20120595 All Versions_Application_20110106

I
I

.I
i 1
I
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates N
1000 West Mwenead Street. Soife P"10 SA ??/Jj. /
Chariottc. 14or1!: CarOhna 282.0E ?p..170-1. 312.: 88b f a x: t 7041372. 3333
November 17, 2010
Mr.-Andrew Williams --- - - -- - - . . ....,...
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
SUBJECT: Request for Jurisdictional Determination and Findings Report
City of Greensboro - East Cone Blvd. and Nealtown Road Extension Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates Project No. 2979200
Dear Mr. Williams
On behalf of the City of Greensboro (COG) -- Engineering-Division, STV/Ralph Whitehead
Associates (STV/RWA) is requesting written verification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) of the location and extent of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. in the project study area
i
of the East Cone Blvd. and Nealtown Road Extension Project. An Agent Certification of
Authorization Form and a Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form are enclosed in
Attachment A and Attachment B, respectively. The proposed project would extend the existing
portions of East Cone Boulevard and Nealtown Road as indicated in Attachment C - Figures 1,
2, 3 and 4.
The COG is planning to extend East Cone Boulevard approximately 2,800 feet to the east, from
its current terminus to a proposed new intersection with the Nealtown Road extension. Nealtown
Road will also be extended approximately 1,850 feet to the north, from its current terminus at
i White Street, to tie-in to the southern terminus of White Elder Road. In addition, improvements
will be made to the existing East Cone Boulevard, between 16" Street and the current terminus
of East Cone Boulevard, consisting of the addition of turn lanes, raising the grade of the
roadway, and improving the existing median.
Based on the City of Greensboro Geographic Information System (GIS) aerial photography and
verified by field review, the project study area consists mostly of undeveloped fields and forest
within the right-of-way. Residential and commercial developments are generally located directly
adjacent to the proposed alignment. This report documents the methodology used to assess the
approximate boundaries of jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, and the findings
of our field review.
I -
an employee-owned co
company providing qantiry service since 1912

The USGS maps and the Soil Survey map both depict one named stream (North Buffalo Creek)
within the study area. The Soil Survey also depicts three intermittent streams in the location of
the study area. The USFWS NWI map does not identify any streams or wetlands within the
study area.
The proposed East Cone Boulevard and Nealtown Road Extension Project is located entirely
within the southern outer Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina, which is
characterized by broad, gently rolling interstream areas and by steeper slopes along
drainageways. Based on topographic mapping (Attachment C - Figure 2), elevations in the
study area range from approximately 700 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD)
'Environmental Laboratory, 1987, "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
2 North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Identification AAleihodsfor the Origins oflntermitteni and Perennial Streams.
Version 3.1. 2005.
Page 2
?
i
- I
f
+
I
Jurisdictional waters `are-defined by 33-CFR 328.3(b) and protected by Section 404`of the`Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Potential jurisdictional wetlands in the study area were delineated
? using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Routine On-Site Determination Method as
defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual'. Potential jurisdictional
stream channels were delineated and classified according to recent North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ)Z and USACE guidance. NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms and
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets are included in Attachment D. Routine
Wetland Determination Data Forms representing potential jurisdictional wetland areas are
+ included in Attachment E. The Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos) Form is
included in Attachment F. Representative photographs of the potential jurisdictional features
located in the study area are included in Attachment G.
+
Prior to fieldwork, the following references were reviewed to identify possible waters of the U.S.,
including wetland areas:
'City of Greensboro Engineering. Division November 17, 2010
East Cone Blvd. and Nealtown Road Extensions - Request for JD
Background and Methodology
Field surveys were conducted along the proposed East Cone Boulevard and Nealtown Road
extension right-of-way (R/W) by STV/RWA scientists on October 20 and 21, 2009. The
proposed project R/W that measures approximately 200 feet wide, largely centered along the
proposed R/W, was field reviewed. Stream crossings were assessed and plant communities
and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded.
• U.S. Geological Service (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle maps {Greensboro, NC (1994), and
Mct_eansville, NC (1968))
i + U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWi) Map (Greensboro,
NC and McLeansville, NC)
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (now known as
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)) Soil Survey of Guilford County, NC
(1977)
• USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey
Guilford County GIS

Y
City of Greensboro' Engineering Division November 17, 2010
East Cone Blvd. and Nealtown Road Extensions - Request for JD
to 750 feet NGVD. The highest elevations in the study area are located near the existing
terminus of East Cone Boulevard. The lowest elevations in the study area are located at the
proposed crossing of North Buffalo Creek.
i
According to the USDA SCS, the study area contains seven interspersed soil types: Enon fine
sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (EnB), Enon fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes (EnC),
Enon clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes (EoC2), Madison sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes
„ ,(MaE), Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded (MhB2), Mecklenburg
sandy clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, eroded (MhC2), Pits (Pt), and Wehadkee silt loam
(Wh) (Attachment C - Figure 3). Enon fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes and Wehadkee
silt loam are the only soils considered to be hydric due to inclusions of the Picture, undrained
and the Weehadkee, undrained soil types, respectively.
I
The proposed project corridor is located in the Cape Fear drainage basin. The study area is
located within the Cape Fear subbasin 03-06-02 drainage basin. The major stream in the
project region (North Buffalo Creek) generally flows in an easterly direction. The Hydrologic Unit
Code 8 (HUC 8) for the Cape Fear Haw Watershed is 03030002.
The East Cone Blvd. and Nealtown Road Extension Project was previously issued a
Jurisdictional Determination (Action I.D. #200420108) by the USACE on November 17, 2003,
which expired on November 17, 2008.
Findings of Field Review
The results of the on-site field review conducted by STV/RWA environmental scientists indicate
three potential jurisdictional stream channels (Streams 1, 2 and 3) are located within the study
area. One potential jurisdictional wetland area (Wetland A) is also located within the study area.
Attachment C - Survey for City of Greensboro depicts the surveyed locations of these features.
Representative photographs of the potential jurisdictional features located on-site are, included
in Attachment G.
Streams
Potential jurisdictional stream boundaries were delineated and flagged in the field with blue and
white striped tape. The centerlines of these waters of the U.S. were surveyed by David
Boutwell, Professional Land Surveyor.
Stream 1, an unnamed tributary to North Buffalo Creek, was concluded to be a seasonal
relatively permanent water (seasonal RPW) with intermittent hydrology. Stream 1, concluded to
be providing unimportant aquatic function, is approximately 5 feet wide and begins off-site and
flows south across the project corridor (Attachment G - Photographs 1 and 2). Approximately
596 linear feet of Stream 1 is located within the project corridor. Stream 1 is not depicted on the
USGS topographic quadrangle, but is depicted as an intermittent stream on the USDA Soil
Survey of Guilford County (Attachment C - Figures 2 and 3).
Stream 2, an unnamed tributary to North Buffalo Creek, was concluded to be a relatively
permanent water (RPW) with perennial hydrology. Stream 2, concluded to be aquatically
Page 3
i
City of Greensboro Engineering'Division' November 17 2010 -
East Cone Blvd. and Nealtown Road Extensions - Request for JD
important, is approximately 7 feet wide and begins off-site and flows south across the project
corridor (Attachment G - Photographs 3 and 4). Approximately 376 linear feet of Stream 2 is
located within the project corridor. Stream 2 is depicted on the USGS topographic quadrangle
as a perennial stream (i.e., "blue line" feature) and is depicted as an intermittent stream on the
USDA Soil Survey of Guilford County (Attachment C - Figures 2 and 3).
Stream 3, an unnamed tributary to North Buffalo'Creek, was concluded to be a relatively
permanent water (RPW) with perennial hydrology. Stream 3, concluded to be aquatically
important,- is approximately 12 feet wide and begins at-a pipe culvert iri the 'western portion of
the project corridor (Attachment G - Photograph 5). Approximately 213 linear feet of Stream 3
is located within the project corridor. Stream 3 is not depicted on the USGS topographic
quadrangle or on the USDA Soil Survey of Guilford County (Attachment C - Figures 2 and 3).
North Buffalo Creek was concluded to be a relatively permanent water (RPW) with perennial
hydrology and is the largest of the waterways located within the study area. North Buffalo
Creek, concluded to be aquatically important, begins southwest of the study area and flows
generally to the east, into the southeast portion of the study area (Attachment G - Photograph
6). Approximately 150 linear feet of North Buffalo Creek is located within the project corridor.
North Buffalo Creek is depicted as a perennial stream on the USGS topographic quadrangle
and on the USDA Soil Survey of Guilford County (Attachment C - Figures 2 and 3). The
proposed Nealtown Road extension would involve a bridge spanning North Buffalo Creek;
consequently the top of bank of North Buffalo Creek was field approximated and not surveyed.
More information on the individual stream characteristics can be found on the NCDWQ and
USACE Stream Forms included in Attachment D.
Wetlands
The results of the on-site field review conducted by STV/RWA environmental scientists indicate
that there is one potential jurisdictional wetland area (Wetland A) located within the project study
area as shown in Attachment C - Survey for City of Greensboro. Potential jurisdictional wetland
boundaries were delineated and flagged in the field with blue and white striped tape. The
boundaries were surveyed by David Boutwell, Professional Land Surveyor. The wetland located
within the project study area is described below.
Wetland A is a palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous/emergent wetland located within the
project corridor in the central portion of the proposed East Cone Boulevard extension.
Approximately 0.025 acre of Wetland A is located within the project corridor. Dominant
vegetation within Wetland A includes river birch (Betula nigra) and slippery elm (Ulmus rubra) in
the overstory, saplings of the above mentioned trees and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) in the
understory, and a groundcover of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Wetland A is
adjacent to an ephemeral drainage connection to a seasonal RPW stream located south of the
project corridor (Attachment G - Photograph 7).
More information on the individual wetland parameters can be found on the Routine Wetland
Determination Data Form included in Attachment E. Streams 1, 2, and 3, Buffalo Creek, and
Wetland A represent the only waters of the U.S. identified within the proposed project corridor.
Page 4
City of'Greensboro Engineering Division November 17, 2010
East Cone Blvd. and Nealtown Road-Extensions _ Request for JD ' - . ,
Closing
We are hereby requesting verification of the delineated wetland boundaries and a written
jurisdictional determination from the USACE. We would welcome the opportunity to conducta
field verification with you. Please contact us at [phone] Ext. 1068 (Mike lagnocco) or
Ext. 1016 (Brandon Phillips) should you have any questions or concerns regarding this request.
Sincerely, .>._.. ..._..
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Brandon J. Phillips, C.H.M.M.
Senior Environmental Specialist
Michael A. lagnocco, P.W.S.
Senior Scientist
BJP/MAI.bp
Attachment A - Agent Certification of Authorization Form
Attachment B - Request for Jurisdictional Determination
Attachment C - Figures
Attachment D - USACE and NCDWQ Stream Data Forms
Attachment E - USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Attachment F - Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos) Form
Attachment G - Representative Photographs
cc: Bruce Overman, COG Engineering Division
Virginia Spillman, P.E., Stormwater Services
Page 5

