Discharge (cfs)Recurrence Interval (yrs)
USGS Regional Regression Flow Data, 2011
for small streams in Hydrologic Region 4 (Rural Coastal Plain, 0.10 sq mi ≤ 53.5 sq. mi.)
Regression Flows
Log. (Regression Flows)
Site Description DA (sq. mi.)
Hollowell (UT2‐R1)0.070
T‐yr recurrence interval
AEP‐annual 
exceedance 
probability
P‐percent annual 
exceedance probability
Q‐discharge estimate 
(cfs)Notes
1 1.00 100.0% 1.0 extrapolated
1.2 0.83 83.3% 1.3 extrapolated
1.5 0.67 66.7% 1.5 extrapolated Qgs = 0.66*Q2
2 0.5 50.0% 2.3 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
5 0.2 20.0% 3.5 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
10 0.1 10.0% 4.4 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
25 0.04 4.0% 5.7 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
50 0.02 2.0% 6.6 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
100 0.01 1.0% 7.5 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
200 0.005 0.5% 8.5 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
500 0.002 0.2% 9.7 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
y = 1.3929ln(x) + 1.1208
R² = 0.9985
1.0
10.0
100.0
1,000.0
1.0 10.0 100.0 1,000.0Flow Rate / Discharge (cfs)Recurrence Interval (yrs)
USGS Regional Regression Flow Data, 2011
for small streams in Hydrologic Region 4 (Rural Coastal Plain, 0.10 sq mi ≤ 53.5 sq. mi.)
Regression Flows
Log. (Regression Flows)
Site Description DA (sq. mi.)
Hollowell (UT2‐R2)0.400
T‐yr recurrence interval
AEP‐annual 
exceedance 
probability
P‐percent annual 
exceedance probability
Q‐discharge estimate 
(cfs)Notes
1 1.00 100.0% 2.8 extrapolated
1.2 0.83 83.3% 3.5 extrapolated
1.5 0.67 66.7% 4.2 extrapolated Qgs = 0.66*Q2
2 0.5 50.0% 6.4 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
5 0.2 20.0% 9.9 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
10 0.1 10.0% 12.7 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
25 0.04 4.0% 16.4 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
50 0.02 2.0% 19.1 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
100 0.01 1.0% 22.0 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
200 0.005 0.5% 25.0 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
500 0.002 0.2% 28.8 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
y = 4.1577ln(x) + 2.9549
R² = 0.9993
1.0
10.0
100.0
1,000.0
1.0 10.0 100.0 1,000.0Flow Rate / Discharge (cfs)Recurrence Interval (yrs)
USGS Regional Regression Flow Data, 2011
for small streams in Hydrologic Region 4 (Rural Coastal Plain, 0.10 sq mi ≤ 53.5 sq. mi.)
Regression Flows
Log. (Regression Flows)
Site Description DA (sq. mi.)
Hollowell (UT2‐R3)0.800
T‐yr recurrence interval
AEP‐annual 
exceedance 
probability
P‐percent annual 
exceedance probability
Q‐discharge estimate 
(cfs)Notes
1 1.00 100.0% 4.1 extrapolated
1.2 0.83 83.3% 5.3 extrapolated
1.5 0.67 66.7% 6.4 extrapolated Qgs = 0.66*Q2
2 0.5 50.0% 9.6 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
5 0.2 20.0% 15.0 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
10 0.1 10.0% 19.2 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
25 0.04 4.0% 24.9 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
50 0.02 2.0% 29.2 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
100 0.01 1.0% 33.7 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
200 0.005 0.5% 38.4 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
500 0.002 0.2% 44.4 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
y = 6.4279ln(x) + 4.308
R² = 0.9994
1.0
10.0
100.0
1,000.0
1.0 10.0 100.0 1,000.0Flow Rate / Discharge (cfs)Recurrence Interval (yrs)
USGS Regional Regression Flow Data, 2011
for small streams in Hydrologic Region 4 (Rural Coastal Plain, 0.10 sq mi ≤ 53.5 sq. mi.)
Regression Flows
Log. (Regression Flows)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday, Mar 26 2019
Hollowell UT1-R2
Trapezoidal
Bottom Width (ft) = 4.70
Side Slopes (z:1) = 2.00, 2.00
Total Depth (ft) = 0.70
Invert Elev (ft) = 0.70
Slope (%) = 0.40
N-Value = 0.047
Calculations
Compute by: Q vs Depth
No. Increments = 10
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.70
Q (cfs) = 5.698
Area (sqft) = 4.27
Velocity (ft/s) = 1.33
Wetted Perim (ft) = 7.83
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.34
Top Width (ft) = 7.50
EGL (ft) = 0.73
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
0.00 -0.70
0.50 -0.20
1.00 0.30
1.50 0.80
2.00 1.30
Reach (ft)
Channel Report
Tuesday, Mar 26 2019Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.
Hollowell UT2-R2
Trapezoidal
Bottom Width (ft) = 4.40
Side Slopes (z:1) = 2.00, 2.00
Total Depth (ft) = 0.70
Invert Elev (ft) = 0.70
Slope (%)= 0.40
N-Value = 0.047
Calculations
Compute by:Q vs Depth
No. Increments = 10
Highlighted
Depth (ft)= 0.70
Q (cfs)= 5.377
Area (sqft)= 4.06
Velocity (ft/s)= 1.32
Wetted Perim (ft) = 7.53
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.35
Top Width (ft)= 7.20
EGL (ft)= 0.73
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
0.00 -0.70
0.50 -0.20
1.00 0.30
1.50 0.80
2.00 1.30
Reach (ft)
Catchment Area 17.9 BMP1, UT1‐R1
Pervious Area 17.9
Impervious Area 0
The Simple Method
RV = 0.05 + 0.9 * IA Step 1 in the Simple Method
RV 0.05 Runoff coefficient (unitless)
IA 0 Impervious fraction [impervious portion of drainage area (ac)/drainage area (ac)], (unitless
V = 3630 * RD * RV * A Step 2 in the Simple Method
V 3248.85 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (cubic feet
V 0.8950 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (acre‐in
RD 1.0 Design storm rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")
A 17.9 Watershed area (ac)
SCS Curve Number Method
Q* = (P ‐ 0.2S)^2 / (P + 0.8S)
Q* (From Impervious) 0.00 Runoff depth (in)
P 1.0 Rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")
S 4.29 Potential maximum retention after rainfall begins (in) 
S = (1000 / CN) ‐ 10 4.29 S is related to the soil and surface characteristics through the curve number (CN)
CN (Impervious) 70 Related to hydrologic soil group and ground cover. (Refer to DWQ Design Manual for CN Tables)
S = (1000 / CN) ‐ 10 4.29
CN (Pervious) 70
Q* (From Pervious) 0.01
P 1.00
S 4.29
Q*total 0.01 (in)
Soil Type Torhunta http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ 
Hydrologic Soil Group SCS (1986)A Refer to DWQ Design Manual after the soil series in the area of interest is identified
BMP Sizing Reqs
V = A(Q*)  0.11 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (ac‐in) Required Storage Volume
V 386.77 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
V 2893.22 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (gallons) Required Storage Volume
V 0.89 Simple Method Volume of Runoff (ac‐in) Required Storage Volume
V 3249 Simple Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
Required Ponding Depth 10.0 Depends on desired vegetation type and inundation time.  Usually 6‐12" (in
Required BMP Surface Area 0.011 (ac) SCS Method
Required BMP Surface Area 464.121 (ft^2) SCS Method
Required BMP Surface Area 0.089 (ac) Simple Method
Required BMP Surface Area 3898.620 (ft^2) Simple Method
Actual BMP Surface Area 0.069 (ac) Measured in Cadd, GIS or by hand.
Actual BMP Surface Area 3000 (ft^2)
Actual BMP Storage Volume 2500 (ft^3)
***CN Method in this spreadsheet is for 2 CN areas only.  The equations may need to be modified if using multiple CNs or use a composite pervious CN
Catchment Area 12.8 BMP2, UT2‐R2
Pervious Area 12.8
Impervious Area 0
The Simple Method
RV = 0.05 + 0.9 * IA Step 1 in the Simple Method
RV 0.05 Runoff coefficient (unitless)
IA 0 Impervious fraction [impervious portion of drainage area (ac)/drainage area (ac)], (unitless
V = 3630 * RD * RV * A Step 2 in the Simple Method
V 2323.2 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (cubic feet
V 0.6400 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (acre‐in
RD 1.0 Design storm rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")
A 12.8 Watershed area (ac)
SCS Curve Number Method
Q* = (P ‐ 0.2S)^2 / (P + 0.8S)
Q* (From Impervious) 0.00 Runoff depth (in)
P 1.0 Rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")
S 4.29 Potential maximum retention after rainfall begins (in) 
S = (1000 / CN) ‐ 10 4.29 S is related to the soil and surface characteristics through the curve number (CN)
CN (Impervious) 70 Related to hydrologic soil group and ground cover. (Refer to DWQ Design Manual for CN Tables)
S = (1000 / CN) ‐ 10 4.29
CN (Pervious) 70
Q* (From Pervious) 0.01
P 1.00
S 4.29
Q*total 0.01 (in)
Soil Type Weston http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ 
Hydrologic Soil Group SCS (1986)A Refer to DWQ Design Manual after the soil series in the area of interest is identified
BMP Sizing Reqs
V = A(Q*)  0.08 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (ac‐in) Required Storage Volume
V 276.57 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
V 2068.90 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (gallons) Required Storage Volume
V 0.64 Simple Method Volume of Runoff (ac‐in) Required Storage Volume
V 2323 Simple Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
Required Ponding Depth 10.0 Depends on desired vegetation type and inundation time.  Usually 6‐12" (in
Required BMP Surface Area 0.008 (ac) SCS Method
Required BMP Surface Area 331.886 (ft^2) SCS Method
Required BMP Surface Area 0.064 (ac) Simple Method
Required BMP Surface Area 2787.840 (ft^2) Simple Method
Actual BMP Surface Area 0.009 (ac) Measured in Cadd, GIS or by hand.
Actual BMP Surface Area 400 (ft^2)
Actual BMP Storage Volume 333 (ft^3)
***CN Method in this spreadsheet is for 2 CN areas only.  The equations may need to be modified if using multiple CNs or use a composite pervious CN
Catchment Area 12.5 BMP3, UT2‐R2
Pervious Area 12.5
Impervious Area 0
The Simple Method
RV = 0.05 + 0.9 * IA Step 1 in the Simple Method
RV 0.05 Runoff coefficient (unitless)
IA 0 Impervious fraction [impervious portion of drainage area (ac)/drainage area (ac)], (unitless
V = 3630 * RD * RV * A Step 2 in the Simple Method
V 2268.75 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (cubic feet
V 0.6250 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (acre‐in
RD 1.0 Design storm rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")
A 12.5 Watershed area (ac)
SCS Curve Number Method
Q* = (P ‐ 0.2S)^2 / (P + 0.8S)
Q* (From Impervious) 0.00 Runoff depth (in)
P 1.0 Rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")
S 4.29 Potential maximum retention after rainfall begins (in) 
S = (1000 / CN) ‐ 10 4.29 S is related to the soil and surface characteristics through the curve number (CN)
CN (Impervious) 70 Related to hydrologic soil group and ground cover. (Refer to DWQ Design Manual for CN Tables)
S = (1000 / CN) ‐ 10 4.29
CN (Pervious) 70
Q* (From Pervious) 0.01
P 1.00
S 4.29
Q*total 0.01 (in)
Soil Type Kenansville http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ 
Hydrologic Soil Group SCS (1986)A Refer to DWQ Design Manual after the soil series in the area of interest is identified
BMP Sizing Reqs
V = A(Q*)  0.07 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (ac‐in) Required Storage Volume
V 270.09 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
V 2020.41 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (gallons) Required Storage Volume
V 0.62 Simple Method Volume of Runoff (ac‐in) Required Storage Volume
V 2269 Simple Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
Required Ponding Depth 10.0 Depends on desired vegetation type and inundation time.  Usually 6‐12" (in
Required BMP Surface Area 0.007 (ac) SCS Method
Required BMP Surface Area 324.107 (ft^2) SCS Method
Required BMP Surface Area 0.062 (ac) Simple Method
Required BMP Surface Area 2722.500 (ft^2) Simple Method
Actual BMP Surface Area 0.053 (ac) Measured in Cadd, GIS or by hand.
Actual BMP Surface Area 2300 (ft^2)
Actual BMP Storage Volume 1917 (ft^3)
***CN Method in this spreadsheet is for 2 CN areas only.  The equations may need to be modified if using multiple CNs or use a composite pervious CN
y = -1280x + 13.7
R2 = 0.57
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008W/ D RatioSlope (ft/ft)
CP Sand Bed Reference Reaches
Hollowell Design UT1-R2
Hollowell Design UT2-R2
Width to Depth Ratio (W/D) Versus Channel Slope
y = 37.55x + 0.03
R2 = 0.96
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008Shear Stress (lb/ft^2)Slope (ft/ft)
CP Sand Bed Reference Reaches
Hollowell Design UT1-R2
Hollowell Design UT2-R2
Bankfull Shear Stress Versus Channel Slope
y = 1941.8x - 0.92
R2 = 0.90
0.000
2.000
4.000
6.000
8.000
10.000
12.000
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008Stream Power (W/m^2)Slope (ft/ft)
CP Sand Bed Reference Reaches
Hollowell Design UT1-R2
Hollowell Design UT2-R2
Stream Power Versus Channel Slope
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
10510.5
0.1
0.05
MEDIAN FALL DIAMETER (mm)UNIT STREAM POWER,W (m^-2)ANTIDUNES ANDPLANE BED TRANSITIONDUNESRIPPLES
PLANE BED
(LIMITED OR NO
SEDIMENT MOVEMENT)
Figure 1.1 Median Fall Diameter versus Unit Stream Power for Sand Bed Forms
(after Knighton ,1998, and Simons and Richardson, 1966).
1-4
Culvert Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday, Mar 26 2019
Proposed 24in dia Pipe Culvert - UT1-R2 Crossing
Invert Elev Dn (ft) = 71.20
Pipe Length (ft) = 32.00
Slope (%) = 0.31
Invert Elev Up (ft) = 71.30
Rise (in) = 24.0
Shape = Circular
Span (in) = 24.0
No. Barrels = 1
n-Value = 0.013
Culvert Type = Circular Concrete
Culvert Entrance = Groove end projecting (C)
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.0045, 2, 0.0317, 0.69, 0.2
Embankment
Top Elevation (ft) = 76.00
Top Width (ft) = 16.00
Crest Width (ft) = 10.00
Calculations
Qmin (cfs) = 6.40
Qmax (cfs) = 16.50
Tailwater Elev (ft) = Critical
Highlighted
Qtotal (cfs) = 6.40
Qpipe (cfs) = 6.40
Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00
Veloc Dn (ft/s) = 4.70
Veloc Up (ft/s) = 4.67
HGL Dn (ft) = 72.09
HGL Up (ft) = 72.20
Hw Elev (ft) = 72.55
Hw/D (ft) = 0.63
Flow Regime = Inlet Control
Culvert Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday, Mar 26 2019
Proposed (2) 24in dia Pipe Culvert - UT2-R2 Crossing
Invert Elev Dn (ft) = 82.40
Pipe Length (ft) = 24.00
Slope (%) = 0.42
Invert Elev Up (ft) = 82.50
Rise (in) = 24.0
Shape = Circular
Span (in) = 24.0
No. Barrels = 2
n-Value = 0.013
Culvert Type = Circular Concrete
Culvert Entrance = Groove end projecting (C)
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.0045, 2, 0.0317, 0.69, 0.2
Embankment
Top Elevation (ft) = 86.80
Top Width (ft) = 16.00
Crest Width (ft) = 10.00
Calculations
Qmin (cfs) = 6.40
Qmax (cfs) = 16.40
Tailwater Elev (ft) = Critical
Highlighted
Qtotal (cfs) = 6.40
Qpipe (cfs) = 6.40
Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00
Veloc Dn (ft/s) = 3.82
Veloc Up (ft/s) = 3.78
HGL Dn (ft) = 83.02
HGL Up (ft) = 83.13
Hw Elev (ft) = 83.35
Hw/D (ft) = 0.43
Flow Regime = Inlet Control

