20110195 Ver 1_401 Application_20110211

IkM AND SVVM
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
February 24, 2011
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
4011 WestChase Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27607
919-833-7152
Fax: [phone]
201 10 195
NC DWQ, 401/Wetlands Unit $1JEA111)
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Re: Pre-Construction Notification, Westside Regional Pump Station and Force Main,
Greenville Utilities Commission, Greenville, Pitt County, North Carolina
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please find attached the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Application for the above
referenced project. The Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC) is proposing modifications to
their existing wastewater system to meet the 2030 needs in the Westside service area. GUC
proposes to decommission two existing pump stations and construct one regional PS that will
replace the decommissioned pump stations. GUC also proposes to install 32,000 feet of 24-
inch and 30-inch force main and 1,400 feet of 15-inch and 3,900 feet of 21-inch interceptor.
Impacts associated with the proposed maintenance activities are 0.196 acre of permanent
impact to jurisdictional Section 404 wetlands, 0.72 acre of temporary impact to jurisdictional
Section 404 wetlands, and 350 feet of temporary impact to jurisdictional Section 4040 streams.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 919.833.7152.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.
,
Linda Diebolt
Principal Scientist
FFR
2 R 2011
Attachment
New York, NY • Armonk, NY • Woodbury, NY • Detroit, MI • Raleigh, NC • Charlotte, NC • Atlanta, GA • Fairfax, VA • Hollywood, FL • Boca Raton, FL • Fort Pierce, FL • Sarasota, FL. Miami, FL • Philadelphia, PA
I,
1 i
O?OF W A TF9QG
Q ?
2() 1 -1 U 1 y v
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing NP A if ulk
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
® Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permi ---_,.__
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 12 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ® Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Westside Regional Pump Station and Force Main
2b. County: Pitt County
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Greenville
2d. Subdivision name:
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
3b. Deed Book and Page No. DEN -- WATEp
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Branch
3d. Street address:
3e. City, state, zip:
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
n R
Page I of 11
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: Municipally owned utility
4b. Name: Randall D. Emory
4c. Business name
(if applicable): Greenville Utilities Commission
4d. Street address: P.O. Box 1847
4e. City, state, zip: Greenville, NC 27835-1847
4f. Telephone no.: 252.551.1551
4g. Fax no.: 252.551.1598
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Linda Diebolt
5b. Business name
(if applicable): Hazen and Sawyer
5c. Street address: 4011 WestChase Boulevard, Suite 500
5d. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27607
5e. Telephone no.: 919.833.7152
5f. Fax no.: 919.833.1828
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
Latitude: 35.626981 Longitude: -
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): 77.368395
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 34 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Tar River
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C; NSW
2c. River basin: Tar-Pamlico
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The pump station site consists of active agricultural land. Where feasible, the force main and interceptor are located in or
immediately adjacent to existing, maintained roadway and utility easements. Portions of the project corridor are
undeveloped and include maintained, grassed areas and forested areas. Existing conditions within and adjacent to the
project corridor are depicted on the attached Project Detail Maps.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
1.41
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
1,303
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC) is proposing modifications to their wastewater system to meet the 2030
wastewater needs in the Westside service area in response to the anticipated increase in effluent of the Hospital and
Medical District.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
GUC proposes to decommission the existing 2.02 million gallons per day (mgd) Westside Pump Station (PS), which was
constructed in 1970, and replace it with a 6 mgd Westside Regional PS, construct 1,400 feet of 15-inch and 3,900 feet of
21-inch interceptor routing flow from the existing Westside PS to the new Westside Regional PS, decommission the
existing 150 gallons per minute (gpm) Paladin Place PS, construct 50 feet of 8-inch gravity sewer routing flow from the
existing Paladin Place PS to the proposed 21-inch Westside interceptor, and construct 32,000 feet of 24-inch and 30-inch
force main to route flow from the proposed Westside Regional PS to the GUC Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).
Construction equipment will include dozers for land clearing and backhoes for trench excavation and back-filling. Front
end loaders and a horizontal directional drill rig will also be used during construction of the proposed project.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past? ® Yes
? No ? Unknown
Comments: Approved Jurisdictional Determination Forms for
three streams is included herein
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? PEI T See Attached ? Yes ? Corps
Sheet ? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0. 196 (P)
0.72 (T)
2h. Comments: Directional drill and bore and jack techniques will be used to avoid wetlands within portions of the project
corridor. Also, an existing maintained easement will be used where feasible to avoid permanent impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ? P ? T See Attached ? PER ? Corps
Sheet ? INT ? DWQ
S2 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 350 (T)
3i. Comments: Directional drill and bore and jack techniques will be used to avoid stream impacts within portions of the project
corridor. Open cut installation techniques with coffer dams and pump around will be used for some of the stream rrnssinn.q
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ® Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
B1 ®P ? T Utility

corridor UT to Harris Mill Run ? No
4821
2118
B2 ® P ? T Utility
corridor Schoolhouse Branch ? Nos 2400 1600
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts 7221 3718
6i. Comments: Buffer impacts have been avoided by using directional drill and bore and jack installation methods. Also,
Page 6 of 11
. PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
existing maintained easements will be used where feasible to avoid permanent impacts to buffers. Buffer disturbances will be
40 feet or less and maintained corridors in the buffer will be 10 feet or less.
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts to jurisdictional resources can only be completely avoided by implementation of a no-build scenario. The no-build
scenario is not an acceptable option. Delineation of jurisdictional streams and wetlands was performed prior to design of the
proposed project. The location of the lines was dictated by the location of existing utilities and infrastructure in some areas.
Impacts to jurisdictional areas have been minimized by the directional drilling of the Tar River and the adjacent wetlands and
by locating the proposed construction within existing easements, where feasible. Bore and jack installation techniques will also
be used at one stream crossing to avoid impacts to jurisdictional areas and buffers. Impacts to jurisdictional areas were
minimized to the extent possible while still meeting minimum engineering and safety requirements. All stream crossings will be
within 15 degrees of perpendicular. The open cut stream crossings will use temporary coffer dams with pump arounds during
construction to minimize the potential for downstream water quality impacts.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Best management practices, and sedimentation and erosion control methods will be used during all construction activities. No
equipment refueling or maintenance activities will occur adjacent to jurisdictional areas. Wetland impacts during construction
will be minimized to the extent that is reasonably feasible. All temporary impacts to jurisdictional areas during construction will
be returned to their original configuration and stabilized and/or seeded in a timely manner.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ? Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps
? Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
El Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? <0.01 %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The project is a Low Density project.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, na rrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties

4a.
Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? HQW
? ORW
(check all that apply):
? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ® Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ® Yes ? No
Comments: A FONSI was issued for the proposed project on July 23, 2010
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The proposed project replaces two outdated pump stations and provides the infrastructure to route flow from the
decommissioned pump stations to the new Westside Regional PS.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
No sewage will be generated from the proposed project. The proposed project entails construction of wastewater lines
and a wastewater pump station.
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
c
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or Yes
? No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes ? No
impacts?

5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ®
Raleigh
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Review of Natural Heritage Program data relative to known occurrences and populations of listed species was performed
via NC CGIA data and at the Natural Heritage Program office in Raleigh. Additionally, field surveys were performed in
October 2009 to determine if potential habitat for listed species was present within the project corridor. If potential habitat
was determined to be present within the project corridor, additional visual surveys were performed to determine if listed
species were present. No listed species were observed within the project corridor during field investigations.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Review of Essential Fish Habitat designations was performed via NC CGIA data.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Review was performed of listed historical and archeological sites at the State Historic Preservation Office.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: Upon completion of the wastewater line, the project corridor will be
returned to its previous grade; therefore, no decrease in floodplain capacity will occur from the proposed project.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? 2008 FEMA mapping

Applicant/Agent's Printed Name pplicant/Age ignature Date
(Agents signature valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is rovided.)
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of impact Type of wetland Forested Type of Area of Impact
number- (if known) jurisdiction (Corps (acres)
Permanent (P) or -404, 10 DWQ-
Temporary (T) non-404, other)
AD - P Land clearing and Yes 404 0.12
subsurface utility
installation
AF - P Land clearing and Yes 404 0.07
subsurface utility
installation
AG -T Subsurface utility No 404 0.02
installation
AJ-AY - T Subsurface utility No 404 0.68
installation
AZ -T Subsurface utility No 404 0.01
installation
BA -T Land clearing and Yes (will not be 404 0.01
subsurface utility maintained)
installation
BB - P Land clearing and Yes 404 0.006
subsurface utility
installation
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of Stream Name Perennial (PER) Type of jurisdiction Area of Impact length
number- impact or intermittent (Corps-404, 10 Impact (linear feet)
Permanent (P) (INT)? DWQ- non-404, (acres)
or Temporary (T) other)
AB -T Subsurface UT to Harris INT 404 0.01 80
utility Mill Run
installation
AC-T Subsurface Schoolhouse INT 404 0.03 40
utility Branch
installation
AH -T Subsurface UT to INT 404 0.007 55
utility Schoolhouse
installation Branch
Al -T Subsurface UT to INT 404 0.003 32
utility Schoolhouse
installation Branch
AX-T Subsurface UT to Tar River INT 404 0.004 41
utility
installation
AW -T Subsurface UT to Tar River INT 404 6.004 41
utility
installation
AK-T Subsurface UT to Parker INT 404 0.008 35
utility Creek
installation
AL-T Subsurface Baldwin INT 404 0.003 26
utility Swamp
installation
Legend
Proposed Westside Regional PS
FPS] Existing PS - to be decommissioned .6
Proposed Force Main
Proposed Interceptor

S t

/ t WM Y

Proposed Force Main
?' ^
' •
'
a6
?'
r
r
• ? f ?
PS

mil'!, ?'k. c'rlfs?l PS ,.r ,-
Proposed Interceptor
.. • .

Shp 411P
.

I "tip ? '•1? ?.?i

ift
s was

1C a i
m

?