City of Greensboro Department of Transportation November 17, 2010
East Cone Blvd. and Nealtown Road Extensions - Request for JD
Attachment A - Agent Certification of Authorization Form
AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I Bruce Overman representing the City of Greensboro, hereby certify that I have
authorized- Michael A. Iagnocco, P.W.S. of STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc., to act
on my behalf and take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of
this permit and all standards and special conditions attached.
We hereby verify that the above information submitted in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
k?lxr~e??ifGL,r?-
Applicant's signature
Date .
1
a 2U'
Agent's sign e?
II•Ib•ID
Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.
I
+ I
City of Greensboro d&j;artinenf of Transportation
East Cone Blvd. and Nealtown Road Extensions -Request for JO,
i
I
i
I
I '
November 17,2610_
Attachment B _ Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
I
I
I

I
REQUEST FOR AMSDICPIONAI. DETERMINATION
DATE: November 17. 2010
I
COUNTY Guilford TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT 55 acres
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) East Cone Blvd. and Nealtown Road Extensions
PROPERTY OWNEW/ PLICANT (name, address and phone):
City of Greensboro Department of Transportation
Mr. Bruce Overman - Chief Project Manager
i
'. y. P.O. Box 3136
Greensboro. North Carolina 27402-3136 [phone]
I NAME OF CONSULTANT. ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mr. Michael Iagnocco PWS
1000 W. Morehead St. Suite 200
Charlotte. North Carolina 28208 [phone]
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
I
(-) On-going site work for development purposes
( X) Project in planning stages
(Type of project: Linear - Transportation) -
( ) No specific development planned at present
( ) Project already completed
(Type of project:-

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Check items submitted - forward as much information as is available. At a minimum, the following first two items must be
I forwarded.
(X) Site Location Map (Attachment C - Figure 1)
(X) USGS 7.5' Greensboro NC (1994) and McLeansville, NC (1968) Topographic Quadrangles (Attachment C -
Figure 2)
(X) USDA SCS Guilford County Soil Survey (Attachment C - Figure 3)
(X) Approximate Waters of the U.S. Boundary Map (Attachment C)
( ) Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit
(X) Agent Certification of Authorization Form (Attachment A)
(X) USACE and NCDWQ Stream Data Forms (Attachment D)
(X) USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms (Attachment E)
(X) Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos) Form
(X) Representative Photographs (Attachment G)
Signature of Property Owp r or
Authorized Agent
Mr. Michael A. Iagnocco, PWS
City of Greensboro Department of Transportation
East Cone Blvd. and Nealto"wn Road Extensions -Request for JD
i
I
Attachment C -Figures
f '
I
November 17, 2010
11 f I
?>
n
it
. ? ?
1
\? f
Wate?_
? loin sn?..
past Whit
® 2009 MapO
400 MI
^\.. EEEEES:31200 ft
0
C f 'r
--J_?jiite Elder Rd.
Ott
Map Data 0200B N1AVTEQ or TeleAOes
MapQuest, 2009 Not to Scale
East Cone Boulevard/
Nealtown Road Extensions
Proposed East Cone Boulevard Site Location
and Nealtown Road Extenslons STV/ Ralph Whitehead Associates Map
Greensboro, NC L i FIGURE 1
Greensboro Vicinity
• r-?J !.? I ? ?• Jilt---??? .L `? ?? ?? - ? VI, - _\ ? .:;;. ? ? J ..,,?
..•• t J
6 II + J f `l -. '?' I t h
C m ?,. y
I J-J?1 t n? ? is ^ • • ? •C • ' ? l ,,./ u.1
''?+, t /`J "`? 0-/.?'h ?t ?_ ??•? \ III ?_-• ??.._?.41 W-
I
F,. spo I
Source: Topozone: USGS Quad Greensboro NC (1994) and McLeansville. NC (1968) Not to Scale
e X.
East Cone Boulevard/
Nealtown Road Extensions
?
X / rrr
5 9 JJJ---
? V
' f? .. t•• ail y,yY•"' ii _
J., mw
? r
Greensboro Vicinity
Proposed East Cone Boulevard USGS Map
and Nealtown Road Extensions STV/ Ralph Whitehead Associates
Grbensboro, NC :,,... FIGURE 2
?.' v m- s' w E n v- r V U
O Hen?y?BludJUS 29° ,? ? E W"????
z , r e Fv 1 4Gh' :? ? r i o°1
X.+ ?r?c...._ n .: f. ?? . .. ? ) % ?,. .. W ? , J r..o .-f4 r9u ,. S t ^{ a}'•
LQ d1fyV?y{3 f,H h' d. r?°?,l sti-9?,:
r..k ? f.4.F(.'!YS ry .] EBp?r B4?
as4tii Blv
NTf (Wr' f» ?? U Y ..r'1 r . - 1 ywnc2 r'k'a °c, 5? :, ? I? ??E B , , [?B' c ^r w?c ?; ur W
e 7;
r s 9 / s4 c G ? L '?? ti Ate.. ? rA
a i
r
U c f ? ?I, .?e?lyy>?•? ,??i?&Y' rc; ? in, t r1 .R•'?r ?I ?kr cn fr.
L f ?
ZYB t? ? w B ? ? ,' {t '+? s 7v fc B , j 2 qif ' !? ft Y t ?"? ?? •f•
=?• ? lz» 7f'?`? 4r W.,Yn? ? ?'S. r ",.i? +. ?rE 1 .? ? jH.A e':
118 E
r ur7 4 En? ° ... 1 rTM. ')lry ?r'
r} y , h - t Y ?.,_ ?h7/' (?>? ^ •n=: rrh•' f. t ? }?, nfn6 :..?/1 1 h?te $?' :??trr .. _ 4'..
V34 ,\ 'F 5? S F cr, t er r+ . ?r J ( _ i ?, , !I
U x+. -r, EI T" t I`/'?.. ? °'Y Pl t2 rbl ?'n ? -'!9 E A i
ow Y 5.• i 4. ?t Wcf a4S 3t r .(n MUSE
84,
•?. ?/ e
,' dirk t'' B ?tirxl Je'f i ('rc9t", ~ f/? !+ DIQ. {Sv•gi
? 4 ??F ? iy? yi?_ ir??2,^F C??,a(?t>w? r1??] k}f 9 ( , d E?
?,f? 5F 4vNf r
Reference: Soil Survey of Guilford County, North Carolina, 1977. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service. Sheet 22 of 48.
1b 1 1, "Www
SCALE: 1" =1,670'
Proposed East Cone
Blvd./Nealtown Rd.
Extension
Greensboro Vicinity
Proposed East Cone Boulevard Soil Survey
and Nealtown Road Extensions $
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates Map
Greensboro, NC ` FIGURE 3