Appendix D - Site Protection Instrument

WLS Neuse 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Hollowell Mitigation Project

Agent Authorization Forms
Long-term Steward Engagement Letter, Fee Breakdown, and Monitoring Specifications
Conservation Easement Template

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION,
LOT N0. PLAN N0. PARCEL ID: Z5(o$OS77(p I
STREETADDRESS: `'S 'FEv-QIi5 Mit\
PropertyOwner: Cnnn
Property Owner:
4
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd
Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
watedandsolutions.com
919-614-5111
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby
authorize Adam McIntyre CEO of Water & Land Solutions LLC
to review my property and to act on my behalf to take all actions necessary for the
processing, issuance and acceptance of necessary permits and/or certifications and any and
all standard and special conditions attached. This authorization allows the individual to
represent on my behalf to the necessary Government agency personnel for the proposed
property.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
I U110 Tt ✓ "e OA5s- ;L-
Telephone:
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate
to the best of our knowledge.
F24Aqup
Authorized Signature
Date: 1— r - -) u 1 -7
/'r
Authorized Signature
Date:

4
WATER & LAND
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd
Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
PROPER'rY LEGAL DESCRIPTION: vvatedandsalutions.mm
LOT NO. PLAN NO. PARCEL ID: 74 91M14-5111
STREETADDRESS: 1)-,S2 4Y-t�AMS Jvl�i1 R�
Property Owner: OP- r o. ('��n✓t.-FY1G rv�
Property Owner:
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby
authorize Adam Mclntvre CEO of Water & Land Solutions LLC
to review my property and to act on my behalf to take all actions necessary for the
processing, issuance and acceptance of necessary permits and/or certifications and any and
all standard and special conditions attached. This authorization allows the individual to
represent on my behalf to the necessary Government agency personnel for the proposed
property.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
Telephone:
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate
to the best of our knowledge.
Authorized Signature Aut rizel� dSignature
Date: .2- Date: 2' /�— /7

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
DEEDBOOK: 01065　PAGE: O840 PARCEL ID: _2568560252
STREET ADDRESS: 2342 Stevens Mill∴Rd, Goldsboro, NC 27530
ゐ
1 1030 Raven Ridge Rd
Suite l19
Raieigh, NC 27614
Wate巾andsoIutions.com
919-614-51 11
Please Print:
Property Owner:エ圭皿Othv丁Robbins
Property Owner:
The undersigned′ registered property owners ofthe above noted property, do hereby
authorize
-岬」 Of 」岬______
〔Contractor / Agent〕　　　　　　(Name of consulting firm〕
to review my property and to act on my behalfto take all actions necessary for the
PrOCeSSing′ issuance and acceptance ofnecessary permits and/or ce舶cations and any and
all standard and special conditions attached・ This authorization a]lows the individual to
represent on my behalfto the necessary Government agency persomel for the proposed
PrOPerty:
Property Owner’s Address (if different than property above) :
2386 Stevens Mill Rd, Goldsboro, NC 27530
Telephone : 」雄」_____-___葛_臆し
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is tru。 and a。。urat。
to the best of our knowledge・
Authorized Signature
Date: //葛/二/乙一書臆　　　　臆臆_　　Date:
January 29, 2019
Cara Conder
Water & Land Solutions
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
Dear Ms. Conder,
Unique Places
To Save
This letter confirms that Water & Land Solutions ("WLS") has agreed to engage Unique Places to Save ("UP2S"),
a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization located in the State of North Carolina, as the conservation easement grantee
and long-term steward for the Hollowell site ("Site") located in Wayne County, North Carolina. As the
conservation easement grantee and long -tem} steward, UP2S has agreed to and shall be responsible for periodic
inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are enforced and
maintained. Specific responsibilities include:
• Monitoring of Site is conducted on an annual basis.
• An on-site inspection is conducted once per year.
• Visits to Site are coordinated with landowner when possible.
• Annual monitoring reports are sent to the landowner when possible.
• Signage for the easement boundary is maintained.
• Violations and potential violations of the conservation easement deed are promptly communicated to
the landowner.
Water & Land Solutions, LLC shall act as Bank Sponsor of the Site. UP2S shall receive a stewardship
endowment in the amount of $40,641.14 to ensure annual Site inspections occur and that the terms of the
conservation easement are legally defended into perpetuity.
As the bond obligee for the construction and monitoring phase of the Hollowell Site, we agree to abide by the
terms of the bond agreement(s) in the event that Water & Land Solutions fails to perform or no longer exists_
David Harper, Executive Director
Unique Places To Save
1/29/2019
Representative Signature
Water & Land Solutions
Printed Name
-1A d G h V /t( C 4 � _ 99
Date
PO Box 1183 . Chapel Hill, NC 27514 . 585-472-9498 . info uni ue lacestosave.or

Unique Places to Save Annual Monitoring and Legal Defense Endowment
Hollowell Easement – WLS - CONFIDENTIAL Units Hours Cost/Unit Frequency Annual Cost
Annual Monitoring
Staff time to monitor mitigation easement, including file
review, travel time, on site time, post visit report production 73 acres 6 $ 60.00 Annual $ 360.00
Staff time needed to address minor violations or issues N/A 10 $ 600.00 Once every 10 yrs. $ 60.00
Mileage 168 N/A $ 0.58 Annual $ 97.44
Insurance 1 N/A $ 100.00 N/A $ 100.00
Total Annual Funding Amount $ 617.44
Capitalization Rate 3.50%
Monitoring Endowment $17,641.14
Accepting and Defending the Easement in Perpetuity
Staff time for major violations N/A 50 60 N/A $ 3,000.00
Legal Counsel 1 N/A N/A N/A $ 10,000.00
Other Incidentals 1 N/A N/A N/A $ 5,000.00
Stewardship Complexities (# owners) 1 N/A N/A N/A $ 5,000.00
Defense Endowment $ 23,000.00
Total Monitoring and Legal Defense Endowment $ 40,641.14

Unique Places To Save
Property Monitoring Report 2017

I. PROPERTY INFORMATION

• NAME OF PROPERTY:

• PROPERTY ACREAGE:

• DATE EASEMENT GRANTED:

• DATE OF ANY EASEMENT AMENDMENT(S):

• OWNER/REPRESENTATIVE CONTACT INFORMATION

Owner Manager/Representative
Name(s)
Address
City, State, Zip
Phone
Email

• GENERAL PROPERTY LOCATION

• PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (acreage, general biophysical characteristics, land/resource use):

• DESCRIPTION OF AREAS OF SPECIAL CONCERN, FEATURES OR RESTRICTIONS (building envelopes, areas of intensive
management, riparian areas, access points, historic, etc.)

II. MONITORING INFORMATION

• DATE(S) OF INSPECTION:

• GENERAL WEATHER CONDITIONS (temp, cloud cover, precip):

• IF AVAILABLE, APPROXIMATE PRECIPITATION TOTAL FOR PREVIOUS YEAR:

• LIST ALL PERSONS ATTENDING INSPECTION:

• TIME SPENT ON INSPECTION: _____ hours

• WAS THE OWNER/REPRESENTATIVE CONTACTED PRIOR TO INSPECTION? Y N

• DID THE OWNER/REPRESENTATIVE ACCOMPANY MONITOR? Y N

• WAS THE EASEMENT REVIEWED PRIOR TO INSPECTION? Y N

• WAS THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED SINCE THE LAST REPORT? Y N

o IF YES: DEED FROM: DEED TO:

• IS THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY FOR SALE? Y N

III. MONITOR OBSERVATIONS

• NATURAL AND/OR AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITIES OBSERVED. Note any rare species.

• DESCRIBE CURRENT MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE WITHIN THE EASEMENT:

• LIST AND DESCRIBE ANY MANAGEMENT CHANGES SINCE LAST INSPECTION. Describe the activity or alteration. Note
location and extent. Document with maps, photos, and/or illustrations.

♦ _____ AGRICULTURAL/OPERATIONAL CHANGES:

♦ _____ LAND USE CHANGES:

♦ _____ ECOSYSTEM/SPECIES PRESERVATION:

♦ _____ SCIENTIFIC (research, surveys, etc.):

♦ _____ RECREATIONAL OR EDUCATIONAL:

♦ _____ WILDLIFE OR HABITAT MANAGEMENT/RESTORATION:

♦ _____ EXOTICS OR DISEASE CONTROL:

♦ _____ OTHER:

• LIST AND DESCRIBE ANY MAN-INDUCED ALTERATIONS SINCE LAST INSPECTION. Describe the activity or alteration.
Note location and extent. Document with maps, photos, and/or illustrations.