;4,C r
Proposed Force Main t
,

. 4
,-. - r,..r, °
\ •• any
-
- . /leW ? ? ? ? . .
- . '.'4 i
- h 4
.
T- &n or'
Bd ; ?-
LoA Le; LoA- Co
CrA
?
?
Ra
\ BY
I GoA ?/
ExA
E%A)

L
W
Ly
A
R L
-L
CrA EX--A GA A`
AGoA?
?
,
o
? _
Bd ?r
,r
--._LoA-
}CrA L'oA Bd, Ral
OcB

VaB?., Cv lR! SY
CrA ^,Co OcB,Ra
`. ? ?? Y -Pa
CrA CB r6` Bd ; Bd??
VaB
ExA? C
CrB,
A GoA
Co
_
o
GoA GoA- '- Cr
C'-- --? /60A?
P
Gob GoA
0cB, -

a? aGoB GoA,
Ro ?CAgBP 9
CrB_
? ? Bb L ExA
?CrA Co LoA
? ?OcB
LOc6
B A a Ly WaB I-
WaB , Tu 9
nn a ?- A9 A B GoA
Ly
AB > rARa OCB?
Co
By w .- -Lys
Po ?atir_`.?
Tu
?l,\ 'A9B Oe
..0, LaB"
Os.A LaB
o A9x Pa 4a Tu _ ,
AIBP?s.
I
AIBJ
b
AIB Bb
\ OcB
aB lWaB?
WaC_
„ ,,,, Bb
WaC

x
Legend
Proposed Westslde Regional PS ,? ..
Ps Existing PS - to be decommissioned
Project Corridor/Limits of Construction 'a
Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional Streams _ g jjII°x
Rivers and Streams
A", a
z -?

sy
A1k T

Wetland AM
f? Wetland BB
,
Stream AN-AP
m: Stream AV

r
Stream AB
?¦¦? Wetland AU
!" .
` Wetland AF ' - WANO Wetland and Stream AS-AT
?a
Stream AR
Wetland AO
Stream AC
Stream AX
Wetland AD r "?? `w?? `',, K?

Netland AG ..? ?f;sa "!.A Wetland BA
.

St
AH
¢
ty' Stream AW Y 110111 7e
ream . Stream Al
Wetland AZ r,
.: '
V'
am ? Wetland AJ-AY
'
r
r 'y
r F A
^M -'-L -
V
I
r
`lti. a w

Mill
rr
?j cS r+j• t
SCALE N Figure 4
0 0.375 0.75 .5 E HAZENAND Project Detail Map
SAWYER ®
1 W
Mile Environmental engineers 6 scientists Westside Regional Pump Station
Greenville and Force Main
1 inch = 0.75 mile S Utilities Greenville Utilities Commission
Legend
A
Proposed Westside Regional PS
n Existing PS - to be decommissioned
'`q
Project Corridor/Limits of Construction } r?, ttt,' '??4 $ t >,•r
Jurisdictional Streams S r ,> ', ?, > 4 I' {; ` .rr t ?,. r,
Zone 1 Buffer Limit
Zone 2 Buffer Limit ref. , rY c f'.: < t;t}`
T ',d: i t t r f f L'1 t 9,
! t) ! .. - -1 ,.? f + ,._Y S jf1 S1+. .. f _ r f A[,/
" ` / i a
?iy E .f (}}j.;{ 1 r. x`41 F7• f P?
i r 1Y S ? Ii J -Y
^? ° Y, : r .?? .V• ? ¢ J "'Y r ?n'e?? +4 ?? JI t •Si? ? Y ,. ?r - r r ? +.. + ??!'???t.}tii.?Yif ?IF :,
? + rt r.R 4 ! ? r ?t tt- +r ?. 1•t-:. ? ??b?Y
4r r fl??•f;'r?t?g Y?''?r' ?r *f°
a • ?: ?i; ,1. ` ,y+, irac? T<<r,. / ?i `f jt t«?/:t ?f s?
?'¢ „rri.>,.?1 ? -[ r• h3k Qi
: 71 `l?y ;yj6 J f it • ? r9?;? r FS4{, lf" 'l.
a r r tdj f ,r-a? Y ens ` r r ">y+f .ry r /t r: ('
41
6
OV"
c. t Y +fi.>Y?y .,G,1 Irr Ps,'?rti ``G+ t +s Y ' ? r '?
'" ? ?!t. i ? ??Fr? ???irrf* ?F< ?rd fr .f ?Y r r ? 1? ? ? r t .a.•
a?
tit
AA,
s , ?a ; r,'yrT; ?? . Stream AB ,ry e f,# r„ 4
f rm a? ?,, < ?'_ y Temporary Stream Impact.
r X ,
80 feet;
r ; f Q- r ?i<2 j t? r;+n+? r r t
r o, '« 0.01 acre Permanent Buffer Impact:
? ` ??r: Zone 1 - 4 821 s uare feet t'? ; Y y> f ? ?r?
%'' Zone ? - 2118 square feet
4*
. , , •, <
+x
= l
45*
<X r ?. der r )r y` j.
„ r •, ;Z-111_ f fr y ?r s?
Y{,
? - . r-, 4 /iv
A- A
,a
c
r ,
t
.41
> yl,
„?
Al,
S J,
a?
rJA
tiC Z m "?
r'
y`? " go'.0t",ter
SCALE N Figure 5
100200 400 W 2!M'- HAZENAND SAWYER Project Detail Map
Feet Environmental Engineers & Scientists Westside Regional Pump Station
Greenville and Force Main
1 inch = 374.46 feet S Utilities Greenville Utilities Commission
Legend ?.,' #? s.1 ' ?.•' °
qo.
Project Corridor/Limits of Construction
f 'Ate
M Jurisdictional Wetlands .? s
'{ ?' ?,? l m' pia -?T .? r{?t 'a ?P ? ? '?'.yi R.
Jurisdictional Streams r* j. , ,, ?•`
Rivers and Streams r? ?• d „
Zone 1 Buffer Limit ;?"° ;'? •° : ?'f " ,y?r ' :
Zone 2 Buffer Limit ,.,• .''?,° t'i!: fy• i!'? ;?
'F r-'/o °x s tad * a a( ,j -S .i'K{ '•?p.
I e T
?i .
Wetland AF
Permanent Wetland Impact: ?.
.? ,,_', M? • Inv 0.07 acre
4!74 do
.•f"
2,980 square feet'
r? ?* •`. i
j'
ev.
r . .? • l0?
i101
x•
d• e,??j.,?y? -fie ./
1a
?y t . t
.w : //? 7 -7-? 7rt$?+R'IIHi'l?s..rs_ _ ?a?"J i...? a?? I4 _`_ _.
Legend
vs Existing PS - to be decommissioned
Project Corridor/Limits of Construction
Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional Streams
Rivers and Streams
Zone 1 Buffer Limit
Zone 2 Buffer Limit
Wetland AG
Temporary Wetland Impact:
0.02 acre
702 square feet
Stream AH
Temporary Stream Impact:
55 feet
0.007 acre
Buffer (currently maintained easement):
Zone 1 - 1,605 square feet
Zone 2 - 2,200 square feet
13
J.
hT'ext
Stream Al
Temporary Stream Impact:
32 feet
0.003 acre
Buffer (currently maintained easement):
Zone 1 - 1,673 square feet
Zone 2 - 632 square feet
t
SCALE N , Figure 8
100 200 400 w E HAZENAND SAWYER Project Detail Map
Feet Environmental Engineers a scientists Westside Regional Pump Station
Greenville and Force Main
1 inch = 200 feet S Utilities Greenville Utilities Commission

Wetland AJ -AY
Temporary Wetland Impact:
0.68 acre
29,525 square feet
Legend
FP -sl Existing PS - to be decommissioned
Project Corridor/Limits of Construction
Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional Streams
Rivers and Streams
Zone 1 Buffer Limit
Zone 2 Buffer Limit
Stream AX
Temporary Stream Impact:
41 feet
0.004 acre
Buffer (currently maintained easement):
Zone 1 - 2,460 square feet
Zone 2 - 1,020 square feet
97, T . - f f Stream AW
Vt Temporary Stream Impact:
rt .. 55 feet
0.004 acre
Air Buffer (currently maintained easement):
f i - Zone 1 - 2,664 square feet )
4f - _ Zone 2 - 1,278 square feet
Q;
�; l ��
. /CO
i r
'► ti cil
411
-) • S�
+J
c.
SCALE N 'Figure 9
J 100 200 400 w E HAZENAND SAWYER Project Detail Map
Feet Environmental Engineers 6 Scientists Westside Regional Pump Station
Greenville and Force Main
1 inch = 200 feet 3 Utilities Greenville Utilities Commission

Legend
Project Corridor/Limits of Construction
Jurisdictional Streams
Rivers and Streams
Zone 1 Buffer Limit
Zone 2 Buffer Limit
Stream AR and Abutting Wetlands
The Tar River and its adjacent
jurisdictional wetlands will be
directionally drilled-, therefore, no
impacts to jurisdictional waters of
the U.S. will occur. No impacts to
the stream buffer will occur.
a
• Directional Drill Pit Location
(Drilled portion of the force
• �` main is to the north of the pit) tp .
•
Wetland BA
Temporary Wetland Impact:
• 0.01 acre • # Q
484square feet'""
,.. r� o Q
i Cadiliac 'st t Hud} o
So St J n
Ford St:
r
�5 •' ;_ i
CY) to
r
SCALE N Figure 10
100 200 400 W E HAZENAND SAWYER Ly
Project Detail Map
Feet Envlronment2I Engineers a scleMists Westside Regional Pump Station
Greenville and Force Main
1 inch = 200 feet S Utilities Greenville Utilities Commission