Ref. Guilford County GIS, 2008 Aerial Photography
Proposed East Cone Boulevard
and Nealtown Road Extensions
Greensboro, NC
Not To Scale
. 0 East Cone Boulevard/
Nealtown Road Extensions
• • - • - • • Greensboro City Limits
I
STV/ Ralph Whitehead Associates
Aerial
Photo
FIGURE 4
Greensboro Vicinity
i
i
I
N
! ? r
N
C j
I
i

I
a? ia??L
\? z a ?
eee
il 11 Lu I
p`a$
t? ?v

9
x
0
3

City of Greensboro Department of Transportation November 17, 2010
East Cone Blvd. and Nealtown Road Extensions - Request for JD
j
I
i
I
Attachment D - USACE and NCDWQ Stream Data Forms
I

OFFICE USE ONLY -':USACEAIDN - ,. _ . DWQ # . , -
- - - -?
j - `Seasonal RPW Stream I
t t ; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I
l.; Applicant's Name: City of Greensboro. NC 2. Evaluator's Name: B. Phillies
3. Date of Evaluation: 10/21/09 . 4. Time of Evaluation: 1:30 pm
5. Name of Stream: unnamed tributary to Buffalo Creek 6. River Basin: Cape Fear
7. Approximate Drainage Area: -20 acres 8. Stream Order: Ist
9. -Length of Reach Evaluated: 50' 10. County: - Guilford -
11.. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): east of East Cone Blvd.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): 36.112734 ° N -79.744712 ° W
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): to be determined
14. Recent Weather Conditions: sunny, warm, dry
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, warm, dry
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed _(I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ` Df yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS. quad map? YES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 75 % Residential _% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
25 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged =% Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 5' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 1'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: -Straight --N-Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of is stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 48 Comments:
I
Evaluator's SignatureDate r o 9
This channel evaluation form is int n ed to be use only as a guide to assist landowners and envir nmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
1
i
.STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
gengnnal RPW Ctream 1

:'
i
( LO
ECOREG RAP1GJz
;
CHARACTERI?STLCS;
SCOR&
i _ , . • . I ? -- --°- - ? -Coastal ;,. edmonE- ? 1_Moontatn . ., ,,
Presence oftlow / peTetetent pools in etresm.T
0 5
0 4 ar
0 3?
' : i? t no flow or?seture on 0 'strop flow'max omLS'
, , r y ,; 2
,
. u
'
i 2 , I]videuce of past-human altereflon ?,''
0 6
0'S
' ; •;
<?
'
extensivealieration dtto'aiterauon;'='max omisi_ ?
: ,
A„3 2
3 1 r`j Rtpsdun ione" :

_. no.buffer d,con wows wtde bu er =+max omts ,
C..,, 0 6
0 4
;
VC :1
r s
3
t ., IEvtdenoe ofrnutnent'or'ahemteal diechergeai-`" 1• -° E
„k 4?,. 't _'„ ezleastve!discfi es O':nb.diichar es==`max 'o'ats 3
Fr-??
i5 yr Groundwater'drsahaige
Ar
U . r t
6` '
i : f
no d
sch
e `OTs ri
ll
s s
ds e
c
a
' r
r
4
0 4 }
0
U a
. t
_
p
s
; e
t
m
x
ots
arn ?w + ? 'y Presence, sdlscebtfloodplein i r 0 4 )01- 2
1
t no flood latn .0' ex[enstveflood lam max+ omts' i, ,, t
Entrenchment'/ floodplam eccessF
'
{
'
'
?en'tienctied?
d?
rO
Ge oe
`t nod n"?`=apex o
f 10 t 0
4
a • 0 ?2; ! :< 2
_
.
n
n
s :. €.
Presencetof edac`ent wetlands
l 6 i !
+
? h
a,
=_ noiveilands 0;.1 aad'acentwetland`s=-mN
i ouits ..., 0
. _z
!0y
d 0 2 t 0

Channellslnuowlt ' Y '
yf

CT,
3 P
e
0
5

mss m ?, 1"7

0 4

tt# 44
s r
t
- r' extensive channehzaiton` d a tural meander max o tits r ,
r
'. > ;
r + ?p?0 _3`, 1
- -

10 a
isidimmt'Inpnt' " L 1L t
i l? ` t art,
5 fen $ ,
0-4' 0 } c 4

tf
a 4
axle stye d ostuotr- O, little o+ no sedunent nYUt O1Rts , 0
"i
f yt
`
s' yR 3

r
cll as '? Stze &'diveiity of ehannbA bed substrate` '
} 3
_ .,>?
f
'
+
r
NA±1 r r a
0 4 ` ,
e
t' t`
e 5' rq

3
J o , ja fin 1liomo our;
0
lar
dt arrest es=lmax Point
Y . K
12 c ' ?' ;Evtdeoce?af ehminei incision `or widening
' ( T <? 1
S
0 4
0
d ' dee l tnctsed 0 stable bed lbanka max' o nts„
,
a5 x+
L 11 ,
It q rt
5
S'L.Fi+.O Y P .1i 2
p
1? ?++ ?+ "?
' }Presence o[m?or beck failurea
. ?? sm
?d r t r
"
^

a;

t ?
,
?
„,
, a X1..:5
'?
Y severe etoston' 0 o e JOSton stable b max orals r
5 rS°
h, iY0
,
e 0 "l r.
k ,
tL y'SW Lt 3
t
??
X14
jP 3 & i w +? " Root d .. th and'densr 'w}beoks? a z , w qtr
0 3 + ' 1
fi 0 4?
t K0
no vis ble roots 0 dense`roots throw out =tmex nts
" j fi
F µ ' , 5 r 2
i C 15 e; i Imp
aatN WWtureor,'Gyestock production m t6 } t "rrr5 ' i an
u
0

act-d.noevadencemeit 'Dints I...?_ _..
c,.y::t e i?:
:-_ ?t ._ .. ?:, 5
r.•?z 3
?., 6 ' `.+ ? c P cse nce iftle-06 oVi 1ople=p
ool comple v { _Y
_ t p 3° ? 7p t
f i; c ?, 1S
$ +

t !
v c . ?
1
_J 11
" no rj&s/nrlp lea oo s d weU level d = max ojnts j
+ S ,
J, 0 Err .t1
2
.
T
??' e 1?7
r "}
Y ' fi Hta[ eompleadty
lutle m
ao habttaH O
e
t
an
t
d!h
b
t 7._
6 y
4 t d 0 6t 'c
?> 06 : a 4
r
. u
;v
e
a
t
e
s max
otnts
n ; ti? , r v