♦ _____ CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS, STRUCTURES OR ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS:

♦ _____ EROSION OR OTHER SOIL DISTURBANCE:

♦ _____ OHV/ORV USE:

♦ _____ FERAL ANIMALS AND/OR EXOTIC PLANTS:

♦ _____ TRESPASSING AND/OR BOUNDARY ENCROACHMENT:

♦ _____ TRASH DUMPING AND/OR VANDALISM:

♦ _____ CONTINUAL OVERUSE:

♦ _____ DISEASE (plant or animal):

♦ _____ POLLUTION:

♦ _____ DEFERRED REQUIRED MAINTENANCE:

♦ _____ OTHER:

• DESCRIBE ANY CHANGES AND/OR ACTIVITIES PERMITTED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE EASEMENT. Such as
construction of buildings, facilities, general improvements, roads, water infrastructure. Include all reserved rights
exercised since last inspection. Note location and extent and any changes and/or activities and attach maps, photos,
and/or illustrations as necessary.

• DESCRIBE ANY CHANGES AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS OF THE EASEMENT.
Such as construction of buildings, facilities, general improvements, roads, water infrastructure. Note location and
extent and any changes and/or activities and attach maps, photos, and/or illustrations as necessary.

• NOTE ANY OBSERVED CHANGES IN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP OR CONDITION. NOTE ANY CONTACT WITH
NEIGHBORING LANDOWNERS.

• LANDOWNER/REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS. Include any landowner/representative comments specifically related to
the terms of the conservation easement and changes in land use or management.

IV. SUMMARY, STATUS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• SUMMARY. Provide a brief narrative. Information from previous reports must be incorporated if available. Include
impressions of long-term trends and conditions of the site.

• STATUS OF COMPLIANCE.

o _____ NO VIOLATION(S) OF EASEMENT TERMS OBSERVED
o _____ UNSURE DUE TO THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR EVALUATION
o _____ SOME EVIDENCE OR ACTIVITIES WERE OBSERVED WHICH MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF THE EASEMENT

• SUGGEST ANY ACTIONS THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN AS A RESULT OF THIS SITE MONITORING VISIT:

• INFORMATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR 2013 MONITORING VISIT:

V. MONITOR CONTACT INFORMATION

NAME:

TITLE:

ADDRESS:

PHONE:

EMAIL:

SIGNATURE OF MONITOR: __________________________________________ DATE: ______________

*This report is a record of one person’s observations during one visit. It is not intended to be a statement of landowner compliance of the conservation
easement.

VI. DESCRIPTION OF ENCLOSURES AND ATTACHMENTS

Indicate the number of the following items accompanying this report:

_____ Aerial photos
_____ Ground photos
_____ Maps and Illustrations
_____ Additional documentation

Other __________________________________________________

If attachments are separated from this report, note their location:

VIII. PHOTODOCUMENTATION LIST
Fill in the table below for all photos taken during the monitoring site visit. Also attach a map showing the location where the
photo(s) were taken.

Photo # Photopoint Description
UTM Northing
(meters)
UTM Easting
(meters)

Unique Places To Save
Stewardship Monitoring Procedures and Guidelines

Unique Places To Save (UP2Save) is dedicated to upholding and defending the
conservation values of the easements it holds. An important aspect of achieving this is to
conduct our stewardship monitoring practices in a professional, accurate, and efficient
manner. The following procedures and guidelines will help ensure that staff will have the
guidance and expertise to properly monitor UP2Save’s conservation easements.

UP2Save’s stewardship monitoring procedures and guidelines are separated into three
stages: (1) pre-monitoring due diligence; (2) monitoring of the easement property; and (3)
post-monitoring due diligence. Each stage in the monitoring process is crucial in
employing sound monitoring practices and creating accurate and reliable documentation.

Pre-monitoring Due Diligence:
Pre-monitoring due diligence includes components that prepare the monitor for the
impending field work and documentation of their stewardship activities. The following
procedures shall be followed prior to all conservation easement monitoring visits:

1. Contact the landowner to schedule a monitoring visit at least one to two weeks
prior to the scheduled visit either by phone, email, or letter (make an effort to
group monitoring visits to multiple easements in the same general area in one
trip).
2. Make an effort to invite the landowner to be involved in the monitoring process.
Usually having the landowner available for questions or discussion of issues
before and after monitoring is fine. It is not necessary that the landowner
accompany the monitor around the property unless the landowner prefers to do
so.
3. If unknown, acquire any information needed to access the property (e.g. lock
combinations, gate locations, road/trail locations, contact information for land
managers and neighboring landowners).
4. A few days prior to the monitoring visit, make an effort to contact the landowner
to confirm the monitoring date.
5. Prior to the monitoring date, review the conservation easement deed, baseline
documentation report, most recent monitoring report, and any other pertinent
information (e.g. landowner correspondence, older monitoring reports).
6. Create a monitoring map of the property using aerial imagery or a topo map as
the base layer. Ensure that the property boundary is clearly depicted on the map
as well as any building envelopes or other important boundaries or landscape
features (e.g. stream buffers, forest management plots, property points of access).
7. Enter the property boundary and BDR photopoint locations (if available) into a
GPS unit for field reference.
8. Inform at least two staff members of your schedule and destination(s). Have an
emergency contact phone number available at the office.
9. Monitoring material that is needed on the monitoring visit includes:

a. Stewardship Binder
b. Monitoring map
c. GPS unit (with extra batteries)
d. Compass
e. Camera (with extra batteries)
f. Notepad

10. Prepare for your field work. Bring necessary field equipment to conduct a safe
and effective monitoring visit. Field equipment should include:

Required
a. Sunscreen
b. Extra water
c. Extra clothing
d. Extra food
e. Extra cash
f. Topo map of greater area
g. First Aid/Survival Kit
h. Blanket(s)
i. Shovel
j. Spare tire(s)
k. Cell phone
l. Flares
m. Bolt cutters
n. Crowbar
Optional
a. Tent
b. Sleeping bag
c. Firearm(s)
d. Stove
e. Laptop computer
f. Bear spray

Approximate pre-monitoring due diligence completion time: 3 hours

Monitoring of the Easement Property:
The field portion of the monitoring effort should be interpreted as (1) an opportunity to
maintain and improve relations with landowners and/or landowner representatives; (2) a
small-scale duplication effort of the baseline documentation report; (3) an opportunity to
enhance, alter, or correct any deficiencies or errors in past monitoring efforts; and (4) a
check on the activities within and conditions of the property under easement.

The following procedures and guidelines will help ensure the efficiency, accuracy, and
safety of a monitoring visit:

1. The monitor should have a clear strategy of how the property will be monitored
prior to the site visit.
2. Meet with the landowner if possible prior to engaging in field work. Ask about
land management activities (past, present or future), activities on adjacent lands,
and any other issues related to the terms of the conservation easement.
3. Invite the landowner to accompany the monitor in the field. This is not necessary,
but it is polite to ask.
4. Enact the monitoring strategy laid out prior to the visit using all tools available
(e.g. GPS, compass, maps, photos).
5. Use GPS to track the monitoring route and take coordinates of photopoint
locations. Use the compass to take azimuth readings at the photopoint locations
(direction photo was taken). All photopoint coordinates must be taken in UTM
coordinates, Zone 13. All azimuth reading must be taken using the 3-digit method
(0 to 360°) to decrease ambiguity as opposed to using quadrants. For example, recording
a bearing of 192° is much clearer than 12° W of S, or S12°W.
6. Walk or drive as much of the property as possible making an effort to visit all access
points, boundary lines, and property corners. Pay special attention to building envelope
areas and other areas that may have more restrictive covenants (e.g. stream corridors, no-
timbering zones, high quality habitat areas).
7. Duplicate the photopoint locations that are depicted in the BDR. If new photopoint
locations are required; develop the new photopoint locations based upon current
landscape conditions and activities. Document these new locations in the monitoring
report and make notes that future monitoring efforts should follow the new photopoint
format. Note: the original photopoints portrayed in the BDR must always be replicated
unless the BDR is amended to not include certain photopoint locations.
8. TAKE FIELD NOTES! Do not rely on memory to complete the monitoring report.
9. Make an effort to meet with the landowner after the field visit to discuss any minor, non-
violation issues or other observations made while conducting the field visit. Do not,
under any circumstances, discuss potential minor or major violations to the
conservation easement with the landowner. UP2Save has specific procedures to
follow when addressing potential violations (see UP2Save’s Conservation Easement
Violations Policy).

Approximate monitoring completion time: 4-16 hours depending upon driving time and
size/complexity of property.

Post-monitoring Due Diligence:
Post-monitoring due diligence primarily consists of developing documentation of the
monitoring visit. This documentation consists of:

1. Filling out the monitoring report
2. Creating a monitoring map including the photopoints, access points, monitoring track,
and any other points of interest.
3. Writing a letter to the landowner that summarizes the monitoring visit and also states that
the landowner is in compliance with the terms of the conservation easement. If the
landowner is not in compliance with the terms of the conservation easement, then staff
will follow the UP2Save’s Conservation Easement Violations Policy.
4. Properly duplicate the monitoring report and file all copies according to the
UP2Save’s Stewardship Records Management Policy.
5. Mail the signed monitoring report and compliance letter to the landowner and any
representatives listed in the baseline or that have received monitoring reports in the past.
6. Schedule the next monitoring visit based upon observations in the field and seasonal
access to the property.

Approximate completion time: 3 hours

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, 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”, 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, Grantor and Grantee agree that third-party rights of enforcement
shall be held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (“Third-Party,” to
include any successor agencies), and may be exercised through the appropriate
enforcement agencies of the United States, and that these rights are in addition to, and
do not limit, the rights of enforcement under the Department of the Army instrument
number SAW- _____________ (“Mitigation Banking Instrument”), or any permit or
certification issued by the Third-Party.

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.
DURATIONOF 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. Mowing of invasive and herbaceous
vegetation for purposes of enhancing planted or volunteer trees and shrubs approved
in the Mitigation Plan 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, 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, and the
Mitigation Banking Instrument described in the Recitals of this Conservation
Easement.

ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEE’S RIGHTS

The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns, and the
Corps, 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, and the Corps 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, and the Corps 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
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 Mitigation Banking Instrument: MBI
with corresponding Mitigation Plan, 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, except
those incurred after the date hereof, which are expressly subject and subordinate to the
Conservation Easement. 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. If livestock operations will be maintained on the
property, Grantor is responsible for all long-term management activities associated
with fencing to ensure livestock do not have access to the Protected Property. These
activities include the maintenance and/or replacement of fence structures, as deemed
necessary by the Grantee, 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

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 E - USACE Assessment Forms

WLS Neuse 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Hollowell Mitigation Project

NC SAM Forms
NC WAM Forms

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
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 property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Hollowell Mitigation Project 2. Date of evaluation: 10-18-2017
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: J. Morgan
5. County: Wayne 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Neuse River 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.352941º -78.130299º
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT1A 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 567
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): 9.7 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 in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Hollowell Mitigation Project Date of Assessment 10-18-2017
Stream Category Ia1 Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

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) Intermittent

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW LOW
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow LOW LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW LOW
(4) Microtopography MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability LOW LOW
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport LOW LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1) Habitat LOW LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Baseflow MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) Substrate LOW LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation LOW LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA NA
(2) Intertidal Zone

NA NA
Overall LOW LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Hollowell Mitigation Project 2. Date of evaluation: 10-18-2017
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: J. Morgan
5. County: Wayne 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Neuse River 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.353521º -78.130486º
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT1-R1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 2,461
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2.6 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 11.5 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 in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Hollowell Mitigation Project Date of Assessment 10-18-2017
Stream Category Ia2 Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

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 HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(2) Intertidal Zone

NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
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 property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Hollowell Mitigation Project 2. Date of evaluation: 10-18-2017
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: J. Morgan
5. County: Wayne 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Neuse River 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.356816º -78.126434º
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT1-R2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 1,940
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3.1 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 11.0 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 in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Hollowell Mitigation Project Date of Assessment 10-18-2017
Stream Category Ia2 Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

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 HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(2) Intertidal Zone

NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Hollowell Mitigation Project 2. Date of evaluation: 10-18-2017
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: J. Morgan
5. County: Wayne 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Neuse River 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.355763º -78.114641º
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT2A 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 643
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): 14.5 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 in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Hollowell Mitigation Project Date of Assessment 10-18-2017
Stream Category Ia2 Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

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 HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(2) Intertidal Zone

NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Hollowell Mitigation Project 2. Date of evaluation: 10-18-2017
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: J. Morgan
5. County: Wayne 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Neuse River 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.356863º -78.113453º
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT2B 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 263
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2.1 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 8.8 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

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

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

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
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 in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Hollowell Mitigation Project Date of Assessment 10-18-2017
Stream Category Ia2 Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

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 HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography MEDIUM
(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 HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(3) In-stream Habitat MEDIUM
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(2) Intertidal Zone

NA
Overall HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
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 property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Hollowell Mitigation Project 2. Date of evaluation: 10-18-2017
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: J. Morgan
5. County: Wayne 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Neuse River 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.355046º -78.114663º
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT2-R1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 677
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2.2 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 9.5 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 in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Hollowell Mitigation Project Date of Assessment 10-18-2017
Stream Category Ia1 Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

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 HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(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 HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(2) Intertidal Zone

NA
Overall HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
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 property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Hollowell Mitigation Project 2. Date of evaluation: 10-18-2017
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: J. Morgan
5. County: Wayne 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Neuse River 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.358105º -78.112878º
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT2-R2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 1,400
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2.8 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 13.8 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

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

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

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
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 in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Hollowell Mitigation Project Date of Assessment 10-18-2017
Stream Category Ia2 Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

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 HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(2) Intertidal Zone

NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Hollowell Mitigation Project 2. Date of evaluation: 10-18-2017
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: J. Morgan
5. County: Wayne 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Neuse River 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.361515º -78.111309º
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT2-R3 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 1,875
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2.2 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 8.5 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: freshwater mussels
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 in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Hollowell Mitigation Project Date of Assessment 10-18-2017
Stream Category Ia2 Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

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 HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport 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 HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(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 HIGH

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Hollowell Mitigation Project Date of Evaluation 10-26-2017
Applicant/Owner Name Water & Land Solutions Wetland Site Name W1
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan
Level III Ecoregion Southeastern Plains Nearest Named Water Body Neuse River
River Basin Neuse USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
County Wayne NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.352367º -78.116062º
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). Boundari es 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 W1 Date of Assessment 10-26-2017
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

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) YES
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 HIGH

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

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

Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Hollowell Mitigation Project Date of Evaluation 10-26-2017
Applicant/Owner Name Water & Land Solutions Wetland Site Name W2
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan
Level III Ecoregion Southeastern Plains Nearest Named Water Body Neuse River
River Basin Neuse USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
County Wayne NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.353858º -78.127908º
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). Boundari es 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 W2 Date of Assessment 10-26-2017
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

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) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
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 MEDIUM

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 HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition HIGH

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

Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Hollowell Mitigation Project Date of Evaluation 10-26-2017
Applicant/Owner Name Water & Land Solutions Wetland Site Name W3
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan
Level III Ecoregion Southeastern Plains Nearest Named Water Body Neuse River
River Basin Neuse USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
County Wayne NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.356274º -78.114377º
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). Boundari es 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 W3 Date of Assessment 10-26-2017
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) 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 LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Hollowell Mitigation Project Date of Evaluation 10-26-2017
Applicant/Owner Name Water & Land Solutions Wetland Site Name W4
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan
Level III Ecoregion Southeastern Plains Nearest Named Water Body Neuse River
River Basin Neuse USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
County Wayne NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.354437º -78.116230º
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). Boundari es 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 W4 Date of Assessment 10-26-2017
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) 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 LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Hollowell Mitigation Project Date of Evaluation 10-26-2017
Applicant/Owner Name Water & Land Solutions Wetland Site Name W5
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan
Level III Ecoregion Southeastern Plains Nearest Named Water Body Neuse River
River Basin Neuse USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
County Wayne NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.352149º -78.127504º
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). Boundari es 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 W5 Date of Assessment 10-26-2017
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) 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 LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Hollowell Mitigation Project Date of Evaluation 10-26-2017
Applicant/Owner Name Water & Land Solutions Wetland Site Name W6
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan
Level III Ecoregion Southeastern Plains Nearest Named Water Body Neuse River
River Basin Neuse USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
County Wayne NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.354090º -78.130226º
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). Boundari es 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 W6 Date of Assessment 10-26-2017
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) 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 LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Hollowell Mitigation Project Date of Evaluation 10-26-2017
Applicant/Owner Name Water & Land Solutions Wetland Site Name W7
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan
Level III Ecoregion Southeastern Plains Nearest Named Water Body Neuse River
River Basin Neuse USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
County Wayne NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.356347º -78.126713º
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). Boundari es 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 W7 Date of Assessment 10-26-2017
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) 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 LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

Appendix F - WOTUS Information

WLS Neuse 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Hollowell Mitigation Project

February 26, 2019

US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Attn: Samantha Dailey 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, NC 27587
Subject: Hollowell Mitigation Project, Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
Request, Wayne County, NC
Dear Ms. Dailey, Please find attached the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Request for the Hollowell Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project. The project is located in Wayne County, North Carolina, approximately seven miles southwest of the Town of Goldsboro. Attached you will find the following:
• Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) Form
• Landowner Authorization Forms
• Four Maps: USGS Topographic Map (with project vicinity), Aerials (with soils borings), Soils Map, and Preliminary Jurisdictional Waters Map
• Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Determination Forms
• NC DWR Stream Identification Forms If you need any additional information, please feel free to contact me directly. Sincerely, Adam V McIntyre 7721 Six Forks Rd, Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615 Office Phone: [phone] Mobile Phone: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD:
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD:
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: County/parish/borough: City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.: Long.:
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody:
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH “MAY BE” SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non-wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
Site # Latitude Longitude Estimated amount
of resource in
review area
(acreage and linear
ft, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e.
wetland vs. non-
wetland waters)
Geographic authority to
which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e. Section 404
or Section 10/401)
W1 35.358396 -78.112582 3.64 ac Wetland Section 404/401
W2 35.352737 -78.115947 3.92 ac Wetland Section 404/401
W3 35.356209 -78.126413 1.79 ac Wetland Section 404/401
W4 35.353742 -78.127641 0.90 ac Wetland Section 404/401
W5 35.351531 -78.124850 4.01 ac Wetland Section 404/401
UT1 35.352342 -78.127928 3,800.5 lf Non-wetland Section 404/401
UT2 35.355568 -78.114437 3,851.6 lf Non-wetland Section 404/401
UT2A 35.353929 -78.116020 580.3 lf Non-wetland Section 404/401
UT2B 35.356435 -78.113255 258.2 lf Non-wetland Section 404/401
UT2C 35.352633 -78.115249 118.5 lf Non-wetland Section 404/401

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2)In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring “pre-
construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant’s acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there “may be” waters of the U.S. and/or that there “may be” navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
0 Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: USGS, Soils, Soil Borings, Jurisdictional Waters
❑j Data sheets preparedlsubmMed by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
■❑ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24,000 Southwest Goldsboro
K Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: 1974 Wayne County Soil Survey
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑
State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: .(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
❑ Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps_ and should not be relied upon for later Jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member
completing PJD
Q/ � �-1.6- ! 5
Signature and date of
person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
' Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. if the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.

SCALE 1:24000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Feet
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Miles
Declination
MN 9.54° WGN 1.66° E

MNGN
Legend
Proposed Easement Boundary
Map Name: GRANTHAM
Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 ft.
Figure 1. Hollowell Mitigation Site
Wayne County, NC
Figure 1. USGS Vicinity Map
SCALE 1:3600
0 100 200 300 400 500
Feet
0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.09
Miles
115
116
117
67
69
80
93
(C) Copyright 2016, Trimble Navigation Limited, OpenStreetMap contributors
NE
SESW
NW
N
E
S
W
LEGEND
Proposed Easement Bou
Hydric Soil
Wetland
Upland Area
Stream
Drainage Feature
Soil Profile
Scale: 1 inch = 300 ft.
Horizontal Datum: WGS84
Figure 2A Aerial View - EasternTract
Hydric Soils
Hollowell Mitigation Site
SCALE 1:3600
0 100 200 300 400 500
Feet
0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.09
Miles
107
118
119
120
30
31
60
(C) Copyright 2016, Trimble Navigation Limited, OpenStreetMap contributors
NE
SESW
NW
N
E
S
W
LEGEND
Proposed Easement Bou
Hydric Soil
Wetland
Upland Area
Stream
Drainage Feature
Soil Profile
Scale: 1 inch = 300 ft.
Horizontal Datum: WGS84
Figure 2B Aerial View - Western Tract
Hydric Soils
Hollowell Mitigation Site
SCALE 1:3600
0 100 200 300 400 500
Feet
0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.09
Miles
115
116
117
67
69
80
93
4101
4103
461462463464 465
466
468
470
471 472
473
474475
476
477
478
479
481
482
483484
485486
487
488
489
490
491
492
494
495
496
UT 2
UT 2A
UT 2C
UT 2B
W1
W2
(C) Copyright 2016, Trimble Navigation Limited, OpenStreetMap contributors
NE
SESW
NW
N
E
S
W
LEGEND
Proposed Easement Bou
Hydric Soil
Wetland
Upland Area
Stream
Drainage Feature
Soil Profile
4 Soil Boring
Scale: 1 inch = 300 ft.
Horizontal Datum: WGS84
Figure 3A. Aerial View - Eastern Tract
Soil Boring Points
Hollowell Mitigation Site
SCALE 1:3600
0 100 200 300 400 500
Feet
0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.09
Miles
107
118
119
120
30
31
60
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409410
4100
4101
4101
4102
4104
4105
410641084109
411
4110
4111
4112
412
413414
415
416417
418
419
420
421
422423
424
425426
427428 429
432
433434
435436437438439440
441
442
443444
445
446
447448
449
450451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
497498499
W3
W4
UT 1
HS 2
W5
(C) Copyright 2016, Trimble Navigation Limited, OpenStreetMap contributors
NE
SESW
NW
N
E
S
W
LEGEND
Proposed Easement Bou
Hydric Soil
Wetland
Upland Area
Stream
Drainage Feature
Soil Profile
4 Soil Boring
Scale: 1 inch = 300 ft.
Horizontal Datum: WGS84
Figure 3B Aerial View - Western Tract
Soil Boring Points
Hollowell Mitigation Site
Soil Map—Wayne County, North Carolina
(Hollowell)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/16/2018
Page 1 of 439154003915700391600039163003916600391690039172003915400391570039160003916300391660039169003917200760300760600760900761200761500761800762100762400762700763000
760300 760600 760900 761200 761500 761800 762100 762400 762700 763000 763300
35° 21' 53'' N 78° 8' 9'' W35° 21' 53'' N78° 6' 8'' W35° 20' 49'' N
78° 8' 9'' W35° 20' 49'' N
78° 6' 8'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
0 500 1000 2000 3000
Feet
0 200 400 800 1200
Meters
Map Scale: 1:14,000 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:20,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Wayne County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 15, Oct 3, 2017
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Oct 29, 2014—Nov
28, 2017
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Soil Map—Wayne County, North Carolina
(Hollowell)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/16/2018
Page 2 of 4
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
AyA Aycock very fine sandy loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes
36.3 4.1%
Bb Bibb sandy loam 51.4 5.8%
Ch Chewacla loam 41.9 4.7%
CrC2 Craven sandy loam, 6 to 10
percent slopes, eroded
(Gritney)
49.3 5.6%
Dr Dragston loamy sand 6.9 0.8%
Ex Exum very fine sandy loam 5.7 0.6%
GoA Goldsboro loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes, Southern
Coastal Plain
0.8 0.1%
Jo Johns sandy loam 19.3 2.2%
KaA Kalmia loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes
34.8 3.9%
KaD Kalmia loamy sand, 10 to 15
percent slopes (Winton)
13.1 1.5%
Ke Kenansville loamy sand 51.0 5.8%
Kn Kinston loam 33.8 3.8%
Le Leaf loam 12.2 1.4%
Lv Lumbee sandy loam 24.5 2.8%
Ly Lynchburg sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
0.5 0.1%
M-W Miscellaneous water 1.3 0.1%
Na Nahunta very fine sandy loam 10.5 1.2%
NoA Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes
13.4 1.5%
NoB Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6
percent slopes
86.8 9.8%
NoC Norfolk loamy sand, 6 to 10
percent slopes
52.1 5.9%
Po Pantego loam 42.5 4.8%
Ra Rains sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
5.8 0.7%
Rm Rimini sand 1.6 0.2%
RuA Ruston loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes (Orangeburg)
2.1 0.2%
RuB Ruston loamy sand, 2 to 6
percent slopes (Orangeburg)
22.4 2.5%
To Torhunta loam 25.5 2.9%
Tr Troup sand 61.8 7.0%
Soil Map—Wayne County, North Carolina Hollowell
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/16/2018
Page 3 of 4
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
W Water 16.5 1.9%
WaB Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6
percent slopes
34.2 3.9%
WaC Wagram loamy sand, 6 to 10
percent slopes
49.1 5.6%
WaD Wagram loamy sand, 10 to 15
percent slopes
14.3 1.6%
We Weston loamy sand
(Woodington)
61.0 6.9%
WhA Wickham loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes
1.7 0.2%
Totals for Area of Interest 884.2 100.0%
Soil Map—Wayne County, North Carolina Hollowell
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/16/2018
Page 4 of 4
W5
W2
W1
W3
W4
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/AirbusDS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000Feet
FIGURE4HollowellMitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Jurisdictional Waters Map
Conservation Easement
Existing Stream
Unverified Wetlands
Wayne County, North Carolina
UT2
UT2b
UT2a
UT2c
UT1
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017 Page 1

This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/Contact/CountyLocator.aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.

ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICES
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]

RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]

WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
General Number: 910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]

INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D – PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017 Page 2
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address:
City, State:
_______________________________________________
____________________________________________
___ County:
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN):
B.REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name:
Mailing Address:
_________________________________________
Telephone Number: _________________________________________
Electronic Mail Address: ________________________________________
Select one:
I am the current property owner.
I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant1
Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
Other, please explain. ________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
C.PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION2
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION' .4
By signing below, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-
site investigations, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
Adam McIntyre
Print Name
Capacity: ❑ Owner ✓0 Authorized Agents
2/26/19
Date
Signature
E. REASON FOR .JD REQUEST: (Check as many as applicable)
❑ 1 intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources under Corps authority.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting
�OCe55.
I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
R
A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
❑ I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
E-1Other:
3 For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
s Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
Version: May 2017 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017 Page 4

F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)

I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.

A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be “waters of the United States” or “navigable waters of the United States”on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional “waters of
the United States”. PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
“preliminary” in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.

I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein.

An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional “waters of the United States” or “navigable waters of the United
States” are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other “affected
party” (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).

I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.

G. ALL REQUESTS

Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.

Size of Property or Review Area acres.

The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017 Page 5

H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS

Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude: ______________________
Longitude: ______________________

A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than 11x17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
 North Arrow
 Graphical Scale
 Boundary of Review Area
 Date
 Location of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
 Jurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
 Jurisdictional non-wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non-Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
 Isolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non-
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non-Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non-jurisdictional (i.e.
“Isolated”, “No Significant Nexus”, or “Upland Feature”). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
 Wetland and non-wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non-wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.

Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)

____________________________________________________________________________
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled “Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations” to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards. http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-
Program/Jurisdiction/
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017 Page 6

Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
• PJDs, please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form7 and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
• AJDs, please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form8

Vicinity Map

Aerial Photograph

USGS Topographic Map

Soil Survey Map

Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)

Landscape Photos (if taken)

NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets

NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms

Other Assessment Forms

_____________________________________________________________________________
7 www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/regdocs/JD/RGL_08-02_App_A_Prelim_JD_Form_fillable.pdf
8 Please see http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Jurisdiction/

Principal Purpose: The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine
whether there are any aquatic resources within the project area subject to federal jurisdiction under the regulatory authorities referenced above. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local
government agencies, and the public, and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by federal law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public on the District's website
and on the Headquarters USAGE website.
Disclosure: Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the
request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be issued.
Owner of Record
Landowner PIN County Deed Book &
Page Number
Parcel
Acreage
Connie H. and
Paul A. Feige
2568057761 Wayne 3133/486 265.1
Debra H. and
George
Grantham
2568356824 Wayne 3133/477 266.14
Timothy J.
Robbins
2568560252 Wayne 1065/840 113.41

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION,
LOT N0. PLAN N0. PARCEL ID: Z5(o$OS77(p I
STREETADDRESS: `'S 'FEv-QIi5 Mit\
PropertyOwner: Cnnn
Property Owner:
4
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd
Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
watedandsolutions.com
919-614-5111
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby
authorize Adam McIntyre CEO of Water & Land Solutions LLC
to review my property and to act on my behalf to take all actions necessary for the
processing, issuance and acceptance of necessary permits and/or certifications and any and
all standard and special conditions attached. This authorization allows the individual to
represent on my behalf to the necessary Government agency personnel for the proposed
property.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
I U110 Tt ✓ "e OA5s- ;L-
Telephone:
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate
to the best of our knowledge.
F24Aqup
Authorized Signature
Date: 1— r - -) u 1 -7
/'r
Authorized Signature
Date:

4
WATER & LAND
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd
Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
PROPER'rY LEGAL DESCRIPTION: vvatedandsalutions.mm
LOT NO. PLAN NO. PARCEL ID: 74 91M14-5111
STREETADDRESS: 1)-,S2 4Y-t�AMS Jvl�i1 R�
Property Owner: OP- r o. ('��n✓t.-FY1G rv�
Property Owner:
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby
authorize Adam Mclntvre CEO of Water & Land Solutions LLC
to review my property and to act on my behalf to take all actions necessary for the
processing, issuance and acceptance of necessary permits and/or certifications and any and
all standard and special conditions attached. This authorization allows the individual to
represent on my behalf to the necessary Government agency personnel for the proposed
property.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
Telephone:
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate
to the best of our knowledge.
Authorized Signature Aut rizel� dSignature
Date: .2- Date: 2' /�— /7