SCALE N , Figure 11
0 100 200 400 W E HAZEN AND SAWYER Project Detail Map
Feet Environmental Engineers & scientists Westside Regional Pump Station
Greenville and Force Main
1 inch = 200 feet S Utilities Greenville Utilities Commission
a '
f
P^
sf g i i• � f` F
TT j
. a +� J�a�1 L! a •.i "Y _f. ♦j �Y } Y +'°(+ lig. Y,�i�� �f, _ �. ..
r � ► x
n r �
t
AL
♦
((D Ca)
Q
r �
� L
TCDk
CD
yRA,
• ' �*� " yds A "5A'° A "{! _ ?� ��4f j1♦ t41F 7�f�a ~ f .•
r ', • ��. tee: "4t3yt,f�` • 1`f�), `i`hry,'Jt►` •r"''�"+�r,`" "
+5. f X •♦t`! 1.1 i +���
'I - f +i. ����� �� • � i � �1; iY . ♦ ' � i' �X,'JJ it i�'� - . � i' � � . �r3 �" +4.. � � •
iL
t ,0. ♦ a
.I iNi4<z_ 1 T fk, it>� a I f#' �ai1-'r ���-c s '� �'.� s f t.•� %�,t .� ,1�Y,�'!�

a �s *� f� r •. -
fa + �, ► +.
•. �. tom. j'. by � a _s.y
o
.w � # Cyt; ��•� � st�"P`ii�� D �.�� � "y � '♦ � ate+ �
�r a •A ..-.t � jr' ••3 'a�' f6 N
f AN
• k. _ '� • \IPob C
��°3 �t ,' ' .► " `"r .fit '
SCALE
r 1�
a
Figure
100 11 400—Environmental Engineers & Scientists Westside Regional Pump Station�HAZEN AND SAWYER Project Detail Map
Feet Greenville
• Force
200feet Utilities Greenville Utilities Commission

Legend
Project Corridor/Limits of Construction ►6
Rivers and Streams
No impacts to jurisdictional waters
of the U.S. will occur in this
% ' segment of the project corridor.
A;
It
a0
SCALE N , Figure 15
100 200 400 w E HAZENAND SAWYER Project Detail Map
Feet Environmental Engineers & Scientists L Westside Regional Pump Station
Greenville and Force Main
1 inch = 200 feet S Utilities Greenville Utilities Commission

II ..
Legend r _ •-, �»
Project Corridor/Limits of Construction;,;, j `, �•
Rivers and Streams • - _ _ �ti.'
CO
.+,« No impacts to jurisdictional waters
r 4 Il of the U.S. will occur in this
�* • *�`"``�...�r segment of the project corridor.
• � a 4,jw'
Oft
�'C rt• I ' � I `fir
ry i
f +rr • (:
,_sN
r 'e
StateRo *I�r r
ad 153 ....m. , .
* 1 .
•--.. wIf
• 1r_ f
`'�•
t
.,,.. CO ,¢ w i
* .,., L� t
�. If
Sow
+�
r i
SCALE N , Figure 16
0 100 200 400 W E HAZENAND SAWYER Project Detail Map
Feet Environmental Engineers & Scientists Westside Regional Pump Station
Greenville and Force Main
1 inch = 200 feet S Utilities Greenville Utilities Commission

r 0 CD
C
. ✓� + w F
ofthe U.S. willoccur
segment of - project c• ••
..Mow,
Y
+
j . x �
+.7 of . , �, des �' ••
f f .»
IL
}a 9
.. a •t
i.
4• a k"y i'.&A &Y
1&01
001� `*

Al
v ell
% k7�
-
` x ,Zone
.• s
i
n
0
c �
0)
a-
0
0 s
0

No impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands or streams will occur
in this segment of the project corridor.
r_ -,

Legend
tit„.,

A
U)
•~-yi

`
N ` .. 03
s
:41F CID
i
a
00

4
P
V.1
SCALE
0 100 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 200 feet
N
S
Figure 24
E HAZENAND SAWYER Project Detail Map
Environmental Engineers & Scientists 6 Westside Regional Pump Station
Greenville and Force Main
Utilities Greenville Utilities Commission
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION OF PIPE INSTALLATION
(NON-STREAM INSTALLATION)
LAND SURFACE
PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION OF PIPE INSTALLATION
(STREAM INSTALLATION)
LAND SURFACE
LAND SURFACE
RIP RAP
PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE
NOT TO SCALE
Cross-Sectional View
z PIPELINE
18' (DIAMETER VARIES)
w
m I
?- CLASS B CONCRETE
i6
6' TRENCH WIDTH 6'
VARIES
SECTION
CLASS B CONCRETE
12"
PLAN
*ANTI-SEEPAGE COLLARS SHALL BE
INSTALLED AS SHOWN IN DRAWINGS AT
INTERVALS NO GREATER THAN 500 FEET
ANTI-SEEPAGE COLLAR
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: October 14, 2009 Project: Westside Regional PS Latitude: 35.624674 I
Evaluator: E. Scherrer/PBS&J Site: Stream AV Longitude: -77.383901 1
Total Points: 38.5
Stream is at least intermittent County: Pitt Other:
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 e.g. Quad Name. Greenville SW
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 15.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
2. Sinuosity ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
5. Active/relic floodplain ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ® 3
6. Depositional bars or benches ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
7. Braided channel ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
9a. Natural levees ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
10. Headcuts ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
11. Grade controls ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway ? 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ® 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0 ?
Yes = 3
avian-mane wicnes are nor ratea; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal = 9 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ® 3
16. Leaflitter ? 1.5 ® 1 ? 0.5 ? 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ? Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloqv (Subtotal = 14)
20°. Fibrous roots in channel ? 3 ? 2 ® 1 ? 0
21°. Rooted plants in channel ? 3 ® 2 ? 1 ? 0
22. Crayfish ? 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ® 1.5
23. Bivalves ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
24. Fish ? 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ® 1.5
25. Amphibians ? 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ® 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ? 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ® 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ?; FACW = 0.75 ?;
Other= 0 ? OBL = 1.5 K SAV = 2.0 ?;
uvula cv all c i wwa un LIM PlUbVI1Ge lA UNlarw piant*, item za iocuses on me presence of aquatic or wetiand plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: October 14, 2009 Project: Westside Regional PS Latitude: 35.617467
Evaluator: E. Scherrer/PBS&J Site: Stream AW Longitude: -77.392075
Total Points: 25.75 Other:
Stream is at least intermittent County: Pitt
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 e.g. Quad Name: Greenville SW
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 12.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ® 3
2. Sinuosity ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
5. Active/relic floodplain ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
6. Depositional bars or benches ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
7. Braided channel ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
9a. Natural levees ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
10. Headcuts ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
11. Grade controls ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No =
0 ®
Yes = 3 ?
° Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 4.5 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
16. Leaflitter ? 1.5 ® 1 ? 0.5 ? 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ® Yes = 1.5 ?
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = 8.75)
20b. Fibrous roots in channel ? 3 ® 2 ? 1 ? 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel ® 3 ? 2 ? 1 ? 0
22. Crayfish ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
23. Bivalves ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
24. Fish ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
25. Amphibians ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 El 0.5 El 1 ? 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ?;
Other= 0 ? FACW = 0.75 ®; OBL = 1.5 ?; SAV = 2.0 ?;
- Items Zu and 21 tocus on the presence or uplana plants, nem [a rocuses on ine presence ul ayuduc vi Wmidiiu pIdnw.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
. North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: October 14, 2009 Project: Westside Regional PS Latitude: 35.617694
Evaluator: E. Scherrer/PBS&J Site: Stream AX Longitude: -77.392384
Total Points: 22.5
Stream is at least intermittent County: Pitt Other:
if? 19 or perennial if>_ 30 e.g. Quad Name: Greenville SW
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 12.5)
1a. Continuous bed and bank Absent
? 0 Weak
? 1 Moderate
? 2 Strong
® 3
2. Sinuosity ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
5. Active/relic floodplain ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
6. Depositional bars or benches ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
7. Braided channel ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
9a. Natural levees ?
® 0
0 ®
? 1
1 ?
? 2
2 ?
? 3
3
10. Headcuts ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
11. Grade controls El 0 El 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existinq
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0 ®
Yes = 3 ?
.-.-•.....??? ?•..,?•- - -t luao, acc waa.uaaiuna ui manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 4
14. Groundwater flow/discharge ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season ? 0 ® 1
? 2
? 3
16. Leaflitter ? 1.5 ? 1 ® 0.5 ? 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ® Yes = 1.5 ?
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = R I
20b. Fibrous roots in channel ? 3 ? 2 ® 1 ? 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel ? 3 ID 2 ? 1 ? 0
22. Crayfish ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
23. Bivalves ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
24. Fish ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
25. Amphibians ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) El 0 ® 0.5 El 1 El 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ®; FACW = 0.75 ?; OBL = 1.5 ?; SAV = 2 .61n;
Other= 0 ?
Items 20 and 21 fnnic nn the n-.,,-e f .,. 1 a . 1 . 1- .,
• - --_-- -- -r-••- r• -•••?i ••?••• ?? ???.+.??a v?? uic Pncacll-v ul dyuauc orweuana plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: October 13, 2009 Project: Westside Regional PS Latitude: 35.622175
Evaluator: E. Scherrer/PBS&J Site: Stream AB Longitude: -77.408213
Total Points: 19.5 Other:
Stream is at least intermittent County: Pitt
if>_ 19 or perennial if? 30 e.g. Quad Name: Greenville SW
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 11) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ® 3
2. Sinuosity ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
5. Active/relic floodplain ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
6. Depositional bars or benches ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
7. Braided channel ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
9a. Natural levees ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
10. Headcuts ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
11. Grade controls ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0 ®
Yes = 3 ?
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R WiArnlnnv (Ci thtntal = 14 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
16. Leaflitter ? 1.5 ® 1 ? 0.5 ? 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ® Yes = 1.5 ?