I f
' 18 + Canopy re overage over. elreambed d
v s s, L >? '?.
_Cv
no shal
t
n
aY`''
1 O`- St I
s
r r 0 5 t,
?O 5 ,r.
$
t
e e
a
o
oontmuous carto ,man is 4 ,,
L , n ct! F t 1+2

t ¢
e
J19
76ubetwte eni6dedheasc..r t
+
s
s
NA" ?' <
=
?
4 ,
, "
0 '4
i
4z . -{
y
dee 1
emlie"dded0iase strn
t eY-
m
" !- P 'w
,
ai , t! , 2
`
.
-
c
ax
°tJ l2p 4
` ti ;? cPrese a o<stream?L)tiV?e--eb tesi t c
+ irr a? c r f
4 p "?
' f l ? ; . '
0 5
t , f no evtdence? d?comm ?ntimerous s = max" oints' ' p ?i 1

F?
,2p3g k r Presence of am hibiens
% P a P, t y ram n
1
` w o
u ar#
2.0:4 N
j
0 x
r
r 4

1
C ?= ! P no a de
l7,cottimon numerous s -max o is 'F ?d , , ;
0 ! r2J f p3?` i` ,,., `s!PreseneeoLfishS ?, r . ti vt, ,
< ,:; r rS ?a
d
?
l
e
-'
n
?
`
s
'
i .P .?? ,+
t
?
??4 '°
e
A 3'z"" t, ,!
O
l
° -.
r0` 4 n`
0
?+ c . { no
vt
encet
? .
cot
mo ,ti
d
umeiou
es? in z
D
nts ?
L
.?- .
w
?
, ? „?
rt29 de°ce a dlife+use
wl'?EWt
' ;? 2 ` t
0
' F
' 5 "' i

t? ? I
tr
<
l; r
{
i
evtdence
?t
o
'=
t)?etiu
d ae
id
el
`
m i
?
6
` 5
r 0
' 3
•
. ._ .
:
.
a
e e
e
v
=,
x omts 1,.1 ,_
- _....._:c? ? ?._ 4., t ._..?,
9^?tt:
?
t'
Y y 'll 4 3 . _aY R: 4{?°! -°-K t'i c? j a k . ,
-•o- -? -••
•_ ,
,
,.
z ? , ?TWa1 P
ol?Por?ible r-.- ?
?. a'? F Fri ?
l0A
..I -fie a
-
100
". r\. Y
l Od ' •:
t T ?2!
e ?k
s
?,
4
,re , x,? a. Msm..r ks_ *s S .....?.z' .?+3iS'^.z,'.7-+3.?J2 i?`r ?* ?' ?c,-s ^,fi r
r k` " ;t .£? h ,
a ?:k?`5?,.?[ • ? G [
r.^?^a.:a?n?`<? F? fr'._?.j2,'?7?
g I
t z TOTAL S OREi (alsoso ant ,n fir st a e` ?; n d ->` i
S
,:?
?
_..
aIIWV cllaluolGlasMb GIG IIUI usxsxU In coastal Sn'eamS.
2
i 21

r
b
y ?
U 7
0 N

o b
o ? U
s
C
0 a

,1.+ C >_
0 L O
y
r Q
co d O
i
v, o z A

I
W N N v°'
`?
z
V ° c
ti

r

e

W C

? .M.

M
M
M
N
b o
o o b x 3
'7 co
O 4,
O a1 C M N y ° r? O
V O ;; M ? O N -.
b CO
C
J
G 3 U 0.i M .
. O O 7
.
1. O N n 7 C
O N

z
., y .b ? O
u a z Q

o 0 oa C .a o v m
o
o] d q > 0
N O ti

Q C
4) .0

E U
c 0
U 3 ° ? I
z
U Y C
m

5

v
a
C

C
u

z
u
8

w
g w C :° 2 U E o z cc
e
o d o e w z ,?
o
E C o
Q a N O z Z a U u
'
A P. U 1i m c 'O Q
?

^U U d y ?
w ? ? L
? N N
n
L ?
? 'O C
C 'C .?+ 7
O
a
o,
z A
z d
a •w
+
s a
u
u
.a
a c0
3 cd
3 .
x
' ? .i N M '?T V1 ?D h 00 O. C;
N
I ?
Version 3.1
L -
i i
- i
'1U/21/2UU9 E. Cone Blvd extension""""" 36.112734 deg N
eratuatoc B. Phillips Site" SnA RPW Stream] Longitude: _79.744712 de W
Total Points; Other McLeansville, NC
Stearn Is sf*v rMterinitimt County:
NZ 10 ran 30 25.5 Guilford a ff Ouea Ne re:
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal= 5 Absent i weak Mozle `ol& Stroog,
1 Cgntitwous bed and bank' _ b 1 2 3
2 9nuosky 2, 0 1 2
j
3
3. In-channel structuie: riffle- pool sequence 1. 0 1 _
2 _
---.-
3 1
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2. 0 1 2 3 i
5- AdNafteiicfloodpiain 1, 0 1 2 3
B. Depositional bars or benches 1, ..0 _
t 2 I
3
7- Braided channel p, 0 1 2 '- - _
3 i
d Recent ellw6al de sits 1, 0 1 2 3
0' Natural levee* 1, 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 2. 0 1 2 3
11, Grade controts 1. 0 0.5 -, -I's
12. Natural valley or drainageway L 0
?- 05 1 1.5
13. Second or greater orderchannel an existing
USGSorNRC5maporotherdocuanented
evidence. p,
No=O -?
Yes=3

-- i
- - { - Man-Made ditches are not ruled: see d4ellsslons in t omw
B. tildrology, {SUbtotal 6.5 1
't
1.
L.
' 14. Groundwaterfloyidischarge I. 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 tu3 since rain. rr
Water in channel -d or rows season 2.
0
1
2
3

- 1B. L.eaflltter 1,
1.5
1
0.5 -
O
17,Sedirnenton plants ordeb& 0. 0 05 1 3,5

18 Orgardcdebrislines or piles (Vftck p,
0 -
05 - -
1 - - --'
1.5
19.H ricsoils redoxeno hlcfeatures present? 1, No=O
I
Yes= 1.5
'.. _ Cr Biology (Subtotal = 4.00 )
i ,
I
h- '
f