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
DEEDBOOK: 01065　PAGE: O840 PARCEL ID: _2568560252
STREET ADDRESS: 2342 Stevens Mill∴Rd, Goldsboro, NC 27530
ゐ
1 1030 Raven Ridge Rd
Suite l19
Raieigh, NC 27614
Wate巾andsoIutions.com
919-614-51 11
Please Print:
Property Owner:エ圭皿Othv丁Robbins
Property Owner:
The undersigned′ registered property owners ofthe above noted property, do hereby
authorize
-岬」 Of 」岬______
〔Contractor / Agent〕　　　　　　(Name of consulting firm〕
to review my property and to act on my behalfto take all actions necessary for the
PrOCeSSing′ issuance and acceptance ofnecessary permits and/or ce舶cations and any and
all standard and special conditions attached・ This authorization a]lows the individual to
represent on my behalfto the necessary Government agency persomel for the proposed
PrOPerty:
Property Owner’s Address (if different than property above) :
2386 Stevens Mill Rd, Goldsboro, NC 27530
Telephone : 」雄」_____-___葛_臆し
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is tru。 and a。。urat。
to the best of our knowledge・
Authorized Signature
Date: //葛/二/乙一書臆　　　　臆臆_　　Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Hollowell Mitigation Site CitylCounty: Wayne Sampling Date: Nov -7-2018
Applicant/Ownen Water & Land Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: 115
Investigator(s): G Lankford Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc_): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P and MLRA 133A Lat: 35.359118 Long: -78.112052Datum WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Bibb sandy loam NWI classification:
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X
Remarks:
Wetland data pt for Wetland W1
HYDROLOGY
u Surfaoe Water (Al)
❑� High Water Table (A2)
1LJ
LJ
Q Saturation (A3)
❑
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (133)
10
LJ
L1 Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Q Iron Deposits (135)
Q
Q Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(67)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X
Water Table Present? Yes X
No—
o_Saturation
SaturationPresent? Yes X
No
gauge,
No Is the Sampled Area
No within a Wetland? Yes X No
No
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (616)
0 Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
1.Jn Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches): -g
Depth (inches): -8 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 115
2 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius }
1 Smilax rotundifolia 4 Yes FAC
2 Lonicera japonica 2 Yes FACU
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
6 = Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 3 20% of total cover: 1 Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius }
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Acer rubrum
90 Yes FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2 Betula nigra
5 No FACW
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (AB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
95 = Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover: 48
20% of total cover: 19
FACW species x2=
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius }
FAC species x 3 =
1 Acer rubrum
5 Yes FAC
FACU species x4=
2
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = BIA =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
0 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
0 2 - Dominance Test is n50%
8.
a 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
5 = Total Cover
a Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius }
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1 Arundinaria gigantea
2 - FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6•
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
9.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
2 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius }
1 Smilax rotundifolia 4 Yes FAC
2 Lonicera japonica 2 Yes FACU
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
6 = Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 3 20% of total cover: 1 Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 115
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) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-4 10 YR 211 100
fLS —100% MIS
4-10 10 YR 211 95
10 YR 411 4 ❑ PL
SL
— -- --
10 YR 414 2 C PL
10-15 10 YR 311 90
10 YR 211 10 C PL
S
15-24 10 YR 313 85
10 YR 311 15 ❑ PL
SL
Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matdx.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
0
Histosol (A1)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0)
HHistic
Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
0
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
T-1
LJ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
�J
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ (MLRA 153B)
H5
cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
T]
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
D
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
D Other (Explain in Remarks)
E]
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
0
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
HCoast
Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
D
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA
149A, 153C, 153D)
L_l
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Hollowell Mitigation Site CitylCounty: Wayne Sampling Date: Jun -28-2018
Applicant/Ownen Water & Land Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: 93
Investigator(s): G Lankford Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc_): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P and MLRA 133A Lat: 35.354944 Long: -78.11433Datum WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Bibb sandy loam NWI classification:
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X Soil or Hydrology x significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No X
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Non -hydric data pt for Wetland W1
Point is within drained cultivated field.
HYDROLOGY
u Surfaoe Water (Al)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
1LJ
LJ
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (133)
10
LJ
I..l Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Q Iron Deposits (135)
Q
Q Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X
Water Table Present? Yes
No X
Saturation Present? Yes
No X
gauge,
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (616)
0 Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
1.Jn Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 93
Tree Stratum (Plot size: }
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5•
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
FACW species x2=
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: }
FAC species x 3 =
1
FACU species x4=
2
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4•
Prevalence Index = BIA =
5•
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is n50%
8.
a 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
= Total Cover
a Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius }
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1 Gycine max
5 Yes NA
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3•
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
$
height.
6•
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8•
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
9.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
5 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: }
1.
2.
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes No X
Point is in cultivated field - row crop (soybean) recent planting.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 93
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) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-8 10 YR 211 100
fLS —100% coated sand grains
8-25 10 YR 211 93
10 YR 5/2 5 ❑ PL
SL
— -- --
10 YR 314 2 C PL
25-28 10 YR 511 95
10 YR 6/2 5 C PL
S
Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
0
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
HHistic
Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
0
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
T-1
LJ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ (MLRA 153B)
H5
cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
T]
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
D Other (Explain in Remarks)
E]
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
21
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
HCoast
Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
D
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA
149A, 153C, 153D)
L_l
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Hollowell Mitigation Site CitylCounty: Wayne Sampling Date: Jan -117-2019
Applicant/Ownen Water & Land Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: 116
Investigator(s): G Lankford Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc_): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P and MLRA 133A Lat: 35.352662 Long: -78.116198Datum WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Weston loamy sand (Woodington) NWI classification:
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X
Remarks:
Wetland data pt for Wetland W2
HYDROLOGY
u Surfaoe Water (Al)
❑� High Water Table (A2)
1L JJ
LJ
Q Saturation (A3)
❑
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (133)
10
LJ
I..l Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Q Iron Deposits (135)
Q
Q Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(67)
J❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X
Water Table Present? Yes X
No _
Saturation Present? Yes X
No
gauge,
Surface water near point.
No Is the Sampled Area
No within a Wetland? Yes X No
No
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (616)
0 Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
1.Jn Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches): -4
Depth (inches): -4 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 116
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: }
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius }
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Nyssa biflora
40
Yes
OBL
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2 Liriodendron tulipifera
15
Yes
FACU
Total Number of Dominant
3• Acer rubrum
5
No
FAC
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
4 Ilex opaca
5
No
FAC
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 84 (AB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
65
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover: 33
20% of total cover:
13
FACW species x2=
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius }
FAC species x 3 =
1 Persea borbonia
5
Yes
FACW
FACU species x4=
2 Ilex opaca
5
Yes
FAC
UPL species x 5 =
3 Magnolia virginiana
5
Yes
FAC
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4 Vaccinium oorymbosum
2
No
FAC
Prevalence Index = BIA =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
0 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
0 2 - Dominance Test is n50%
8•
a 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
17
= Total Cover
a Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover: 9
20% of total cover:
3
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius }
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1 Carex sp.
2
-
--
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
$
height.
6•
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
9.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: }
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 116
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) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-7 7.5 YR 2.511 100
mucky SL
7-20 N 2.51- 100
SL
20-26 7.5 YR 512 98 7.5 YR 313 2 C PL
CL
Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
0
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0)
HHistic
Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
0
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
T-1 Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
LJ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ (MLRA 153B)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
T]
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
D Other (Explain in Remarks)
E]
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
21
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
D
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA
149A, 153C, 153D)
L_l
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Hollowell Mitigation Site CitylCounty: Wayne Sampling Date: Jan -16-2019
Applicant/Ownen Water & Land Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: 117
Investigator(s): G Lankford Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc_): toe slope above floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): linear Slope (%): <1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P and MLRA 133A Lat: 35.35231 Long: -78116439 Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Craven sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, eroded (Gritney) NWI classification:
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X Soil or Hydrology X significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No X
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Non -hydric data pt for Wetland W2
Point is at edge of clear-cut and forested wetland.
HYDROLOGY
u Surfaoe Water (Al)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
1L—Jr
LJ
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (133)
10
LJ
I..l Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Q Iron Deposits (135)
Q
Q Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(67)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X
Water Table Present? Yes X
No _
Saturation Present? Yes X
No
gauge,
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (616)
0 Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
1.Jn Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches): -18
Depth (inches): -18 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 117
Tree Stratum (Plot size: }
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40 (AB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
FACW species x2=
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 20' radius }
FAC species x 3 =
1 Liriodendron tulipifera
5 Yes FACU
FACU species x4=
2 Liquidambar styraciflua
3 Yes FAC
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = BIA =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is n50%
8•
8
a 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
= Total Cover
a Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover: 4
20% of total cover: 2
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 20' radius }
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1 Eupatorium capillifolium
5 Yes FACU
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2 Andropogon virginicus
5 Yes FAC
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3 Rubus argutus
5 Yes FACU
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
$
height.
6•
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8•
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
15 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 8 20% of total cover: 3
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: }
1.
2.
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 117
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) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-2 7.5 YR 2.511 100
SL
2-7 7.5 YR 413 100
SL
7-20 7.5 YR 613 96
7.5 YR 416 4 C PL
SL
20-27 7.5 YR 6/4 80
7.5 YR 518 20 C PL
SCL
Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matdx.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
0
Histosol (A1)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0)
HHistic
Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
0
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
T-1 Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
LJ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ (MLRA 153B)
H5
cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
T]
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
D Other (Explain in Remarks)
E]
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
0
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
HCoast
Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
D
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA
149A, 153C, 153D)
L_l
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Hollowell Mitigation Site CitylCounty: Wayne Sampling Date: Jan -117-2019
Applicant/Ownen Water & Land Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: 118
Investigator(s): G Lankford Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc_): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P and MLRA 133A Lat: 35.355645 Long: -78.126993Datum WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Weston loamy sand (Woodington) NWI classification:
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X
Remarks:
Wetland data pt for Wetland W2
HYDROLOGY
u Surfaoe Water (Al)
❑� High Water Table (A2)
1L JJ
LJ
Q Saturation (A3)
❑
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (133)
10
LJ
L1 Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Q Iron Deposits (135)
Q
Q Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(67)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X
Water Table Present? Yes X
No _
Saturation Present? Yes X
No
gauge,
No Is the Sampled Area
No within a Wetland? Yes X No
No
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (616)
0 Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
1.Jn Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches): -4
Depth (inches): -4 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 118
15 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 20' radius }
1 Smilax rotundifolia 10 Yes FAC
2 Vitis rotundifolia 10 Yes FAC
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
20 = Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover: 4 Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20' radius }
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Betula nigra
45 Yes FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
2 Liquidambar styraciflua
10 Yes FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3• Pinus taeda
5 No FAC
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
4 Carpinus caroliniana
5 No FAC
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (AB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
65 = Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover: 33
20% of total cover: 13
FACW species x2=
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 20' radius }
FAC species x 3 =
1 Quercus nigra
2 - FAC
FACU species x4=
2
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4•
Prevalence Index = BIA =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
0 2 - Dominance Test is n50%
8•
a 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
2 = Total Cover
a Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 20' radius }
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1 Rubus argutus
15 Yes FAC
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
$
height.
6•
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
15 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 20' radius }
1 Smilax rotundifolia 10 Yes FAC
2 Vitis rotundifolia 10 Yes FAC
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
20 = Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover: 4 Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 118
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) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-4 10 YR 212 100
SL
4-8 10 YR 412 95
10 YR 316 5 C PL
SL
8-12 7.5 YR 411 90
7.5 YR 314 10 C PL
SCL
12-19 7.5 YR 511 80
7.5 YR 416 20 C PL
SC
Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
0
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0)
HHistic
Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
0
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
T-1 Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
LJ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
J
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ (MLRA 153B)
H5
cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
T]
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
J
Redox Depressions (F8)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
D Other (Explain in Remarks)
E]
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
0
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
HCoast
Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
D
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA
149A, 153C, 153D)
L_l
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Hollowell Mitigation Site CitylCounty: Wayne Sampling Date: Jun -21-2018
Applicant/Ownen Water & Land Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: 30
Investigator(s): G Lankford Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc_): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P and MLRA 133A Lat: 35.355141 Long: -78.128292Datum WGS 84
Soil Map unit Name: Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X Soil or Hydrology x significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No X
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Non -hydric data pt for Wetland W3
Point is within drained cultivated field.
HYDROLOGY
u Surfaoe Water (Al)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
1LJ
LJ
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (133)
10
LJ
I..l Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Q Iron Deposits (135)
Q
Q Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X
Water Table Present? Yes
No X
Saturation Present? Yes
No X
gauge,
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (616)
0 Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
1.Jn Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 30
Tree Stratum (Plot size: }
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5•
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
FACW species x2=
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: }
FAC species x 3 =
1
FACU species x4=
2
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4•
Prevalence Index = BIA =
5•
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is n50%
8.
a 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
= Total Cover
a Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius }
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1 Gycine max
5 Yes NA
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3•
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
$
height.
6•
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8•
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
5 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: }
1.
2.
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes No X
Point is in cultivated field - row crop (soybean) recent planting.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 30
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) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-9 7.5 YR 312 95
7.5 YR 416 5 C PL
SL
9-18 7.5 YR 411 93
7.5 YR 516 5 C PL
SCL
18-27 7.5 YR 411 85
7.5 YR 516 15 C M
SC
Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
0
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0)
HHistic
Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (A90) (LRR S)
0
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR D)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
T-1 Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
LJ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
J
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ (MLRA 153B)
H5
cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
T]
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
J
Redox Depressions (F8)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
D Other (Explain in Remarks)
E]
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
0
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR a, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
HCoast
Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
D
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1568)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA
149A, 153C, 153D)
L_l
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Hollowell Mitigation Site CitylCounty: Wayne Sampling Date: Jan -16-2019
Applicant/Ownen Water & Land Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: 119
Investigator(s): G Lankford Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc_): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P and MLRA 133A Lat: 35.354178 Long: -78.127658Datum WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Lumbee sandy loam NWI classification:
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X
Remarks:
Wetland data pt for Wetland W4
HYDROLOGY
u Surfaoe Water (Al)
❑� High Water Table (A2)
1LJ
LJ
Q Saturation (A3)
❑
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (133)
10
LJ
L1 Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Q Iron Deposits (135)
Q
Q Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(67)
J❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X
Water Table Present? Yes X
No—
o_Saturation
SaturationPresent? Yes X
No
gauge,
No Is the Sampled Area
No within a Wetland? Yes X No
No
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (616)
0 Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
1.Jn Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches): -9
Depth (inches): -9 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 119
9 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: }
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius }
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Acer rubrum
30
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
2 Nyssa biflora
25
Yes
DBL
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 87 (AB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
55
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover: 28
20% of total cover:
11
FACW species x2=
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius }
FAC species x 3 =
1 Liquidambar styraciflua
5
Yes
FAC
FACU species x4=
2 Baccharis halimifolia
3
Yes
FAC
UPL species x 5 =
3 Alnus semalata
2
Yes
FACW
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4 Ilex opaca
2
Yes
FAC
Prevalence Index = BIA =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
0 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
0 2 - Dominance Test is n50%
8•
a 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
12
= Total Cover
a Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover: 6
20% of total cover:
2
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius }
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1 Arundinaria gigantea
5
Yes
FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2 Carex sp.
4
Yes
—
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3'
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
$
height.
6•
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
9.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
9 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: }
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 119
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) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-7 N 2.51- 100
mucky L
7-18 7.5 YR 2.511 95
SL
18-28 7.5 YR 412 90 7.5 YR 511 15 D PL
SL
Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
0
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0)
HHistic
Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
0
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
T-1 Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
LJ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ (MLRA 153B)
H5
cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
T]
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
D Other (Explain in Remarks)
E]
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
0
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
HCoast
Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
D
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA
149A, 153C, 153D)
L_l
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Hollowell Mitigation Site CitylCounty: Wayne Sampling Date: Jun -21-2018
Applicant/Ownen Water & Land Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: 31
Investigator(s): G Lankford Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc_): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P and MLRA 133A Lat: 35.353828 Long: -78.129002Datum WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Lumbee sandy loam NWI classification:
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X Soil or Hydrology x significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No X
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Non -hydric data pt for Wetland W3
Point is within drained cultivated field.
HYDROLOGY
u Surfaoe Water (Al)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
1LJ
LJ
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (133)
10
LJ
I..l Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Q Iron Deposits (135)
Q
Q Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X
Water Table Present? Yes
No X
Saturation Present? Yes
No X
gauge,
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (616)
0 Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
1.Jn Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 31
Tree Stratum (Plot size: }
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
FACW species x2=
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: }
FAC species x 3 =
1
FACU species x4=
2
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4•
Prevalence Index = BIA =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is n50%
8.
a 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
= Total Cover
a Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius }
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1 Gycine max
5 Yes NA
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
$
height.
6•
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
5 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: }
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes No X
Point is in cultivated field - row crop (soybean) recent planting.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 31
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) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-8 N 2.51- 100
CL
8-15 2.5 Y 2.511 85
2.5 Y 414 15 C PL
SCL
15-25 2.5 Y 411 85
10 YR 416 25 C M
SC
Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
0
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0)
HHistic
Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
0
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
T-1
LJ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ (MLRA 153B)
H5
cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
T]
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
D Other (Explain in Remarks)
E]
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
21
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
HCoast
Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
D
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA
149A, 153C, 153D)
L_l
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Hollowell Mitigation Site City/County: Wayne Sampling Date: Jan -17-2019
Applicant/Owner Water & Land Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: 120
Investigator(s): G Lankford Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc-): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%):
Subregion {LRR or MLRA): LRR P and MLRA 133A Lat. 35-351273 Long: -78123221 Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name. Craven sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, eroded (Gritney) NWI classification:
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks-)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x
Remarks:
Wetland data pt for Wetland W3
HYDROLOGY
u Surface Water (Al)
❑+� High Water Table (A2)
U
❑
Q Saturation (A3)
❑
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
❑
Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(137)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No x
Water Table Present? Yes x
No _
Saturation Present? Yes x
No
gauge,
No—Is the Sampled Area
No I within a Wetland? Yes X No
No
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
0 Drainage Patterns (S10)
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches): -5
Depth (inches): -5 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 120
Tree Stratum (Plot size: }
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 140 (AB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
FACW species x2=
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius }
FAC species x 3 =
1 Ligustrum sinense
95 Yes FAC
FACU species x4=
2 Betula nigra
3 No FACW
UPL species x 5 =
3 Liquidambar styraciflua
2 No FAC
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4 Linodendron tulipifera
2 No FACU
Prevalence Index = BIA =
5•
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
0 2 - Dominance Test is n50%
8•
a 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
102 = Total Cover
a Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover: 51
20% of total cover: 20
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1,
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
$
height.
6•
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8•
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
9.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
9 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: }
1.
2.
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 120
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) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-3 7.5 YR 312 100
SL
3-14 7.5 YR 511 80
7.5 YR 416 20
C
14-22 7.5 YR 511 70
7.5 YR 416 25 D PL
C
-- -- --
7.5 YR 411 5 -- --
--
Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
0
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0)
HHistic
Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
0
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
T-1 Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
LJ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
J
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ (MLRA 153B)
H5
cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
T]
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
J
Redox Depressions (F8)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
D Other (Explain in Remarks)
E]
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
0
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
HCoast
Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
D
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA
149A, 153C, 153D)
L_l
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Hollowell Mitigation Site CitylCounty: Wayne Sampling Date: Jan -17-2019
Applicant/Ownen Water & Land Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: 107
Investigator(s): G Lankford Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc_): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P and MLRA 133A Lat: 35.351118 Long: -78.124359Datum WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Bibb sandy loam NWI classification:
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X
Remarks:
Wetland data pt for Wetland W5
HYDROLOGY
u Surface Water (Al)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
1LJ
LJ
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (133)
10
LJ
I..l Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Q Iron Deposits (135)
Q
Q Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(67)
J❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X
Water Table Present? Yes X
No _
Saturation Present? Yes X
No
gauge,
Water table continuing to rising.
No Is the Sampled Area
No within a Wetland? Yes X No
No
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (616)
0 Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
1.Jn Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches): -15
Depth (inches): -15 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 107
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 20' radius }
1 Vitis rotundifolia 5 Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
5 = Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20' radius }
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Betula nigra
10 Yes FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (AB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
10 = Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
FACW species x2=
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 20' radius }
FAC species x 3 =
1 Ligustrum sinense
100 Yes FAC
FACU species x4=
2
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4•
Prevalence Index = BIA =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
0 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
0 2 - Dominance Test is n50%
8.
a 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
100 = Total Cover
a Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1,
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
$
height.
6•
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 20' radius }
1 Vitis rotundifolia 5 Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
5 = Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 107
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) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-6 10 YR 312 100
SL
9-19 7.5 YR 411 80
7.5 YR 313 5 C PL
SCL
19-23 7.5 YR 411 70
7.5 YR 416 20 C PL
SC
Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
0
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0)
HHistic
Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
0
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
T-1 Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
LJ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
J
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ (MLRA 153B)
H5
cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
T]
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
D Other (Explain in Remarks)
21
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
0
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
HCoast
Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
D
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA
149A, 153C, 153D)
L_l
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Hollowell Mitigation Site CitylCounty: Wayne Sampling Date: Jun -27-2018
Applicant/Ownen Water & Land Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: 60
Investigator(s): G Lankford Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc_): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): <1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P and MLRA 133A Lat: 35.351762 Long: -78.126601Datum WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Kenansville loamy sand NWI classification:
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X Soil or Hydrology x significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No X
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Non -hydric data pt for Wetland W5
Point is within ditched and drained cultivated field.
HYDROLOGY
u Surfaoe Water (Al)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
1LJ
LJ
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (133)
10
LJ
I..l Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Q Iron Deposits (135)
Q
Q Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X
Water Table Present? Yes
No X
Saturation Present? Yes
No X
gauge,
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (616)
0 Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
1.Jn Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 60
Tree Stratum (Plot size: }
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5•
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
FACW species x2=
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: }
FAC species x 3 =
1
FACU species x4=
2
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4•
Prevalence Index = BIA =
5•
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is n50%
8.
a 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
= Total Cover
a Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius }
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1 Gycine max
5 Yes NA
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3•
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
$
height.
6•
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8•
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
5 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: }
1.
2.
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes No X
Point is in cultivated field - row crop (soybean) recent planting.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 60
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) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-5 10 YR 311 95
SL
5-12 10 YR 211 93
SCL
12-24 7.5 YR 411 85 7.5 YR 416 25 C PL
SC
Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
0
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0)
HHistic
Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (A90) (LRR S)
0
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR D)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
T-1 Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
LJ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ (MLRA 153B)
H5
cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
T]
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
D Other (Explain in Remarks)
E]
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
21
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR a, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
HCoast
Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
D
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1568)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA
149A, 153C, 153D)
L_l
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 11
Project/Site: 64al
atitude: 35'° l /5,76 Un1
Evaluator: t
County: WLongitude:-78°77Z/9��
1`Continuity of channel bed and bank
Total Points:
Stream DetSpvAPAUQa4jrcle one)
Other 6kQJ%%pq
Stream is at least intermittent Zo
if;t 19 or perennial if t30* I�
Ephemer Intermittent erennial
e.g. Quad Name: 64tOSFo
A. Geomorphology ( Subtotal = Q 5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1`Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
B. Headcuts
0
er =
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
CNo
= 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal= S. 0 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
(-Op 1
2 3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.5
1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 a
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Rioloav (Subtotal= 4(-O 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
er =
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: GV C'4
9T -C E 96e
4C-
;
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: q111 //--�
Project(Site: i/41j, IN/
Latitude:35OV /`f 63)AI
Evaluator: L
County: u14W4Longitude:'
79 ° p31
Total Points:
Stream Detemninatlon
[7�n/YX-
Other
Stream is at least intermittent D C
ifs 19 or erennial if z 30' �/
Ephemeral Intermitten Perennia
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology ( Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1°Continuity of channel bedandbank
0
1
2
1.5
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
24. Amphibians M
5. Active/relict Floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
Cl
2
er =
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
B. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
o = 0
Yes = 3
"artificial ditches are not rated; see digcussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 71.0 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1 1
2 $
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2 3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
(D 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0.5
No = 0Yes
=
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 57.C2 )
U
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 32
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish 0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish 0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians M
0.5
1
1.5
25, Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
er =
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 11:2
Project/Site:OLL �Vpo
Latitude:S 7,11 y
Evaluator: K,
County: k//We
Longitude: -760 7 � 63
Total Points:
Stream Dete ircle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent -7 0 0
if t 19 orperennial if 2 30' Z
Ephemeral ntsrmittent erennial
e.g. Quad Name:
W
A. Geomorphology ( (Subtotal= [/-,>)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
S g
1'Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
0.5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8.. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
C 1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
' artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. HVdrologV (Subtotal =5)
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
1
No = 0
Yes = 3
0.5 1
C. Biologv (Subtotal= 2.O )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3
2
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25, Algae
0.5 1
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.
Other =
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: �%/ (7 /� /
ProjecNSite: W64el/ L172 _
Latitude: J Z/ %D ,6S
Evaluator:
County:
Longitude: 76#o/
•�%
Total Points:
Stream De circle one)
Other 6 4,S6)Q.0
Stream is at least intermittent '/ `
if a lg or erennial it2 30' r0 J
Ephemer ntermitten erennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology ( (Subtotal= •5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1`Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
Yes = 3
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
K0=0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloqv (Subtotal = 9, 0 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
23
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2 3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5 di
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biolo Subtotal = O
M
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5 1
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.
Cher =
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:y /(I '
Project/Site: moll /% N'
Latitude: ,5 bor7�Sy U
Evaluator: K
County: W/ftC
Longitude: -78
Total Points:
Stream Determination(cir
Other 04D5 13,)R4
Stream is at least intermittent
if z 19 or erennial if z 3n* 0'
Ephemeral Intermitte erennla
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology(gy (Subtotal=/* • `J
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1'Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
01
0.5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
r2)
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal = ',
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
Cl -,2
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0.5
No = 0
25. Algae
CYes = 3
C. Biolo Subtotal = -
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2 1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2 1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)0
1 2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5 1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0.51
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other =
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
tI