20°. Fibrous roots in channel ? 3 ® 2 ? 1 ? 0
21°. Rooted plants in channel ? 3 ? 2 ® 1 ? 0
22. Crayfish ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
23. Bivalves ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
24. Fish ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
25. Amphibians ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ? 0 D 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
29°. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ®;
Other= 0 ? FACW = 0.75 ?; OBL = 1.5 ?; SAV = 2.0 ?;
?• ••?• r•
" Items ZO and 21 rocus on cne presence or upianu piarns, ucm ca a UU,)Ca Ulf IV N,VQV„w w, -4-
Sketch:
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
. North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: October 13, 2009 Project: Westside Regional PS Latitude: 35.619163
Evaluator: E. Scherrer/PBS&J Site: Stream AC - Schoolhouse Br Longitude: -77.403509
Total Points: 28 Other:
Stream is at least intermittent County: Pitt if e.g. Quad Name: Greenville SW
>_ 19 or perennial if >- 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 9.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
2.6inuosity ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
5. Active/relic floodplain ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
6. Depositional bars or benches ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
7. Braided channel ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
9a. Natural levees ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
10. Headcuts ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
11. Grade controls ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
an
No = 0 ?
Yes = 3
....... ?..a.?v ,.,a„.,.,., _-- I-., - ---V11.1. 111 Illdlludl
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 7 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
16. Leaflitter ? 1.5 ? 1 ® 0.5 ? 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No= 0 ? Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 11 5 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel
2lb. Rooted plants in channel ?
® 3
3 ®
? 2
2 ?
? 1
1 ?
? 0
0
22. Crayfish ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
23. Bivalves El o ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
24. Fish ? 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ® 1.5
25. Amphibians ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 [1 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed

11 I# c On -4 74 i.. ., tL... FAC = 0.5 El: FACW = 0.75 E];
Other= 0 ? OBL = 1.5 R SAV = 2.0 ?;
?U Il/cuaes Un Lilt: presence of aquatic or wetiana plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: October 13, 2009 Project: Westside Regional PS Latitude: 35.617875
Evaluator: E. Scherrer/PBS&J Site: Stream AH Longitude: -77.396697
Total Points: 19.5 Other:
Stream is at least intermittent County: Pitt
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30 e.g. Quad Name: Greenville SW
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 9) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
2. Sinuosity ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
5. Active/relic floodplain ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
6. Depositional bars or benches ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
7. Braided channel ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
9a. Natural levees ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
10. Headcuts ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
11. Grade controls ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0 ®
Yes = 3
' Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Hvrlrnlnnv i.RIlhtntni = 4)
14. Groundwater flow/discharge ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
16. Leaflitter ? 1.5 ® 1 ? 0.5 ? 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ® Yes = 1.5 ?
r` Rininnu !QI Ihfnfnl = A ri 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel ? 3 ® 2 ? 1 ? 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel ? 3 ® 2 ? 1 ? 0
22. Crayfish ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
23. Bivalves ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
24. Fish ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
25. Amphibians ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus.
29b. Wetland plants in streambed ® 0
FAC = 0.5 ®;
Other= 0 ? ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
FACW = 0.75 ?; OBL = 1.5 ?; SAV = 2.0 ?;
" Items 20 and 21 tocus on the presence or upiana plants, Rem cy FUI:USt:b U11 Ule PIUOVII.V V1 04U0- T-k-I'm F-- -
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
• . North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: October 13, 2009 Project: Westside Regional PS Latitude: 35.617841
Evaluator: E. Scherrer/PBS&J Site: Stream Al Longitude: -77.396607
Total Points: 20.5 Other:
Stream is at least intermittent County: Pitt e.g. Quad Name: Greenville SW
if >_ 19 or perennial if ? 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 8.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
2. Sinuosity ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
5. Active/relic floodplain ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
6. Depositional bars or benches ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
7. Braided channel ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
9a. Natural levees ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
10. Headcuts ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
11. Grade controls ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0 ®
Yes = 3
rvia1i-niaue UILWIUb ale nut faleU, see oiscussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 6 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
16. Leaflitter ? 1.5 ® 1 ? 0.5 ? 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No= 0 ? Yes = 1.5
C. Biolociv (Subtotal = 6)
20b. Fibrous roots in channel ? 3 ? 2 ® 1 ? 0
21 D. Rooted plants in channel ? 3 ® 2 ? 1 ? 0
22. Crayfish ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
23. Bivalves ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
24. Fish ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
25. Amphibians ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ®; FACW = 0.75 ?;
Other= 0 ? OBL = 1.5 ?; SAV = 2.0 ?;
- - -- -••- - • • --? -? ?•• .••.. ?+•....... •.... v? uF ..' J--Q, -II ca wUUZIVa vu LIM puzsunce ui aquatic or wetlano plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: October 14, 2009 Project: Westside Regional PS Latitude: 35.627415
Evaluator: E. Scherrer/PBS&J Site: Stream AK Longitude: -77.342901
Total Points: 20.25
Stream is at least intermittent County: Pitt Other:
if>_ 19 or perennial if? 30 e.g. Quad Name: Greenville NE
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 10.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ® 3
2. Sinuosity ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
5. Active/relic floodplain ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
6. Depositional bars or benches ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
7. Braided channel ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
9a. Natural levees ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
10. Headcuts ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
11. Grade controls ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0 ?
Yes = 3
iwan-mave uncnes are not ratea, see ascussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 3.5 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
16. Leaflitter ? 1.5 ? 1 ® 0.5 ? 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ® Yes = 1.5 ?
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 6.25)
20°. Fibrous roots in channel ? 3 ® 2 ? 1 ? 0
211 Rooted plants in channel ? 3 ® 2 ? 1 ? 0
22. Crayfish ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
23. Bivalves ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
24. Fish ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
25. Amphibians ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ?; FACW = 0.75 ®;
Other= 0 ? OBL = 1.5 ?; SAV = 2.0 ?;
" Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: October 14, 2009
Evaluator: E. Scherrer/PBSU
Total Points: 25
Stream is at least intermittent
if ? 19 or perennial if ? 30
Project: Westside Regional PS
Site: Stream AL
County: Pitt
Latitude: 35.624675
Longitude: -77.334255
Other:
e.g. Quad Name: Greenville SE
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 11.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ® 3
2. Sinuosity ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
5. Active/relic floodplain ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
6. Depositional bars or benches ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
7. Braided channel ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
9a. Natural levees ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
10. Headcuts ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
11. Grade controls ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or MRCS map or other documented
evidence.
a.
No = 0 ?
Yes = 3
....... ........... ?.... ,..., ......?... ?u«. , cc u?auuaawna ni nioiiuai
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 6 5
14. Groundwater flow/discharge ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
16. Leaflitter ? 1.5 ® 1 ? 0.5 ? 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ® Yes = 1.5 ?
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 7)
20°. Fibrous roots in channel
21b. Rooted plants in channel ?
® 3
3 9
? -2
2 ?
? 1
1 ?
? 0
0
22. Crayfish ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
23. Bivalves ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
24. Fish ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
25. Amphibians ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ::::N 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ®; FACW = 0.75 ?;
Other= 0 ? OBL = 1.5 ?; SAV = 2.0 ?;
_ ___ _.. _.._ ?. - r.--, -1.1 - .-- vn t- pl-a v ul aquduc ui wenanu plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: October 14, 2009 Project: Westside Regional PS Latitude: 35.627624
Evaluator: E. Scherrer/PBS&J Site: Stream AN-AP Longitude: -77.353081
Total Points: 40 Other:
Stream is at least intermittent County: Pitt e.g. Quad Name: Greenville NE
if >_ 19 or perennial if ? 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 18.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ® 3
2. Sinuosity ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
5. Active/relic floodplain ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ® 3
6. Depositional bars or benches ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
7. Braided channel ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
9a. Natural levees ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
10. Headcuts ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
11. Grade controls ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway ? 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ® 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No =
0 ?
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R I-Ivrirnlnrni tCi ihtntal = in s)
14. Groundwater flow/discharge ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ® 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ® 3
16. Leaflitter ? 1.5 ® 1 ? 0.5 ? 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ? Yes = 1.5
r Rininnv tCi 1htntnI = 11 1
20". Fibrous roots in channel ? 3 ® 2 ? 1 ? 0
21 °. Rooted plants in channel ? 3 ® 2 ? 1 ? 0
22. Crayfish ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
23. Bivalves ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
24. Fish ? 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ® 1.5
25. Amphibians ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ?;
Other= 0 ? FACW = 0.75 ?; OBL = 1.5 ®; SAV = 2.0 ?;
" Items 2u ana zl rocus on [ne presence or upianu pianw, nC111 ca iuk.'uaaa V11 U IV N v,u- ay .a, ••?• r.....•...
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.
-North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: October 14, 2009 Project: Westside Regional PS Latitude: 35.618230
Evaluator: E. Scherrer/PBS&J Site: Stream AR - Tar River Longitude: -77.389773 1
Total Points: 50
Stream is at least intermittent County: Pitt Other:
if>_ 19 or perennial if? 30 e.g. Quad Name: Greenville SW
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 25) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ® 3
2. Sinuosity ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
5. Active/relic floodplain ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ® 3
6. Depositional bars or benches ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ® 3
7. Braided channel ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
9a. Natural levees ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
10. Headcuts ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
11. Grade controls ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway ? 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ® 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No= 0 ?
Yes = 3
IvIdII-IIRIUe uILUMb die Ilul HAUU, see uiscussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 11 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ® 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ® 3
16. Leaflitter ? 1.5 ® 1 ? 0.5 ? 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ? 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ® 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ? Yes = 1.5
C. Biolopv (Subtotal = 14)
20°. Fibrous roots in channel ? 3 ? 2 ® 1 ? 0
21°. Rooted plants in channel ? 3 ? 2 ® 1 ? 0
22. Crayfish ? 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ® 1.5
23. Bivalves ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
24. Fish ? 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ® 1.5
25. Amphibians ? 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ® 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ? 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ® 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ? 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ?; FACW = 0.75 ?;
Other= 0 ? OBL = 1.5 ®; SAV = 2.0 ?;
•x.11 ?V -IV ? I IV— VII LI IV VIVJVIIL V ul uNianu Mains, uern zu iocuses on me presence or aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 i
Date: October 14, 2009 Project: Westside Regional PS Latitude: 35.620781
Evaluator: E. Scherrer/PBS&J Site: Stream AS-AT Longitude: -77.387530
Total Points: 41.5 Other:
Stream is at least intermittent County: Pitt
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30 e.g. Quad Name: Greenville SW
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 17.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
2. Sinuosity ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ? 0 ® 1 ? 2 ? 3
5. Active/relic floodplain ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ® 3
6. Depositional bars or benches ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
7. Braided channel ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
9a. Natural levees ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
10. Headcuts ® 0 ? 1 ? 2 ? 3
11. Grade controls ® 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway ? 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ® 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0 ?
Yes = 3
° Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Hvdrnlnnv (SIPubotAl = 9)
14. Groundwater flow/discharge ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season ? 0 ? 1 ? 2 ® 3
16. Leaflitter ? 1.5 ? 1 ® 0.5 ? 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) ? 0 ? 0.5 ® 1 ? 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ? Yes = 1.5
(' Rinlnrrv IQ[ ihtntnl = 1 ri )
-1 1
20°. Fibrous roots in channel
?
3
?
2
®
1
?
0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel ? 3 ® 2 ? 1 ? 0
22. Crayfish ? 0 [-1 0.5 ? 1 ® 1.5
23. Bivalves ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
24. Fish ? 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ® 1.5
25. Amphibians ? 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ® 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ? 0 ? 0.5 ? 1 ® 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ? 0 ? 1 ® 2 ? 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. E] 0 ® 0.5 ? 1 ? 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5 ?;
Other= 0 ? FACW = 0.75 ?; OBL = 1.5 ®; SAV = 2.0 ?;
Items zu and zl tocus on the presence or upiano plants, Iiem cy wc:uses vii uic Nicacnw Ui 04000 . Ul -U-1- 1-11 ?.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
USACE AID# DWQ # Site Stream AX
I . STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Greenville / Westside Reg PS 2. Evaluator's name: E. Scherrer/PBSJ
3. Date of evaluation: October 14, 2009 4. Time of evaluation: 12:45 PM
5. Name of stream: Stream AX / UT to Tar River 6. River basin: Tar
7. Approximate drainage area: 0.04 square mile 8. Stream order: 2
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50' 10. County: Pitt
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.617694, -77.392384 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
In Greenville, take 3`d Street west off Memorial Drive (US 13). Turn right on Conley Street and go to first bend
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Sewer line
15. Recent weather conditions:- Cloudy, light rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cloudy, light rain
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters X Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 50 % Residential Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
50 % Forested Cleared / Logged % Other (
22. Bankfull width: 8-20 ft 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3-8 ft
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. 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 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): 43 Comments:- Incised stream with steep banks. Failing banks with trees falling
Good forested buffer. Trash and pollution evident Cobble gravel substrate Water to 6 inches deep
Evaluator's Signature E/,W6?
l Date October 20, 2009
This channel evaluation form is intended 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 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