.FibrousMato In channel 1,
_ 3
2
.. -
1
..... ---•
0
..
2115. Roofed plants In channel 2
-- 3 2 1 a.
22. Crayfish
0.
23- Bivalves 0. 0
0 05
1 1
2 _ 1.5 _
3 ;
24. Fish 0. 0 0.5 1 1.5
hibi
25. ans
0. 0 05 1 1
5 ?
.
_
_
26.fi41cmbe"" (note diversity and abur&anee 0.
0
0.5
- 1 ---
.
1.5 t
27. Fllamernous algae; ped yton 0. 0 1 2 1 3
26. Iron ox d zin bacta4a/hrn us. 0. 0 0.5 1 1
5
29 Wetland plants in streambed 0.5 -
.
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 20; Other = 0 j
Item 20 m the presence Of upland pants, Item 29 hxuaes en the presence of aquatic cr waaand plan W.
Ndos (use back dda of this tam fm additional notes.) Sketch:
IL Stream.] Seasonal RPW
i
I'
j `
i
OFFICE USE ONLY
_USACE AID# -DWQ
'RPW Stream 2 - - _-
tit i STREAM QUALITY. ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
i
1. Applicant's Name: City of Greensboro. NC 2. Evaluator's Name: B. Phillips
3. Date of Evaluation: 10/21/09 4. Time of Evaluation: 2:30 om.
5. Name of Stream: unnamed tributary to Buffalo Creek 6. River Basin: Cane Fear
7. Approximate Drainage Area: -50 acres 8. Stream
9:. Length of Reach Evaluated: 50' _- 10. County: Guilford
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): south of White Elder Road
12. Site Coordinates (if known): 36.112736 ° N -79.739178 ° W
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): to be determined
14. Recent Weather Conditions: ' sunny. warm. dry -
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, warm. dry
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters - Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed _(I-IV)
17. Is there a and or lake located upstream of the evaluation ??
p point? YES`?"/'f yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 70 % Residential _ % Commercial _% Industrial -% Agricultural
- 30 % Forested - _% Cleared / Logged .'% Other (•-
21. Bankfull Width: 7' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank):
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I 0%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: -Straight X Occasional Bends-Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must he scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate forth used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 55 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date /° /L I Id 9
This channel evaluation form is i e ed to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The. total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
1
i
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
RM Stream 2
# ? t' ?? 'CHARACTERISTICS: 1 ECOREGIO ' . GE -J -
ORE
9
L . , .< - S oesta! , '-
edmont9
,
4M660n
E
f Preseuici: flow'/ p 'nwent pools iu stream, _ y -
3? + noflow,orsaturauon
0"stio Wv,=,-max oint
i
-
s
' '
2j Evidence of past human altertidou
f
extensive alters[ one " °'
0 no alterauo =?max omts ':' 0 6 „ r0 5 +
.` 0 §
r
` 2
Ripar)eo""zone - i
!3 r
iio buffer ,0 ,ooriu uou `wide buffer = inax oit5ts l . 0 6 0 '4 `. 0_ 5 4
l , .. ,q ` Evidence of uuttdentror fill ...
'
l

ti extensive disch ". s = O' » o d
h a e
is 0 5 0
-i4 0 4' 2
isc
s = max oin ,._ ..., . _
v
.._
.
y Groundwater iltscharge
iii 0
d
h
a 0 ,3 -
A 4 0 4,. 2
,
4, no
isc
e
ps'; wetlands etc max otnts w
PRIWOI s s x I,..
rr I l.v y Presence cn ad,]acent floodplein
- 4 0
G J

no flood letn .O a tensh
eh Od Jets -max mots : 4
.
0 2... 3

?7 : 'Eutrei ilubentN}loodPlato access + a. -
,
_

a
a k
r d l entrenc ea" 0 'fr uent fl
d
=
sts 0 x5' O
44 0 2':

t 1
?x oo
m
max o
a ,

'
r 8
<< Presence of adpceut wetlaudet 16,
?

no wetlands O tar a ad aoeiit wetlands= max omts 0=4 0
0
?'
I ?
9 tG?6ame1"atnuostty
' ' ??_ .- i '1 r r "- -
?' 1 !1 ?. extens ve channelizetion
.0 .naiurel nieandei -max; oint6
2
,ySeduuen[inpat,
? L extensive d ostuon= 0• Ittle or;iro sedttnent max o.:ats x
r x

a
Size & diviii
ersty of bed eulistrate a
T
'
•
?
e

ji, _
hom enous
= 0
tl e
divets
s zes =matt oasts

l
Ewdenee"Of chatmettiiciston oi'wtdetung"
W
r, a.
`I r
?
2
r13w c l dee 1 mctsed rO sta`b`le bed:&banks-max ortits t.
^1 ` X Presence of mMor 6atilt (allures
t .
`a
^5 ,0
s r
i
; '0}r5 (
y f ; r 2

a S
4
1i evere erosla 0 no erostoa stable banks= m omts 6 , , M
0 +0 5
„• 0 5. 3
?? ''"9
t14r Root"depth and denetty on'benks
?
a
*- xt x
:
c
`?
° b? ?= E?
a3 A k ' ' y

? ,?
.
t
.
u
no sibJe mots 0
( ense roots,ihrou hout = ma rants
? :
s'
w ti Nt ';
u 2
I`
r P?jYS? I Tmpect by egnculture orrhveatock
J + c `
producdon ? r t 'r .'t , ,i ,. _ ,? : ,? ? ? r•:

I:,.a
k_. _ y
?
,
k zt ._. z-
??; - . sulistentialJm act
{O;?o"evtdence
-
max mots in' 0`-5
?
t
•
? r= 0 4 1
' r t t0 5
-
, „ 3

d ,
r +
16 .
.
.
?
?+ Presence ofriftle pool ripple pool`coinplexes
t' r2 ?? ,....
,?
,-.:
0
3 ,.3
t U 6,
5 ;
.
. Y
€
ti r
'
? 1
mo Mles/n les or ools 0 well-0evelo max otnts ...-
+
d -
i0
n , . r
0 6
; , 3

t a ,Hebital--- 1wty •
o n
d
O
6 I
0 ti
'
4
r tittle
o hebrtat = 0 fr oast vas e
habuats max ants
' pt 1 p
I
c
4
lg , '
Canopy coverage over etreamtied
, tR y - _ ?-- ,v1°s a R 1
r a
.- mo shed[ eve etauon, 0•Yconunuous c o max orals l i

?0,= 5 aai

0 5Tn '
n^q l
,i
t 0 5 r

5
'
r, 6
"[

4911 ,
`•; " `Stitbetretet"etnbeddOness
t w ?s ?rx ?K r `t .

A* , r t
N ,

r, p q t

? 0 4 ?? 1

_ dee 1 embedded :0'.looseswchue?=?max?
, _
L?
yr '
L?
?` i
s
? 2

'
C`
P- p
a
20z .
_,
? • PresenceL'otatreetntmertebrates?t r"`r" ? ?
:" i L ,- - -4cr -w.sr r4
.,
3- _
_
,
"? r' e
Ot'4 r
Y .
n
,,,?
t ?? SS ?? _
? ,
x r
.
.
no evtdence 0 wotnmo n merous s max mots) y _ !
b 0-
+ ,.. 1

?'
' I
lr' F
' `' ? Pt•eae>xe of,amphlbtaus x" -
?•
? r'` ,
v"' '?'
L
'
Ot ? 'r iro edence? 0commo 9numerous s ='max o nts 1 t
"
n , r,. "1 { E
+ t +0 4 t 0
g a 1

2LtS x n
:Presen?eOffi96?
4. ?L >`r Av+. q.., }}, 1 -F -? 7Pt Z
?
'``
k
?
]a r, R
-? 6

'? 4
" r xi
v
0 4
?
? r
S u

l
no evtdence
O'cotnon n11II1CTOUS
I
S`
!maX OJntS 1

i t r

sit I
l
?
ti j k

!
c
?
Xk,? p
k' ? 4 23 r,a =, ' Evidea eofwUd, H N u
e
0 a
s
n
no
bu
vidence
d
t evidence max is s i t n . ' '
T
(Y" i t t s, h ?Totel?Pointe?Pot?ible , n ;' t
T
`
? 1100'x( L :,]00€? 1pp H*., sl
I
.
- S e? W
Y1 ' 1
• v
_ 3?J t?. ? Lt N.Y1.kE ..J: Y 'J.,.....J`' ,_ G, L tt'k M St 4[ n S I ?e 'S? .4Y? I C ? I
7 {
I' ,
? j. . R}? ' e• _?'L ? ,w x t: 1C(`,n? u ?c 4 .. "# i
'GTUSCORE(al oteytinFir' " T.+'i
stpage) "`` f•' -x
;
; -u•
?r
55
. _ ? , k
,These characteristics are not assessed to coastal streams.
2
Norffi Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.f
i
Date: Project: Latkude_
_ 10/21/2009 i? E. Cone Blvd extension 36.112736 deg N
E' 11"or. Site: Longitude:
B. Phillips RPW Stream 2 _79.739175 det! W_
Total Points. pg9e5 McLeansville, NC
S"amisatleestinkynYtlent county: e. puedNama'
nl2 fa [r ra:rarrrx so 30.50 Guilford fl
_A.Geomorpho2ogy (subtotal= 17.0 ) A S.1.0 Weak' P9asi mate Strsrny
1°:-Continuous tied and bank
2 Slnuos ty _ __ ??_
3._In-channel struc0are: rrffle- of segnence
2
0_
1 2
2 !
2 3
g
3
-,
-
4. Sofliexture cr stream substrate sorting 2. 0 1 _
2 - 3
5. Acbvalreiicfl tam 2 0 t 2 3
8. Depositional bars or benches I - 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel p. 0 t 2 ) 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits _ 1. 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 0 1 2
10. Headcuts
- 2. 0 1 2
11 Grade controls 1. 0 1- 1.5 I
12. Naturelvalleyordrainagevvay I. 0 RS _
1 _5 ??
13. Second or greater order channel on exisfinn
USGS or NRCS map or other documented'
evidence.