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 ham%
Date: 41I / /I
ProjectlSite:90/40W VZ
Latitude: '35".7-1,30..50"w
Evaluator: K ��
County:WA vm�
Longitude: -7906 `y/ lD((
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 111/ 7 C
I ✓✓
Stream Determination (ci a
Ephemeral lntermitten Perenni
Other ��y,n�e�,�.��
e.g. Quad Nam��e:��
i(t 19 or erennial if z 30"
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
A. Geomorphology ( Subtotal = 7- Y 'J
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
11 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
es = 3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.
1
Notes:
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
1
es = 3
C. Biolo (Subtotal= 10.15
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22, Fish
0
0.5
CO15
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.51.5
1
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
= 0.7
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 7 r� /"7
Project/Site: l /
Latitude: 7J5'�rA/ f/N
Evaluator: K L/ Gw
County:
Longitude: -w6 r
Total Points:
Stream Deter (circle one)
Other GDG 5AV)2jy
Stream is at least intermittent r5
if 219 orperennial if 2:30*
Ephemer Intermitten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 10.0
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
.2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
i3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
0.5
2
13
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
1,3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
'13
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
X13
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
i3
9. Grade control
0
0 5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
° artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B.Hvdrologv (Subtotal=g-Q_)
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
i3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
13
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.
1
.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
1
No = 0
es = 3
0.5
C. Biologv (Subtotal = q,C> )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3
2
1
X10
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
13
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0
1
2
13
22. Fish
0.5
1
J.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Cher =
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
I
Sketch:
h/

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: C3/ A7
Project/Site:/b/� I ,`6
Latitude: 3,54z//7/ 2$/ice
Evaluator:
County: 1j*K
Longitude: '%b -6-Y
Total Points:
Stream Determination (c"
Other
Stream is at least intermittent 3.0
if t 19 or erennial if t 30'
Ephemeral Intermitte Perennial
e.g. quad Name:
A. Geomorphology ( Subtotal = 176 • d
A -b -s -e -n -t
-F Weak
Moderate
St' ng
1'Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
'3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
'.3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
i3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active/relict Floodplain
0
1
2
',3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
'3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
C2�2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
Notes:
10. Natural valley
0
.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
' artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B.Hvdroloav (Subtotal ='1O-0 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
'3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
'3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.51
2
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes =.32
1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal= K.O )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
10
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
o
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
eAb
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
BL = 1.5 ther = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Appendix G - Agency Correspondence

WLS Neuse 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Hollowell Mitigation Project

Initial Evaluation Letter
Meeting Minutes- NCIRT Draft Prospectus Site Meeting

July 26, 2018

Regulatory Division/1200A

Action ID No. SAW-2017-00159

Re: NCIRT Initial Review of the WLS Neuse 01 Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument and
Hollowell Mitigation Site Prospectus; SAW-2017-00159

WLS Neuse 01 Holdings, LLC
Attention: Mr. Adam V. McIntyre
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614

Dear Mr. McIntyre:

This letter is in regard to your prospectus document for the proposed WLS Neuse 01 Umbrella
Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI) and Hollowell Mitigation Site, dated March 2018. The
proposal consists of the establishment and operation of a 75-acre commercial stream and wetland
mitigation bank located adjacent to the Neuse River Basin, northeast of the intersection of Beaver
Dam Road and Stevens Mill Road, in Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina. (Latitude
35.35548°N, Longitude -78.11692°W)

The Corps determined the Prospectus was complete and issued a public notice (P/N # SAW-
2017-00159) on April 30, 2018. The purpose of this notice was to solicit the views of interested
State and Federal agencies and other parties either interested in or affected by the proposed work.
Attached are comments received in response to the public notice from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources.

The Corps has considered the comments received from members of the Interagency Review
Team (IRT) and information that was discussed during an IRT site review on January 8, 2017.
We have determined that the proposed mitigation bank appears to have the potential to preserve
and enhance aquatic resources within the Upper Neuse 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03020201 of the Neuse River Basin. Therefore, the bank sponsor may proceed with preparation
of a draft UMBI.