- - - ECOREGION POINT 1 ANA :.' 4
1
:?#. CHARACTERISTICS .
-- -- -
C
t
l
' ., COR
- oas
a
:-
iedmont Mountain,
--- EP __-
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
(1 > ? 3
_ (no flow or saturation = 0, strop flow= max oints
Evidence of past human alteration
? 0 6 0?-5 0 5 2
= max points)
(.extensive alteration = 0; no alteration
? -
-
3 - Riparian zone 0-6 -?
0
4 ?
0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) -

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0 - 4
1
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges =max points)
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 -4

0 4
2
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points - --
U -_ -
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 U? 2
?y (no flood lain 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
ent / flood
lain access
Entrench
p
m 0- 5 0-4 0 2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)

R Presence of adjacent wetlands

j
0-6
0-4
0
0
acent wetlands = max points)
(no wetlands 0; large ad

9 Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
3
(extensive chalmelization - 0- natural meander = max oints)
Kx Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0- 4
3
s^? ; (extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
'
1 1 Size &'diversity of channel bed substrate
IN :'1 T
0-4
s

--
tine, home enous -"0 large, diverse sizes = max oints)
, Evidence of channel incision or widening 0
5 0-4 0-5 2
_;. l (deeply incised 0; stable bed & banks = max points) -
E-
?.
L3 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
(severe erosion - 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
W Root depth and density on banks
0
3
0-4
0-5
3
la (no Visible roots = 0; dense toots throughout = max points) -
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0
5
0-4
0-5
4
15 (substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) -

16 Presence of riMe-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0 6
2
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed max points)
-
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0 0
2
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points) - -
f?.
I S Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0 5 4
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
--
Y' (deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5 ?

0-?

1
?0 (no evidence = 0, common, numerous types = max points)
Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
?` - (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max p points)
a' ?-2 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Evidence of wildlife use -
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 X100
K4
TOTAL SCORN (also enter on first page) 43
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site Stream AB
m in.. .I
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Greenville / Westside Reg PS _2. Evaluator's name: E. Scherrer/PBSJ
3. Date of evaluation: October 13, 2009 4. Time of evaluation: 11:30 AM
5. Name of stream: Stream AB / UT to Harris Mill Run 6. River basin: Tar
7. Approximate drainage area: 46 acres 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50'
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.622175, -77.408213
10. County:
12. Subdivision name (if any): off Paladin Place
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
In Greenville, take W.5 1h St. (NC 43) west from Memorial Drive (US 13) for 1.2 miles Right on Paladin St left on Richard Drive and
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Sewer line
15. Recent weather conditions: Cloudy, light rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cloudy. cool
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters X Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed ([-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 75 % Residential
8 % Forested
22. Bankfull width: 5 ft
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
30 % Cleared / Logged % Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 18 inches
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I 0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: X Straight -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 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): 44 Comments: Manmade channel leading from culvert. Persistent pools no flow,
sand/silt substrate.
Evaluator's Signature ` Date October 19, 2009
This channel evaluation form is intended 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 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

-
C'HARACTERISTICS ECORI,:GION POIN

Coastal Piedmont T RANGE

1711V,
SC(3RE''
-
Presence of flow l persistent pools in stream
--
-

no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 3

,2 Evidence of past human alteration

(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 6
(no buffer =? 0; continuous, wide buffer = max points)
d Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges `

(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
y,l s Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 1
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
...
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0

(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain - max points) -4 0-4 0-2 2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-2 3
S Presence of adjacent wetlands

no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands - max points) 0-6 0--4 0-2 0
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 0
_ extensive channelization =-O-, natural meander = max points)
Sediment input
lu
(extensive deposition- 0; little or no sediment = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
Size& diversity of channel bed substrate
II
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) NA* 0-4 0-5 --

1
Evidence of channel incision or Nvidening

- 5

0-4 _

0-5

4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & batiks max points)

I Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
_ --
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
3
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
I
c
b
i
ul

15 mpa
t
y agr
c
ture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
5
(substantial impact-=O-1 no evidence = max points)

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
n5
0-6
0
(no riffles/ripples les or pools = 0- well-develo ed = max points -

I Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
1
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
'.
l5 Canopy coverage over streambed

(no shading vegetation - 0, continuous canopy = max points)
0-5
0-5'
0-5
5

1 q
Substrate embeddedness -

NA* 0'-4

0'-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
4
0
0
0
5
0
:` - (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) - -5 -

1 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(noevidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
(no evidence - 0; nhundant evidence - max_p2,int0 -_
Total Points Possible 100 - - 100 100
. F> TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first hare) 44

* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site Stream AC
1
I STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
L? -AQV
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Greenville / Westside Reg. PS 2. Evaluator's name: E. Scherrer/PBSJ
3. Date of evaluation: October 13, 2009 4. Time of evaluation: 12:30 PM
5. Name of stream: Stream AC / Schoolhouse Br. 6. River basin: Tar
7. Approximate drainage area: 1.7 square miles 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50' 10. County: I
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.619163, -77.403509 12. Subdivision name (if any): west of Trayburn
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
In Greenville, take W 5`h St. (NC 43) west from Memorial Drive (US 13) for 0.7 miles. Right on Treybrooke Circle keep left and park
at northwest stub road.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Sewer line
15. Recent weather conditions: Cloudy, light rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cloudy, cool
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters X Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 3 ponds 2.0 ac.
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 25 % Residential
65 % Forested
22. Bankfull width: 10 ft
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
% Commercial % Industrial 15 % Agricultural
% Cleared / Logged % Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 18 inches
Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I 0%)
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): 74 Comments: Channel has been straightened upstream of Tar River floodplain
Evaluator's Signature ??
Date October 19, 2009
This channel evaluation form is intended 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 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CCOREG ION POINT RANG11
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0- 4
0-5
5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
Evidence of past human alteration
0
6
0-5
0-5
3
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) -
Riparian zone
p 0-6 0-4 0 5 5
oints)
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0 4 4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
--
Groundwater discharge
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
0-3
0-4
0 ! 3

--

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0 _
4
no flood lain 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment/ floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0 ? 5
(deeply entrenched = 0; fi-e uent flooding ` = max points)

g
Presence of adjacent wetlands
j

0-6

0-4 - t

6
acent wetlands = max points)
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 2
extensivechannelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
_
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0-4 0-4 4
(extensive deposition- 0; little or no sediment = max points)
1 I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA . 0-4
_ fine, homo enous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
_
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 5
(deeply incised 0; stable bed & banks = max points) _
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
o-5
5
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
? 4 Root depth and density on banks
0 -
0-4
0 5
3
1 no visible roots = 0, dense roots throughout = max `points) '
by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

0-5
0-4
0-5 ?
5
15 (substantialimpact -0; no evidence = max points)
(substantial
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 1
(no riffles/ripples or owls 0; well-developed max points)
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6 2
F- (little or no habitat 0; frequent, varied habitats= max points) _
W Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 1-5 2
13 (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4 '

--
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)-
,
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0 5
3
no evidence = 0, common, numerous types = max oints

L 21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
3
Q no evidence = 0; common, numeroust es = max oints