O.C
No = 0
Yes = 3 -
I
mar nuwc uKarea ara nw Twcu: We 915GLSi ws in manual
B. Hydrolow (Subtotal = 7.5 )
14. Groundnater ftovddtstdta a 2. 0 4 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 46 tus since rain. gj
Water inch_annel -- drxorgrtmirrLseason 2. 0 1 2 -- 3
16. LeafiRter - 0.
17. Sedknent on plants or debria _ I. 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organicdebrishnmorpiles(Wracklvtes) 0.5 j - - 1,5
_19.H ricsails (redoximorphicfeatures)present?1. No=0 - _
Yes= 1.5 i
C. Bbbw (Subtotal 6,00
9
20a. Fibrous roots in channel 2. 3 2 1 1 0
21 . Rooted nts in channel 2. 3 2 1 I 0
22. Crayfish 0. 0 0.5 1 I 1,5 -
21 Bivalves
24. Fish 0.
0( 0
0 1
0.5 2 - t- g-
25. Ampl»bians I. 0 0.5 1 1 1.5 f
26. Macrobenthos(note dvensity and abundance)
27. Filamentous a a% tiph on 0.
0. -- 0
0 0 5
i _ 7
2
{ 3
28. Iron oxidizing bactenalfung us. 0. 05 1
29?We natl d plants In streambed 0.5 FAC = 0.5: FACW = 0.75: OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0: Other = 0
"Items 2b and 21 Focus en [he presence of upland plants, item 29 focuses on the prewme d aCuelic orweaend pia nts.
Notes: (use back stdeorddsform for addtlbnal notes.) dam'

Stream 2 Perennial RPW

OFFICE USE ONLY:
I.
i
Fri 1. Applicant's Name: City of Greensboro. NC
3. 'Date of Evaluation: 10/21/09
5. Name of Stream: unnamed tributary to Buffalo Creek
7. Approximate Drainage Area: -50 acres
9.'Length of Reach Evaluated: 50' 10. County: Guilford
i 11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): south of East Cone Blvd.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): 36.112465 ° N -79.747449 ° W
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): to be determined
14. Recent Weather Conditions: sunny, warm, dry
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, warm, dry
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed _(I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES `ii)f yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?? NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 20 % Residential Ct-0 % Commercial Industrial _% Agricultural
20 % Forested - - % Cleared / Logged =% Other (
21.. Bankfull Width: 12' _ 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 4'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I 0%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: -Straight -Occasional Bends X Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 61 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature
/ L-ti/' Date o /Z/ / o
This channel evaluation form is in ded to be usfd only as a guide to assist landowners and viro entaI professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
i
USACE-AID# : _.. .. DWQ #. ,
RPW Stream 3
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

2. Evaluator's Name: B. Phillips
4. Time of Evaluation: 4:30 not
6. River Basin: Cape Fear
8. Stream
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
RPW Stream 3
M ' # I; CHARACTERISTICS: ECORE GIO N T RANGE

t r
r ?
.Coastal
edmanti'
' Mouiitnln SCORE4
,

Pr
e
f fl
/
rsi
t
l
in
t
m
71 ?

' "
1 esenc
ow
pe
o
en
goa
s
strea
s
no'ho'w'orsaturation_0istiunn flow-=""maxi oinis._
0 5
0 4; ?
0 •5'
4
2 , Evidence of past human alteration .
,
e'"ten"livealferaiiori 0 nofalte?aiton="'ma[ otnts
0 ,6

3 Rtpaden zone
a.,
no'tiuffer 0 tco'nt uoo' wide buffer max
ts
i
U t 6, r r -
C,• ,0 4,: _
0 :,Sr ;
4
D
n
4
: idenee of gutnent'or cberaical dieebarges r., ' ` '
'
. exte
stvedischar es 0;'.no d¢scliars = mex Dints 0

S

0 4

.
0
-4,

2
Ccouttdwaterdrsoharge;

f nodisth"
0, s n s .s wetlands `eto.t"inaz Dints t0 4 0 2
-
3 ?6 Presence a<adJaceot lloadplain 0 r4 ti ;

pp..
no flood lain 0 extensive flood iem 'max omu ` 2 3
W! 7` i" f,.` Entrenebment /floodplam access t -; f a
'
'
p" a dee entrenched. 0' fre" Deaf floodtn ? = max oriits , 9 F 5 ? , ? ' 0 4 p 2
.
^ ' . 2
f -. Presence of adjacent wetlands - + f -°
8
r . I t no wetlands '0 ^Isr a ad scent wetlands?!= mmax otnts
lr 3` ? s +6y v 0 4 {- y
? 0 2 ; ?: 0
,
`, S Channelstriuosr ,
" r
`
t t9 . extensive..
, tianne iiation 0 `natural meanders- max "Dints . i ,_ 0 JS st' 0 4
j S 0 3 by,' 4
:7 G
10 ; b a r'Sedrmeu"tinPtit T r r
y
f• aP r
?
r ?
' T
x
3&

.
,
.
:
d?.r. .,
extensive d ositioa=0 htile or norsedtment" max otnts 0, 5 0 4 t,
.
0 .4 ,r; 3
11 a £ sa & drvetgrty of ebaune- bed sutietrate' 3- N * '
1

t
dine ho o enous 0 I e diverse sues = max omts Y 0
4
}
{, 3
r
?2t Evtdence of ebamrei Weieron ordwidemng i s
' _
de 1 mctsed 0 sta121e;bed's banks ` Titan' onus € n5 r ?0 4° T S
' 3
t
i
13 Ptasenceof`majorbenkTfa?lu
res`•
`
'
"'
f

'0 S

0 S
severe erosion
V no erosto
4s
ietile baidis =
to nis
i
;?
r
,
3
0 +5 s. 2
t f rl4 ` h ' * Root?dept6 od deosrty on beaks z } Z.? , " k ?t k r' f t y?? 1 3 1,
FN t r no visible roots - d'idense roots throw hoot =man Dints ' 4 3 s?, f ;:c 0 4r7 0 5 1 3
I
f 15 Impact by agrioulture'or livestock roducdony
r
' r'
t "r
+ 4
substantial
act O'fdevidence max Dints w ' I, 0-5 0 4p 0 5 3
rn
16 Preawce of riffle
poolhipple pool complexes " '? _ 5 N
`

-
F I nonffles/it °les aa' `Dols `0'twell develo ed'" rnax` i 3
!`
mo 0
;
3
l ;. ¢
0 6` _ 4
? .
w.,. .
,
17j 4 Yf
' k Hebrtit eomplewty ?ml si xc '
I bale or no habitat 0 fr went
d h
b t0 6 n
x 6 f?5 '0 6'
4
r vane
a
itats max omts
,
o
o
e
e
? ' ;
t
18 anopy,;c
r n
verage
v
rztreamb
d
.I j ew f
0
t
`
'
} no'shadr ve elation 0?oonuntiousdo s max omts -5 e
a ms, 0 5 a } 0
5
• S
3y
:? 1V 19 r . iSubslreteambeddedaess{ -xr c,rz
' x
g ':r -mhz
r
t a=:
r
:
'- r'rt`',ls
NA*y
ff