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343

Please provide a response to the attached comments with your draft UMBI submittal. We
appreciate your interest in restoring and protecting waters of the United States. If you have
questions regarding this letter, please contact Samantha Dailey, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
at [e-mail] or telephone [phone], Extension 22

Sincerely,

Samantha Dailey
Regulatory Project Manager
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office

Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List

DWR Comments on Hollowell
June 22, 2018
For myself, site visits were February 22, 2017 and January 8, 2018
Comments are based on notes from 1st visit and recollections from 2nd visit:
1. The first visit it was acknowledged that the site was proposed initially by another provider and
that the bottom portion of the project (closer to the Neuse River) was likely a buffer violation (?)
2. DWR’s recommendations will be going off a figure labeled Figure 10-Proposed Mitigation
Features Map
3. DWR concurs with the call that W1 and UT2-R1 are preservation.
4. UT2A is basically a ditch coming out of a pine stand. The upper portion is likely more headwater
like (ie valley length), and the lower half may be a single thread channel.
5. DWR believes that W3 and W4 do have wetland restoration potential.
6. DWR concurs with the recommended approaches for UT2-R2, UT2B and UT2-R3.
7. UT1-R1- this reach was fully forested with a mix of older, larger trees and younger early
successional species, however, there was full canopy closure. The recommended approach is
restoration, however, DWR would urge an approach that kept as many larger trees as possible.
The channel is relatively small, although straightened. In addition, the channel is not particularly
incised, therefore it seems that a more natural channel could be built among the existing trees
with smaller equipment. DWR recommends this approach, if at all possible.
8. UT1A- this reach did not appear to have much or consistent flow. This reach would be a credit
risk for stream restoration.
9. For reach UT1-R2, DWR agrees with the recommended approach until the reach gets to the
wooded section near the end of the reach. This portion was not visited and further information
would have to be provided in the draft Mitigation Plan that justified the approach. There was
lot of discussion on site whether this stream historically emptied more directly into the Neuse
versus taking a 90 degree turn and flowing through the field to the endpoint before it reaches
the river.
United States Department of the Interior
FISII An\D Wl[.DLlFE SERVICE
Italeigh ES Field Ofllcc
Post Office Box 33726
Raleish. North Carol ir:n 27 636-37 26
June 27 ,2018
Ms. Samantha Daily
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Raleigh RegLrlatory Field Office, Suite 105
Wake Forest. North Carolina 27587
Re: WLS Neuse 0l Umbrella Mitigation Bank/ SAW-2017-01591 Wayne County, NC
Dear Ms. Daily':
This letter is to infbnn you that the Service has established an on-line project planning and
consultation process which assists developers and consultants in determining whether a
federally-listed species or designated critical habitat may be affected by a proposed project. For
future projects, please visit the Raleigh Field Office's project planning website at
https:/iwww.fws.gov/raleish/pp.html. If you are only searching for a list of species that may be
present in the project's Action Area, then you may use the Service's Information, Planning, and
Consultation System (lPaC) website to determine if any listed, proposed, or candidate species
may be present in the Action Area and generate a species list. The IPaC website may be viewed
at https://ecos.fws.gov/ipacl. The IPaC web site contains a complete and liequently updated list
of all endangered and threatened species protected by the provisions o1'ti-re lrndangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. l53l et seq.)(Act), a list of federal species of concern'that
are knowr-r to occur in each county in North Carolina, and other resources.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardizethe continued existence of any
federally-listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfiU that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally-protected species list, infbrmation on the
species' lil'e histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
' The term "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes rnight be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species ofconcem receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species willeventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minirnize adverse impacts to
f'ederal species of concem.
evaluation and can be found on our web page athttp:llwv,rw.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally-listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally-protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your suryeys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our offrce for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
With regard to the above-referenced project, we offer the following remarks. Our comments are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information concerning the above
referenced project. The project, based on the description in the Public Notice, the provided
Prospectus, and other information is expected to have minimal adverse impacts to fish and
wildlife resources.
We do not have any major concerns with the WLS Neuse 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prospectus and site plan as currently proposed, and think this project could greatly benefit the
downstream water quality. Downstream water quality in this watershed is greatly important to
the Service. There have been records of the Neuse River Waterdog (Necturis lewisi), a federal
species of concern, immediately downstream in 2014. The Service encourages mitigation efforts
in priority watersheds, or with work that drains to priority watersheds such as this one, that will
benefit federal and state listed species. We will continue to be involved in this project through
discussions with the IRT. and will provide additional comments in the future if wananted.
The Service has reviewed available information on federally-threatened or endangered species
known to occur in Wayne County, specifically within the proposed mitigation work area,
adjacent tributaries and the larger Neuse River. Federally listed species in WayneCounty, North
Carolina include: Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Tar River spinymussel (Eliptio
steinstansana), and Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), in addition to many other federal species
of concern. We have also reviewed information from the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) database which contains excellent data on the special status species, both
federal and state, which can be found here: https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/. Our review indicates
that no federally listed species under Service jurisdiction are likely to occur in the project area
due to lack of appropriate habitat.
Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that 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 at
these sites. We believe that the requirements of sectionT(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if: (l) new information reveals impacts of this identified actiot-t that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have
on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we
recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species,
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shor.rld be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby down-gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend maintaining
natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.
We recommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in
completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary).
We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Emily Wells of this office
at [phone] ext.26.
Sincerely,
Pete Ben/amin
Field Supervisor

waterlandsolutions.com | 10940 Raven Ridge Rd, Ste 200, Raleigh, NC 27614 | 919-614-5111
Meeting Minutes
WLS Neuse 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank:
Hollowell Mitigation Project

Subject: NCIRT Draft Prospectus Site Meeting
Date Prepared: February 2, 2018
Meeting Date and Time: January 8, 2018 @ 1000
Meeting Location: On-site (Wayne County, NC)
Recorded By: Kayne VanStell and Catherine Manner
Attendees: USACE: Todd Tugwell (NCIRT), Samantha Dailey and Kim Browning
NCDEQ DWR: Mac Haupt and Anthony Scarbraugh (NCIRT)
NCWRC: Travis Wilson (NCIRT)
WLS: Kayne VanStell, Adam McIntyre and Catherine Manner
These meeting minutes document notes and discussion points from the North Carolina Interagency
Review Team (NCIRT) Draft Prospectus Site Meeting for the Hollowell Mitigation Project (Neuse River
Basin, CU 03020201, Warm Water Thermal Regime). Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is submitting the
Hollowell Mitigation Project under the Neuse 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The project site is located in
Wayne County, near Goldsboro, North Carolina.
The meeting began at 1000 with introductions and a general summary of the overall project concepts that
were discussed in the previous pre-prospectus site visit on February 22nd, 2017. After the site overview,
attendees toured the project site to review existing conditions and proposed mitigation types, restoration
approaches, and design concepts. In general, the project site review notes are presented below in the
order they were visited.

waterlandsolutions.com | 10940 Raven Ridge Rd, Ste 200, Raleigh, NC 27614 | 919-614-5111
UT2-R1 / W1
1. The site visit began at the road culvert crossing. The group walked to the upstream end of UT2-R1
and W1 (wetland area 1) to observe the headwater stream and wetland complex and existing flow
conditions. WLS suggested that the group walk the entire headwater valley to observe existing
conditions and discuss rationale for proposed stream and wetland preservation.
2. Due to the recent snow fall, a more defined channel was present higher up within the headwater
valley than originally suggested at the original pre-prospectus meeting. The team walked and
discussed the various challenges of defining where the stream features ultimately start.
3. Mac noted that the single-thread characteristics and channel definition eventually stop towards the
upper valley and no stream preservation credit would be approved beyond that point. He also
recommended installing both a groundwater well and flow gauge to document subsurface wetland
hydrology and surface flow duration pre- and post-restoration. The group generally agreed with the
mitigation types/approach and that the existing stream and wetland was worthy of preservation. Mac
also suggested that the stream preservation credit ratio should be no more than 8:1. WLS agreed to
revise the mapping and proposed credits in this area.
UT2A / W4
4. Kayne/Adam noted that UT2A would likely be filled and restored as a braided headwater stream
system given the small drainage area and flat valley slope. Adam also noted that no buffer mitigation
credit would be proposed in upper UT2A or any areas that were previously determined to be in
violation. The group generally understood and agreed with the restoration approach/rationale and
violation concerns based on previous discussions with Anthony and the previous provider.
5. Mac and Adam noted that the actual wetland areas are conceptual based on a preliminary LSS
investigations and a more detailed soil study would be conducted to determine extent of hydric soils
and appropriate wetland hydrology. The group generally agreed that a headwater restoration
approach would promote more overbank flows and likely improve wetland hydrology. Mac
recommended installing groundwater wells to document wetland hydrology pre- and post-
restoration. WLS noted the comment.
UT2-R2 / W3
6. Kayne/Adam noted that a majority of UT2-R2 would be restored as a small single-thread channel
below the confluence with UT2A and the transition area would be determined during the formal
design process. No further comments were made and the group agreed with this approach/rationale.
UT2B and UT2-R3
7. The group did not walk the wooded portion of reach UT2B and UT2-R3. These areas had been
reviewed by IRT members during previous site visits. WLS noted the site conditions and proposed

waterlandsolutions.com | 10940 Raven Ridge Rd, Ste 200, Raleigh, NC 27614 | 919-614-5111
mitigation types/ratios had not changed. The enhancement approach would involve protection of
existing mussel communities and minimal disturbance in the floodplain by removing an existing pipe,
riparian buffer planting, and adding in-stream structure to prevent future incision.
UT1-R1 / W5
8. Mac, Travis, Anthony and Kayne walked upstream into the cutover area to observe the existing
conditions and hydric soil indicators. Based on the Bibb (‘Bb’) soil series mapped in the upper valley,
the group agreed that ‘Bb’ was a fluvial/floodplain soil type and restoration could be achieved through
filling in the ditch and restoring the historic flow path. Kayne described the headwater restoration
approach for upper UT1-R1 would be similar to UT2A, with a headwater valley approach for the upper
portion that would transition to a meandering single-thread channel towards the middle and lower
portions of the valley (UT1-R2).
9. Mac and Anthony recommended surveying transects/cross-sections to map the headwater valley
morphology. In addition, they recommended installing both groundwater wells across the valley in
W5 (wetland area 5) and a flow gauge to document the subsurface wetland hydrology and surface
flow duration pre- and post-restoration. Kayne agreed this would be useful data to help support the
restoration approach.
10. Travis, Mac and Anthony also commented that filling in the ditch could result in a loss of stream
jurisdiction in the upper section. Kayne noted the concern and agreed to revise the mapping and
adjust the proposed credits in this area.
11. Anthony expressed concerns for the previously cleared riparian buffer areas along the middle portion
of UT1-R1 that were in violation. He noted that no buffer mitigation credit would be approved in this
area. WLS noted the comment and agreed to revise the mapping and adjust proposed buffer credits
in this area.
UT1A
12. NCIRT collectively agreed that the proposed reach was likely not a jurisdictional stream channel. Sam
and Kim suggested that wetland restoration and riparian buffer may still be available based on the
approach of filling the existing ditch and the presence of hydric soil indicators. WLS agreed to omit
reach UT1A and revise the mapping and adjust proposed credits in this area.
UT1-R2 / W6
13. Todd and other IRT members had concerns that an existing large ditch has impacted the natural
drainage area and reduced surface flow to the existing channel. Todd also commented that a portion
of the drainage was flowing offsite and shortcut from a large ditch to the west of the project boundary.
Kayne commented that the existing topography in this area has likely been heavily manipulated and
the channels had likely been extensively ditched to increase arable land. He noted that existing

waterlandsolutions.com | 10940 Raven Ridge Rd, Ste 200, Raleigh, NC 27614 | 919-614-5111
ground near the large outlet ditch was actually over 1.6’ higher than the restored valley area as shown
on the LiDAR mapping.
14. Adam mentioned that portions of the ditch would be plugged and a detailed topographic survey and
watershed assessment would help support the stream and wetland restoration approach in this area.
Based on historic aerial imagery, LiDAR mapping, existing soils and valley topography, Adam noted
the downstream drainage area was over 200 acres and the valley should support a stream and
wetland system that connect directly to the Neuse River.
15. Kayne/Adam noted that based on the watershed size and anticipated flow a majority of UT1-R2 would
be restored as a small single-thread channel and the transition area would be determined during the
formal design process. No further comments were made and the group generally agreed with this
approach/rationale.
16. Anthony and other members mentioned that aside from the violation issues and ditch drainage
concerns, the site had good potential for a mitigation site.
17. The group did not walk the lower portion of reach UT1-R2 and W7 (wetland area 7). These areas had
been reviewed by IRT members during previous site visits. WLS noted the site conditions and
proposed mitigation types/ratios had not changed. No further comments were made and the group
generally agreed with this approach/rationale.

Final Comments Summary
• The NCIRT expressed that overall they accepted the proposed project mitigation approaches for
the project reaches as shown on the mapping with exception to reach UT1A and previous violation
areas along middle UT1-R1.
• The NCIRT requested that Katie Merritt visit the site to provide a viability assessment and a ‘Site
Viability Assessment Letter’ for buffer mitigation and/or nutrient offset prior to the reviewing
and approving the final UMBI.
• Todd noted that that the entirety of the comments discussed during the site visit should be
addressed and incorporated into the final prospectus submittal.

The above minutes represents Water & Land Solutions’ interpretation and understanding of the meeting
discussion and actions. If recipients of these minutes should find any information contained in these
minutes to be in error, incomplete, please notify the author with appropriate corrections and/or additions
within five (5) business days to allow adequate time for correction and redistribution.

Appendix H - Site Photographs

WLS Neuse 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Hollowell Mitigation Project

UT1-R1, facing downstream, 02/14/19 UT1-R2, facing downstream, 01/08/18
UT1-R2, facing upstream, 01/08/18 Ditch 1, draining to UT1-R1, 01/08/18
UT2-R1, upper portion, 09/19/16 UT2-R2, facing downstream, 02/14/19
UT2-R3, facing upstream, 09/19/16 UT2A, facing upstream, 02/14/19