22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
4
no evidence= 0; common, numerous types = max points)
91C
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0_5
4
(no e?? dense = 0: abundant evidence = ma"omts)
?-

Tot:d Points Possible _ ?- 100 100 100
TOTAL, SCORE (also enter on first pa-'O 74
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site Stream AH
13 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ;
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Greenville / Westside Rep. PS 2. Evaluator's name: E. Scherrer/PBSJ
3. Date of evaluation: October 13, 2009 4. Time of evaluation: 4:00 PM
5. Name of stream: Stream AH / UT to Schoolhouse Br.
7. Approximate drainage area: 0.2 square miles
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50'
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.617875. -77.396697
6. River basin: Tar
8. Stream order: 2
10. County: Pitt
12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
In Greenville, take W 3rd St. west from Memorial Drive (US 13) for 0.3 miles to end.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Sewer line
15. Recent weather conditions: Cloudv, lieht rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: -Cloudy, cool
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters X Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 35 % Residential 20 % Commercial % Industrial 15 % Agricultural
8 % Forested 40 % Cleared / Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: 8 ft 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 36 inches
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I 0%)
25. 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 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): 40 Comments: Channel near pump station. Full of litter and trash Sand substrate
Evaluator's Signature 6 , w6t
Date October 19, 2009
This channel evaluation form is intended 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 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

' - - - ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
-- ?nr
;
r
IT ? CHARACTERISTICS Coastal -
Y'iedmont mountain 4.
xr?
Presence of How / persistent pools in stream
0 5
0 -
0 - 5
3
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)

4.
, Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0
0-5
1
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer= max points)
0-6
{l 1
0-5
3

Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges -

t)-

()-4

0-4

2
4 (extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max point)

Groundwater discharge -

0-,

i)- 1

0 4

2
?d (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
Presence of adjacent floodplain 0
4
O _
1
(no flood p lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
( no

Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 4- 4 0 ' 3
. (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding =max points)
,?
?,
4--
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0 -1- _
0
0
(no wetlands = 0, lar>e adjacent wetlands = max points)
Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0 1
((xtensive channelization = 0: natural meander = max points)

1(1 Sediment input

'
0=5
0-4
0-4
2
O;Tittle or no sediment = max points) `
(extensive deposition= ?

1 I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate - -
NA*
0-4
0-5
(tine, homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)

< Evidence of channel incision or widening
°

0 --5

0-4

0-5

4
.
'?+ 1 .
(deeply incised= 0; stable bed & banks=max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
05
0-5
0-5
3
(severe erosion =0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-=t
0-5
2
E, 14 (no visible roots=0; dense roots throu hout=max points)
y Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
1 (substantial im act =0; no evidence =max points)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0 r, 1
1 (no riffles/ripples or pools 0; well-developed - max points)

Habitat' complexity

0-6

0 6 -

0 (,

3
17 varied habitats = max points
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent
,
--
Canopy coverage over streambed
" 18 (no shadintr vegetation = 0; continuous canopy max points)

Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 0 l
--
1 y (deeply embedded = 0; loose structure- max)
- -
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
0 (no evidence= O; common, numerous types = max points
1 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
no evidence =0; common, numerous types = max points)
L? Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
(no evidence - 0; common, numerous types =max points)
-
Evidence of wildlife use o-6 0 5 0-5 1
` (no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max joints)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100

' TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 40
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site Stream Al
I STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Greenville / Westside Reg. PS 2. Evaluator's name: E. Scherrer/PBSJ
3. Date of evaluation: October 13, 2009 4. Time of evaluation: 3:30 PM
5. Name of stream: Stream Al / UT to Schoolhouse Br. 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: 0.05 square miles 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50' 10. County
Pitt
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.617841, -77.396607 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
In Greenville, take W 3rd St. west from Memorial Drive (US 13) for 0.3 miles to end.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Sewer line
15. Recent weather conditions: Cloudy, light rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cloudy, cool
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters X Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 90 % Residential
10 % Forested
22. Bankfull
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends
_% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
20 % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 24 inches
X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I 0%)
- 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): 42 Comments: Tributary to Stream AH. Persistent pools, no flow.
6-W,b 3U)ey?-
Evaluator's Signature I Date October 19, 2009
This channel evaluation form is intended 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 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CHARACTCIZISTICS I+COREG
-?
COaStal ION POINT RANGE
- - - -
Piedinont Mountain

l Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong, flow = max points)
Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration ° max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 5
0 4
0 0=4 2
4
- (extensive diwhar es 0; no discharges = max points)
- - -

? Groundwater discharge
?
0--3
0-4
0-4 '
1
(no dischanuu -. 0, .,[)rings, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
-
te' 'no Hood lain 0, extensive flood lain = max points)
r 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
0- 5
0- 4
0- 2
1
(deeply entrenched = 0;,frequent flooding = max points)

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0-4 0-3 1
(extensive channetization = 0; natural meander - max points)

?? Sediment input

((:xtenSlye deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
0-5
Q-4
0-4
3
_
1 I _
Size &'diversity of channel bed substrate 0-4 0--5
(hm, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) -
- _

I ` Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0
4
(dee ,l incised 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
Presence of major bank failures
0-5 -
0-5
0-5
4
13 (severe erosion= 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
C? 1 Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots 'throughout = max points) 0- 3 0- 4 0 5 3
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 5
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 0
16
- no riftlesirip les or pools 0; well-developed = max points) -_-
1, Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 1
(little or no hiihitat = 0 frequent, varied habitats = max points)
p
i Canopy coverage over streambed 0_5 0-5 0-5 4

- points)
-
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy max
- _
Substrate embeddedness NA ? 0-4 0-4
--
(deeply embedded - 0; loose structure = max)

Presence of stream invertebrates (see' page 4) 0-4 0-5 0 5 0
no evidence - 0; common numerous types = max points)

Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous !ypes = max points)
?- Presence of fish
0_4
0-4
0-4
0
-? no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Evidence of wildlife use t
0-6 0-5 0-5
1
2
brio evidence- 0; abundant evidence - max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
-- 1
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 42
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site Stream AK
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Greenville / Westside Reg. PS 2. Evaluator's name: E. Scherrer/PBSJ
3. Date of evaluation: October 14, 2009 4. Time of evaluation: 9:00 AM
5. Name of stream: Stream AK / UT to Parker Cr. 6. River basin: Tar
7. Approximate drainage area: 0.8 square miles 8. Stream order: 2
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50' 10. County: Pitt
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.627415, -77.342901 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
In Greenville, intersection of Mumford Road (SR 1530) and NC 33.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Sewer line
15. Recent weather conditions: Cloudy, light rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cloudv. cool
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters X Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 3 ponds 0.9 ac.
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 15 % Residential
10 % Forested
22. Bankfull width: 4 ft
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
% Commercial % Industrial 65 % Agricultural
10 % Cleared / Logged % Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 6 ft
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I 0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: X Straight -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 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): 38 Comments: Channelized stream through residential and agricultural land. Silt
substrate.
6-wslol 3chw/f-
Evaluator's Signature Date October 19, 2009
This channel evaluation form is intended 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 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

# -
CH A Wk cxERISTIC S ECOREGION POINT RANG
- E

'
? - - - '(W
Coastal ? Piedmont Mountain

Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
1 __Lao flow or saturation - 0; strong flow = max oints 0-5 0 1 0-5 3
2 Evidence of past human alteration
/extensive alteration - 0; no alteration = m
a
t- x points) 0 - 6 0 - 0 - S 2
Riparian zone

(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0- 6 U 4 0- 5 2
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive discharges = 0; no discharges =max points) 0-5 0 4 0-4 2
.j Groundwater discharge
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0 -3 0-4 0 -4 2

6 Presence of adjacent
foodp lain -

-
(no floodplain - 0; extensive flood lain = max points) 0-4 U-4 0-2 0
Entrenchment / floodplain access

deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding =max points) 0-5 0-4 0-2 0
S Presence of adjacent wetlands

no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max oints 0-6 0 1 0-2 0
Channel sinuosity

(cxtensive channelization = O; natural meander = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
10 Sediment input
` p__5 0'-4 0-4 3
(extensive de osrtion 0; little or no sediment = max
points)

% -
Size S diversity of channel bed substrate _
1I
(,fine, homogenous - 0, large, diverse sizes = max points) N;1?
j 0-4 0-5 --
1 Evidence of channel incision o?- widening

(deep t incised = 0; stable bed & banks =max points)
0-5 ?
0-4
0-5
4

13 Presence of major bank failures
0=5
U--5
0
5
4
- (severe erosion= 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) -

14 Root depth and deusity on banks
'
Q
-
(no visible roots - 0, dense roots throughout = max points) 0-3 0 4 -5
0 3
-? j
1i Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0--5 0-4 0-5 3

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
-

(no riffles/ripples or pools= 0; well-developed = max points) 0
3 0-5 0-6 1

17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-h
0-6
2
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats= max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0
5
0 -5
0-5
4
1 (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) -

Substrate embeddedness
19 (deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max) NA, 0 4 0 T 4 --

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
4
0
5
0
5
1
no evidence = 0-,common, numerous types = max points) - 0 -

Presence of amphibians

fl ?l
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4 1

"tO
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
' no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
(nn evidence = 0; abundant evidence - max points)
'Dotal Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORN: (also enter on first paLe) 38
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site Stream AL
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Greenville / Westside Reg. PS 2. Evaluator's name: E. Scherrer/PBSJ
3. Date of evaluation: October 14, 2009 4. Time of evaluation: 10:30 AM
5. Name of stream: Stream AL / UT to Parker Creek 6. River basin: Tar
7. Approximate drainage area: 0.2 square miles 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50' 10. County: Pitt
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.627415, -77.342901 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
In Greenville intersection of Mumford Road (SR 1530) and NC 33.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Sewer line
15. Recent weather conditions: Cloudy, light rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cloudy, cool
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters X Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use
10 % Residential
20 % Commercial 12 % Industrial 45 % Agricultural
25 % Cleared / Logged % Other (
22. Bankfull width: 5 ft
5 % Forested
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3-5 ft
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: X Straight -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 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): 41 Comments: Culvert under Old Pactolus Road from corn field ditch. Incised,
channelized, sand substrate. Also connected to Baldwin Swamp.
Evaluator's Signature i Date October 19, 2009
This channel evaluation form is intended 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 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