'
'
•?'
i r

?
'?
??
t
?? k , ? . ,
.
e
.-
r
_ z d
1 etnliedded O'oose strutiture max t _ _
i _ .
k ire
,0
J
s •
J?
c r ?++
o
4r
7 3

ti 20 t i
resence of stmam`invertebretee;
. ,? .,r„ «s ?ac*fsc__.. ,:
.?su
,
..t, _ _
f w? ,

i ,
_.
:
7
.
'
0 r5 ; .
-ru

O
5
t .,
,
.. « no evidence O icomme ,nom erous s -= max
.nts
l s -
F t}
u
}r 1

``" s 21 , .
Presence of ampldbfaosl
l . r s ) r..: r v t F r _
z
4
t
a? s
trti
0
U 4 sN a
{C? ti+ _ noe dance Orcommon numeious s .mex? olntslt3 .
sv . a s' 1
qqi'a' f r `
G? fi22 T e a , 4`Presence Of fut6? s'+ x sr r
Y' ?v -tr x ti V" t
`rX?
^ O'4
4 z f
0
"

no evt ence 0 common nutneious s !max Dints C }
+
^ 10
5 4
i
?+j 0
, t
w
S
}
1
24 Evidence of,wddlife use} '+'',,
'
}
6?
{5
h
1
f ¢ k
ys: t
no evidence 0 a undant:ede c ="m z omts?;' Ut y 0? 5 u ? ,0
..; 4 .
z
l 1 t
`W * x F r u d n +b ' a 1 .. ,
Tntal,PbintsPoesib7e ?, r a ' Y ?"`
{100x
't e,1 ( c
,- 1tytrM1(??r? v'
. "",
} 100 -y. - ,-. ,
r'u
?YY tJZ ""Y '^, 1 i SL +
1 ..AS ,. ,
1..b C r f 16
OT fj •'?' "p
t?TOTAL?SCORE
also entet on`
f>r +-?...3?'. G
t
' a°',2$ re $°, ?"?"yam vT yk
v
? zpage)
s bt
- a ncsc cnaa?tcusuos atc nut wsesseu ID coasm sveams.
2
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 10/21/2009 Project: E. Cone Blvd extensionLatitude: 36.112465 de N
Evaluator. B. Phillips Site: RPW Stream 3 Longitude: -79.747449 de W
Total Points. Other McLeansville, NC
Stream is et/eestintamsrlent County:
M219ar aar:aruzs0 Guilford ea. Good Naner.
A. GeomorBholoq)_r (subtotal = ?r?rr,0 Absent :.
11Veats M04004* Strot?g
1e, Continuous bed and bank •3 .. "'0 .
1- r 2 "---3
_2 Snu ?__---- ---? 3. ---... 1 2 3

3 In-channel structure: riBle-pool sequence 2,
--
0
- 1 ---
-
-- 27- ._
___3_ -_.i
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sonln 2. 0 1 2 3
5. AcWeJreiic Boodplaln 2, 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional burs or benches
-._
0.

0 -

1 t
2

3 ..
----
8. Recent alluvial de site 2. 0 1 2 -- -- 3 ---
9a Nah al levees 2. 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts - 2. 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls L 0 0.5 1 1,5
12. Natural valley -or drainageway 1. 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greaterorderchannelon existing USGS or MRCS map or other documented
evidence. 0, No=O Yes= 3
Manmade caches are red rated; see discusslcas in manual '?--------
13. Hydrology_ Subtotal = 6.5
14. Groundwater &WtOscha a 1. 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and a 48 his since rain. 1
Water in channel -- dry or rowln season 2. 0 1 2 3
_ 18. Leaflitter 1, 1.5 _ 1
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 - 0 - O's i

18, O awc.debrislinesor piles (Wrack lites 0.
0
05 _
A-
1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorpttic features resew 1. No =0 Yes - 1.5
I `
C< Biology {Subtotal = 6.50 )
?f?. Fibrous roots it channel 2, 3 2 1- - 0 __,
21 .. Rom o anierl tspf tspi in channel 2. 3 2 1? 0
22. Cra
23. avalves___
1 -
2- --
3--
24. Fsh 0. 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. h biens _
0.
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Macrobenthos(note d aho abundance 0. 0 0.5 -- 1 - ?- - 1.5 __._
27. Ramentnus algaei periphyton 0. 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bactenagungus 0, 0 05 1 t.5
29 . dWewtd plants in streambed 0.5 FAC = 0.5: FACW = 0.75; 08L=1.5 SAV - 2Q Other- 0 j
- acme zu area el 10cus m tree presence a uptsnd pants, Item 29 tdcusft On Ihff p Sence d awatic or welOndptems.
Mdes: (use back side of INsfmn for adddmel ndos.) Sketch:
Stream 3 Perennial RPW

I
City of Greensboro Department of Transportation November 17, 2010
East Cone Blvd. and Nealtown Road Extensions - Request for JD
I
i
1
I
I
I
• i
I
_ Attachment E USACE.Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
I
I

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: E. Cone Blvd. Extension Date: 10/20/09
Applicant/Owner: City of Greensboro County: Guilford
Investigator(s): Brandon Phillips State: NC
Do Normal Cir cumstances exist on the site? ves No Community ID: PFOI
L
e site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ves No Transect ID: A
e area a potential Problem Area? .__, Yes No _ Plot ID:
DP-]
If needed, ex lain on reverse. _
Wetland
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Betula nigra tree FACW 9
2 Ulmw cobra - tree FAC 10
3 U/mw rubra shrub FAC 11
4 Lonicera japonica herb FAC- 12
5 Smilax romndifolia herb FAC 13
6 Rosa multiora herb UPL 14
7 Toxicodendron radicaw vine FAC 15
8 16
71 % hydrophytic species
Remarks: -- - - - - -
Greater than 50% of the dominant species at FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
-Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_ Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
_
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water, 0" (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18" (In.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >18" (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
_
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Several rimar wetland hydrology indicators are resent.
ACOE Wetland Data Form.xls Page 1 of 2
10/28/2010
t . ;... a
I
SOILS - DP '1 rontinuad
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): MhC2 - Mecklenburg sandy clay loam Drainage Class well drained
. Reference: USDA SCS, Soil Survey of Guilford County, NC, 1977. sheet 22 of 48 Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine Mixed Active Thermic Ultic Ha ludal hs Indicate Mapped Type? Yes No

Profile Description:
Depth .. .. Matrix Color Mottle Colors -Mottle Texture, Concretions, ..
(inches) Horizon IMunsell Moist (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5 A 10YR 3/3
5-18 B 2.5Y 5/2 1OYR 3/6 many, distinct
_ Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
?-Reducing Conditions- - _
Listed on National Hydric Soils List -
7- Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of h dric soil are resent
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hytimphytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle tland Hydrology Present? es No (Circle)
dric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Welland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point located within Wetland A near la A-5
Apps by HOUSACE 219:
ACOE Wetland Data Fonn.xls Page 2 of 2

10/28/2010
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)

Project/Site: E. Cone Blvd. Extension Date: 10/20/09
Applicant/Owner: City of Greensboro County: Guilford
Investigator(s): Brandon Phillips State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: rorestea
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: A
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No . Plot ID:.. DP-2
If needed, ex lain on reverse. U land
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Acersaccharum tree FACU- 9
2 Liriodendron tulipijera tree FAC 10
3Solidago sp. herb FAC 11
4 Lonicerajaponica herb FAC- 12
5 6rigeron annuus herb FACU 13
6 Microsregium viminium herb NIL 14
7 15
6 16
33% hydrophytic species
Remarks:
Less than 50% of the dominantsp
ecies at FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
i
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
i
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
_ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
-Aerial Photographs
_ Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _
_ Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: Orr (in.) _
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >181' (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >181r (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
. Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No primary wetland hydrology indicators are present
ACOE Welland Data Fonn.xls
r
Page 1 of 2
11117/2010
SOILS - DP 2 continued
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): MhC2 - Mecklenbure'sandy clay loam Drainage Class well drained
Reference USDA SCS, Soil Survey of Guilford County, NC, 1977 . sheet 22 of 48 Field-Observations -
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine Mixed Active Thermic Ultic Ha ludal hs Indicate Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Desch tion:
.Depth... Matrix Color Mottle Colors
F .... Mottle -- Texture, Concretions,.
(inches)
Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contras( Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10YR 3/3
4-18 . B 2.5Y 5/3
Histosol Concretions
_ Histic.Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfldic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils -
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
_ Reducing Conditions- Listed on National Hydric Soils List - -
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of h dric soil are resent
vv a1L UvU UG I rKiv IIVA I IUrv
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes XNo CirclIs etland Hydrology Present? Yes (Circe
Hydric Soils Present? Yes this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes
i
ACOE Wetland Data Form.xis
I
Page 2 of 2

AWMm W by HOUSACE 2192
11/17/2010
City of Greensboro Department of Transportation
East Cone Blvd. and Nealtown Road Extensions -'Request for JD
November 17, 2010
Attachment F . - Approved Jurisdictional Determination- (Rapanos)
Forms

- APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army. Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Form I
State:NC County/parish/borough: Guilford City: Greensboro
Center coordinates of site (hit/king in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.112465' N; Long. -79.747449° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: N 3997.1480.0;E 61.273144.. - -
Name of nearest waterbody: North Buffalo Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Haw River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03030002
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 10/20/09.
® Field Determination. Date(s): 10/21109. .
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. BHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Areiiti "navigable waters of the US." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required] -
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. -
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters ojthe U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
? TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
?Q Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments ofjurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. In the review area:
Non-wetland waters: Perennial RPW North Buffalo Creek= 150 linear feet: 40 width (ft) and/or 0-14 acre. Seasonal RPW.
Stream I - 596 linear feet: 5 width (ft) and/or 0.07 acre. RPW Stream 2 = 376 linear feet: 7 width (ft) and/or 0.06 acre. RPW Stream 3 = 213
linear feet: 12 width (ft) and/or 0.06 acres.
Wetlands: Wetland A=0.025 acres:
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
i A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs -
i The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW;
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale.supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent': .. .. _ -,
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) Bow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial now,
skip to Section IH.DA.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will Include In the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody is not in RPW,or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section HI.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(it) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through KK st tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pic . lst river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick tilt river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pfbii List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick Lis! aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW':
Tributary stream order, if known: first.
' Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
' Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review arcs, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply)'
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: _
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck -
?_ - ? Bedrock ? Vegetation. -Type/%cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/ritHe/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Elm
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year. Pick List
Describe flow regime: Seasonally intermittent, heavily dependent on stormwater.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: PIck'Lfit. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick Llit. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply): - --
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ? the presence of litter and debris
? changes in the character of soil ? destruction of terrestrial vegetation
? shelving ? the presence of wrack line
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ? sediment sorting
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ? scour
? sediment deposition ? multiple observed or predicted flow events
? water staining ? abrupt change in plant community
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to deterrn
? High Tide Line indicated by: ?
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
ne lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
°A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
El Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
.2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain: - -
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface Flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW-
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
-- ?' Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: -
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick'List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation typelpercent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres)
I
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis.will assess: the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and Its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or _
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly Into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
I
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section II1.D:
3. _ Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D: Wetland A directly abuts a non-jurisdictional drainage channel that discharges into a seasonal RPW downstream of
the project corridor and has the capacity to carry nutrients and organic carbon as well as pollutants and flood waters downstream.
This seasonal RPW drains directly to North Buffalo Creek (RPW) which in turn drains to the Haw River (TNW).
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or Indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries ofTNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: North Buffalo Creek has continuous, strong flowing water, a continuous bed and bank, exhibited an
ordinary high water mark, moderate sinuosity, is depicted as a stream on the USGS Topographic quadrangle, and is depicted
as a stream on the USDA Soil Survey of Guilford County, NC. Stream 2 appers to collect stormwater runoff from the
adjacent forested uplands. Stream 3 appears to collect stormwater from the adjacent roadway and developed properties. Both
streams have moderate flowing water, a continuous bed and bank, exhibited an ordinary high water mark, moderate sinuosity,
.are all depicted as streams on the USGS Topographic quadrangle, and are depicted as streams im the USDA Soil Survey of
Guilford County, NC. Streams 2 and 3 were determined to be perennial RP W's. Streams 1, 2, and 3 drain to North Buffalo '
Creek (perennial RPW) which drains to the Haw River (TNW).
® Tributaries ofTNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section ili.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: Stream I appears to collect stormwater runoff from the adjacent forested uplands. Stream I had low flow, has a
discontinuous bed and bank, discontinuous ordinary high water mark, moderate sinuosity, is depicted as a stream on the USGS
Topographic quadrangle, and is depicted as a stream on the USDA Soil Survey of Guilford County, NC. Stream I was
determined to be a seasonal RPW that drains to North Buffalo Creek (perennial RPW) which drains to the Haw River (TNW) .
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: North Buffalo Creek= 150 linear feet 40 width (ft): Stream I = 596 linear feet 5 width (ft): Stream
2 = 376 linear feet ,7 width (ft), Stream 3 =213 linear feet linear feet 12 width (ft).
? 6ther non-wetland waters: acres. '
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs° that flow directly or indirectly into TN WS.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
I
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: Wetland A = 0.025 acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
i
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters!
As a general rule, the impoundment of ajurisdiclional tributary remains jurisdictional.
O Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.

E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE) WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE;
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination
Provide estimates forjurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
?. Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? if potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR). '
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft). _
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (R).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
I SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:Attaehment C.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicantlconsultant.
I ? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
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: 1:24000, Greensboro, NC (1994) and McLeansville, NC (1968).
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Soil Survey of Guilford County, NC. Sheet 22 of 48.
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:Greensboro, NC and McLeansville, NC.
? State(Local wetland inventory map(s):
" Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based wiely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described In the Carps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? I00-year.Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):Guilford County CIS 2008.
or ® Other (Name & Date):Attachment G - Representative Photographs (1021/09).
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: The boundaries of potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Streams I, 2, and 3 and
Wetland A (Attachment C) were marked by STV/RWA and surveyed by the City of Greensboro Engineering Division (Note: the centerlines
of the RPWs were surveyed). The proposed Nealtown Road extension would involve a bridge spanning North Buffalo Creek; consequently
the top of bank of North Buffalo Creek was field approximated and not surveyed. Wetland A was determined to be ajurisdictional weiland
j adjacent to but.not directly abutting an RPW that drains to North Buffalo Creek (perennial RPW). Stream I was determined to be an RPW
with seasonal flow that drains to North Buffalo Creek. Streams 2 and 3 were determined to be RPW's with perennial flow that drain to North
Buffalo Creek (perennial RPW) which drains to the Haw River (TNW).

City of Greensboro Department of Transportation November 17, 2010
East Cone Blvd. and Nealtown Road Extensions - Request for JD
Attachment G - Representative Photographs

City of Greensboro Department of Transportation _%'-November17;2010-
East Cone Blvd. and Nealtown Road Extensions - Request for JD
I
i
Pho
project corridor.
the

Photograph 1. View of intermittent Stream 1 (seasonal RPW)
as it flows across the project corridor.
City, of Greensboro Department of Transportation November 1,7, 2010
East.Coiie Blvd, grid Neeltown Road Extensions.-Request for JD
Photograph 3. A view of perennial Stream 2 (RPW) and the overgrown conditions
surrounding the channel..
Photograph 4. Another view of perennial Stream 2 (RPW).
City of Greensboro Department of Transportation
4 ,East Cone Blvd. and NealtowmRoad Extensions'- Request for JD November 17,,2010 ..:
rl-ugrdpu i. view or perenmat Stream 3 (RPW).
Photograph A view o. lverur vurraro Creek (RPW) within the project corridor.
City of Greensboro Department of Transportation November 17, 2010
East Cone Blvd..'and NealtowmRoad Extensions = Request for JD
Photograph 7. n vrew or weuana A within the forested portion of the project corridor.