#
CHAR
CTERIST
C I+ACOREGION POINT RANGE .
A
I
S - S
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
1 (no flow or saturation = 0; strong ' flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0 4

Z Evidence of past human alteration
-

extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
- 0-6 0
5 (i- 2
3" Riparian zone

no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0 5
?
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive discharges = 0; no discharges max points) 0--5 0-4 0 4 2
a Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0 4? 2
(no dischar,_,c = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) _
U
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain `
0-4
0-4
0
0
r (no flood lain 0; extensive flood p lain max points) _
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0
5
0
4
0
2
0
(deeply entrenched = 0; fi-e vent flooding = max points) - - -
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j
p
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max
points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)

l0 Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive deposition= 0, little or no sediment= max points)

ll Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
\
?
0
4
0

('fine, homogenous= 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) : - -

1 Evidence of channel incision or widening
U -
0-4
0-5
4
(deeply incised 0. stable bed & banks = max points)
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
(severe' erosion = 0; no erosion', stable ban)` - max points) -
1 t Root depth and density on banks 0
0_4
0-5
3
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout -max points)

1 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0
0 4
0
5
2
(substantial impact -0; no evidence = max points) -

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

°
0-3
0-5
0-6
1
points)
(no riffles./ripples or pools 0; well-developed = max

17 Habitat complexity

0-6

0-6
2
0-6
( I it tIc or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
p
.
,
1$ Canopy coverage over streambed
5
0
0
5
0-i 3
r (no shading vegetation = 0. continuous canopy = max points) - ?
-
-

19 Substrate embeddedness
NA
0-4
0-4
--
(dee p l embedded = 0; loose structure = max)

-0 Presence of stream invertebrates (seepage 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
(no evidence =0; common, numerous types - max oints

1 Presence of amphibians

t
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
10 types = max omts
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous
a
C7
?? Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4>
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
- ,
21 Evidence of wildlife use

0 - 6

0 - 5

0 - 5

2
(no evidence = O;abundant'evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100 #
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first pa'-c) 41
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ9
Site Stream AN-AP
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Greenville / Westside Reg. PS 2. Evaluator's name: E. Scherrer/PBSJ
3. Date of evaluation: October 14, 2009 4. Time of evaluation: 10:30 AM
5. Name of stream: Stream AN-AP / Parker Creek 6. River basin: Tar
7. Approximate drainage area: 8.2 square miles 8. Stream order: 3
9, Length of reach evaluated: 50' 10. County: Pitt
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.627624, -77.353081 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
In Greenville, take Mumford Road (SR 1530) for 1.5 miles east of Memorial Drive (US 13). Stream crosses under a bridge on
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cloudy, cool
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters X Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 16 ponds 79.3
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 10 % Residential
5 % Forested
22. Bankfull width: 25 ft
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
20 % Commercial 12 % Industrial 45 % Agricultural
25 % Cleared / Logged % Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I 0%)
25. 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 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): 73 Comments: Relatively natural stream with 200-foot forested buffer. Sand silt
gravel substrate. Water to 18 inches deep.
6-w5tm- ?3U)W"-K--1 7r) Evaluator's Signature Date October 19, 2009
This channel evaluation form is intended 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 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

#
CHARACTERISTICS ECOREG LON POIN

Coastal Piedmont T RANGE

Mountain ?-
SC,<
?..`

Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
1 (no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points) 0-5 0 4 0-5 5
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
- 0-6 0 - 0-5 3
?
Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

-- (extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0- 5 0 -4 0-4 3
Groundwater discharge 0-3 0 4 0-4 3
(tic) dischar rye = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
f
?-
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0- 4
0 4
0- 2
4
(nu tluocf lain 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
.
0-5
0- l
0-2
4
(deeply
entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands

j
0-6
0-d
0-2
6
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands - max points)
Channel sinuosity 0-5 0 1 0-3 2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander - max oints

10 Sediment input
0- 5
0 4
0-4
4
(cxtensive deposition- 0; little or no sediment = max points)

11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA
0-4
0`-5
--
(line., homogenous = 0, lame, diverse sizes = max points) I
I
I? Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 -
0-4
- 5
5
(decply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
-
r-a
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5 4
(severe erosion °0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
"W
w?
14 Root 'depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4 0-5 3
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout= max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0
5
U 4 0-5
3
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) -

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0
3
0-6
2
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed max points) -
-

17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0 6
0-6
5
(little or no Imbitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

I? Canopy coverage over streambed
-5
0
0-5
0- >
3
(.no shading tie>etation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddeduess
NA*
0-11
0-4 --
{ (deeply embedded = 0;' loose structure = max)
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
4
0
0
0-5
3
20 no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points) - -

1 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 3
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

?
» Presence of fish

'
0-4
0-4
0-4
3
0; common, numerous types = max points)
(no evidence =

23 Evidence of wildlife use

(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence =_maN points)
0-6
0-5
0-5
4
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL, SCORE also crater on first pace) 73
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site Stream AR
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Greenville / Westside Reg. PS 2. Evaluator's name: E. Scherrer/PBSJ
3. Date of evaluation: October 14, 2009 4. Time of evaluation: 11:00 AM
5. Name of stream: Stream AR / Tar River
7. Approximate drainage area: 510 square miles
9. Length of reach evaluated:
50'
6. River basin:
8. Stream order:
10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.618230, -77.389773 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
In Greenville take Memorial Drive (US 13) 0.4 miles north of 5t' Street to the crossing of the Tar River.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Sewer line
15. Recent weather conditions: Cloudy, liaht rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cloudy, light rain
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters X Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: numerous
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 25 % Residential
15 % Forested
22. Bankfull width: 325 ft
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
10 % Commercial 10 % Industrial 50 % Agricultural
25 % Cleared / Logged % Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I 0%)
25. 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): 78 Comments: Relatively natural stream with 200-foot forested buffer, except
adjacent to bridge approaches. Sand, silt, gravel substrate. Water to 3 feet deep. Evaluator's Signature ' Date October 20, 2009
This channel evaluation form is intended 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 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
?- -
f - - - - - - LCORMION POINTRANGFI
? '
.
96
CHARACTERISTICS -- ? - OR
:
Coastal Piedmont .Mountain ,.:
Presence of fluty / persistent pools in stream
1
g
0 - 5 ?
0 - 4
0 - 5 5
flow = max oin s
no flow or saturation = 0; stron

2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 4
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration - max points)
I Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
6

I -

(no puffer - 0; contiguous, wide buffer -max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
5
0
0-4
0-4
3
4 (extensive discharges - 0; no discharges =max points) -

? Groundwater discharge

0-3

0-4

0-4

3
ti no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
4
(no flood lain 0; extensive flood lain = max points)

7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
0 -- 5
0-4 .
0-2
5
?- (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 6
acent wetlands _ max points)
(no wetlands = 0; large ad

9 Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
4
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)

10 Sediment input
0--5
0--4
0-4
3
(extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment= nhax points)

11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate ` -
A r
IN,
0-4
0-5

--
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
_
Evidence of channel incision or widening
5
0
0-4
0 -5
4
22 (deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points) -
F
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 O- S 0-? 5
, (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks =max points) _ --
Root depth' and density on banks
0
3
0-4 -
0-
3
„y 14 (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points --
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber <production 5
0 0-4 0-5 2
15 (substantial impact =0; no evidence - max points) --
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0_3
0-5
0-6
2
(no riffles/ripples les or pools - 0;well-developed max points)

17 Habitat complexity
°
0-6
0-6
0-6 1 4
F-+ points)
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max
i? Canopy coverage over streambed
0--5
0-5
0-5 3
18 no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0--4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max - - - _ _?
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
no evidence = 0, common, numerous t es = nhax points)
_
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 1-4 4
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

C 22 Presence offish
0-4
0-4
0-4 4
no evidence =,0; common numerous types = max oints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 01-5 5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence= max points)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first pace) T 78
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site Stream AS-AT
I , STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Greenville / Westside Reg PS 2. Evaluator's name: E. Scherrer/PBSJ
3. Date of evaluation: October 14, 2009 4. Time of evaluation: 11:15 AM
5. Name of stream: Stream AS-AT / UT to Tar River 6. River basin: Tar
7. Approximate drainage area: 0.7 square miles 8. Stream order: 2
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50' 10. County: Pitt
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.620781,:77.387530 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
In Greenville, take Memorial Drive (US 13) 0.6 miles north of 5'h Street to the middle of the Tar River floodplain.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Sewer line
15. Recent weather conditions: Cloudv. light rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: -Cloudy, light rain
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters X Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 10 % Residential
30 % Forested
_% Commercial 50 % Industrial 10 % Agricultural
40 % Cleared / Logged % Other (
22. Bankfull width: 110 ft
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1-3 ft
Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
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): 68 Comments: Slough through Tar River floodplain with 20-100 feet of riparian
buffer. Open fields on both sides. Water to 2 feet deep. Evaluator's Signature Date October 20, 2009
This channel evaluation form is intended 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 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
LC'URECION POINT RAN 'E
#
CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of flow /'persistent pools in stream
0
-5
0
4
0
5
no tlow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) - -
Evidence of past hurnan alteration 0-6 2
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)

3! Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0 -5 3
(no buffer = 6; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0--5
0 4
0-4 2
(extensive discharges= 0; no discharges = max points)
}? S Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 'I
0 - 4 3
(no dischar<-,c = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) ,
_

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-?
0 4
0-
4
(no tloodplain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints - _

? hntrenchment / floodplain access -
n ??
rl - 4
0 ?
s
F? dee ply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0 -4
6
(no wcdands ` 0; large adjacent wetlands -_ max points)

t
Channel sinuosity
_

0-5 -
- -
U- t

0- 3
(e.xtet?s?ve channelizatron = 0; natural meander =max points) r

10 Sediment input
0-5 ---
0 -4 _ _-
0 4
2
(extensive, deposition= 0. little or nosediment =max points)
`

7 I ?
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
y -

N A* -- ?

0 4

0 5
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
` H vidence of channel incision or widening
0
5
01
0 5
5
?. 1 (dee k incised = 0; stable bed & banks - max points) -
-
t
13 Presence of major bank failures
-5

0

0 -
5
(severe eto?ion'- 0; no erosion, stable banks - max points

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
U
4
0 >
3
('no visible mots 0, dense roots throughout = max points) -
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 4
2
0
(sub,,tanlial,impact =0; no evidence --max omts)
-
-

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-?
0 6 1
(no riffles t ipples or pools = 0; wel]-developed max oints i

d
17 Habitat complexity
0_6
0--6 _
0-6
3
_ (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied Habitats = max points)
p is Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5
0 2
0 >
(no shadin, vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate enrbeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4 --
(decpl embedded = 0; loose structure = max
Prescnceofstreaminvertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-?
4
20 (no evidence -0; common, numerous types = max points)

-11 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0- 4 4
- (no evidence -;0; common, numerous types = max points) _

22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0 4
4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
x
2' Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0- 5
0-5
5
4 (no evidence = 0: abundant evidence = max points)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
?" - TOTAL SCORE (also eater on first pa,e) ? 68
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
._.._.._....__...___.._._.._.__...__.._.___._.....__...---_.___....,
__...._..._._....___.._.......__..._ ...................................__.._ .........__.___.____.......__._....__.........____.__.__..._.___..._..__..._._.__..__......._._..____...........___...___-........_---_-._....__...._.._....._....._...._.._._._...._..__._....
USACE AID# DWQ # Site Stream AV
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET, .
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Greenville / Westside Reps. PS 2. Evaluator's name: E. Scherrer/PBSJ
3. Date of evaluation: October 14, 2009 4. Time of evaluation: 11:45 AM
5. Name of stream: Stream AV / UT to Tar River 6. River basin: Tar
7. Approximate drainage area: 0.09 square miles 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50' 10. County: Pitt
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.624674, -77.383901 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
In Greenville, take Memorial Drive (US 13) 1.0 mile north of 5`h Street to the north side of the Tar River floodplain.
14. Proposed channel work (if any).
Sewer line
15. Recent weather conditions: Cloudy. light rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cloudy, light rain
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters X Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial 60 % Industrial
20 % Forested 85 % Cleared / Logged % Other (_
22. Bankfull width: 85 ft 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
20 % Agricultural
1-3 ft
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (> 10%)
25. 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 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): 56 Comments: Channelized slough through Tar River floodplain with little or no
riparian buffer. Channeled around airport fill upstream and receives from drainage ditches at airport.More natural channel
downstream. Water to 2 feet deep.
Evaluator's Signature 61 w stA Date October 20, 2009
This channel evaluation form is intended 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 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
?# CIIA
? N
P(
INT
F,C
( tl 1F(I I
r RACTI
RISTICS
J u T a
C xSGU
oR
C d
P T
n .
ta .r

l Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0
5
U 4
0 = 5
5
no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points) -
Evidence of past human alteration
0- 6
0 - 5
0-5
I
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
Riparian zone 0- 6 l) - 4 0- 5 1
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer -max points)

-1 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
1
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
Groundwater discharge
0 0 4 0- 4 3
(no discharge = 0; springs, secp5. wetlands, etc. = max points
,?-*
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
-2
0
3
(no flood lain = 0, extensive `flood lain = max points) -

7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-S
0-4
0-2
3
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)

8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
j
0-6
0--4 _
0-2
6
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0- 3 3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment - max points)

11 Size& diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
--
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max Dints

l Evidence of channel incision or widening
0
5
0
4
0-5
4
(deeply incised = 0. stable bed & banks - max points) - -
f"
`a'te
13 Presence of major bank failures
0
-5

0-5
0-5
4
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max,points)

1 Root depth and density on banns
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 5
2
4 no visible roots = 0, dense roots throughout = max p
qtr Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0
5
0
4
0
5
4
I S (substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) - - -

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
1
ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-0
2
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
F
-
18 Canopy coverage over streambed

'
0--5
0-5
0-5
2
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
-

4
1 Substrate embeddedness
NA`
0-4
0 1
--
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
??.
-0 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
3
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types _ max points)
l Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 3
O ' no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

O Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
3
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max p
p
23 Evidence of wildlife use
-
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence - mac points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first pa(,e) 56
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
--.........._.__..__....__.._..___._____......___....._--_---.......__._._..______._- ...................._...__.......... ...__.._............._.___._........_.._.._..........._.........._._._..___....___._........._._..__...___.._.____.__......_..____..__..._.____.._._........ ._.- ...._..._......._-.._.._........._ .._....._....
• USAGE AID#. DWQ # Site Stream AW
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Greenville / Westside Reg. PS 2. Evaluator's name: E. Scherrer/PBSJ
3. Date of evaluation: October 14, 2009 4. Time of evaluation: 12:30 PM
5. Name of stream: Stream AW / UT to Tar River 6. River basin: Tar
7. Approximate drainage area: 1 acre 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50' 10. County: Pitt
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.617467, -77.392075 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
In Greenville, take 3`d Street west off Memorial Drive (US 13). Turn rieht on Conlev Street and eo to first bend.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Sewer line
15. Recent weather conditions: Cloudy, light rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cloudy, light rain
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters X Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 50 % Residential
50 % Forested
Commercial _% Industrial Agricultural
Cleared / Logged % Other (
22. Bankfull width: 8 ft
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 6-8 ft
Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I 0%)
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): 41 Comments: Incised stream with steep banks. Failing banks with trees falling.
Sand, silt substrate. Tributary to Stream AX. Water to 8 inches deep
Evaluator's Signature Date October 20, 2009
This channel evaluation form is intended 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 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CHARACTERISTICS
H COREGION POINT RANG
-
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
ER
r

1 Presence of flow i persistent pools in stream
0
5
0
0

no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max oints - - 4 -5 3
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints 0-6 0 - 5 0 5 3
Riparian zone
0-6
0 - `3
0-5
4
no buffer= 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-?l 3
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0 - '1
2
4 (no disehar e - 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

f Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4

0 -

1
no flood lain 0; extensive flood lain _ max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-2 1
?- (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)

$ Presence of adjacent wetlands
j
0-6
11
0-2
0
- no wetlands - 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
Channel sinuosity 0-5 0- 1 0-3 3
(extensive channelization = 0-, natural meander = max points)

10 Sediment input

0-5

[) 4
`
0
4

3
(extensive deposition= O; little or no sediment = max points)

11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate

Nr1 - - -

0 y -

0

--
` (fine, homogenous - 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)

1 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0
5
1
0
0
l
(deeply incised - 0; stable bed & banks = max points) - -
, -

li Presence of major bank failures

0-5
;
0 -
?)
1
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion; stable banks = max points) -
u?
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-31
0--1
0--5
3
(no visible roots 0; dense roots throw-011011t = max points)
- Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
4
0-5
4
l? (substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-

l Presence ofriffle-pool/ripple- pool complexes
0
3
0 S
0
6
1
o (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) - -

17 habitat complexity
0-6
0--6
0--6
2
(liffle or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18
Canopy coverage over streambed

0-5 -

0-?

0-5

4
(no shading ? agetation 0; continuous canopy - max points)

-F
19 Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0 4
0-4
--
, (dee lv embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
` 20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4

0

l -5

1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 _
Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
- (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types - max points)

=?
??
- Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

?; Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0- 5
0-5
2
(no evidence =-O;-abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 loo
--- TOTAL SCORF (also enter on first })age) 41
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Westside Regional PS / Wetland AS City/County: Greenville/Pitt Sampling Date: 10-14-09
Applicant/Owner: City of Greenville State: NC Sampling Point: AU01
Investigator(s): Scherrer/PBS&J Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P Lat: 35.621915 Long: -77.386344 Datum: Degrees
Soil Map Unit Name: Bibb complex NWI classification: PF01 C
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation 13, Soil 13, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes M No Within a Wetland? Yes 19 No
M
Tar River floodplain.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) I@ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
x High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (613) _ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3) _ Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U) Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (131) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
t Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
?
1
Drift Deposits (133) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
7
L Algal Mat or Crust (134) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (65) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
f=1 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 4
Saturation Present? Yes No 11 Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ED No El
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
4
Sampling Point: AU01
2500S ft
Tree Stratum (Plot size: q Absolute Dominant Indicator
% C
S
i
? St
t Dominance Test worksheet:
) over
pec
es
a
us
Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
2
3. Species Across All Strata:
(B)
4.

5 Percent of Dominant Species
100
. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A/B)
6.
7 Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) OBL species x 1 =
1 _ FACW species x 2 =
2. FAC species x 3 =
3. FACU species x 4 =
4. UPL species x 5 =
5. Column Totals: (A) (B)
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) = Total Cover
M Dominance Test is >50%
1 Salix nigra 40 Yes OBL rl Prevalence Index is s3.0'
Q Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2
3.
4. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5
.
6. Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
7.
40
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2500 s q
q = Total Cover approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
) (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 Polygonum pennsylvanicum 50 Yes FACW
SaUfUfUS CefnUUS
2 2 NO OBL Sapling -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3 Sagittaria latifolia 5 No OBL than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4 Juncus effusus 20 No OBL
Shrub -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5. approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6. Herb -All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
7. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
8 plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
9.
10. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
12.
77 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft )
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5. Vegetation
= Total Cover Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
SOIL.
Sampling Point: AU01
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 Log Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 4/1 100 clay loam
4-12+ 10YR 5/1 85 5YR 4/6 15 C M clay loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (A1) n Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) -0 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2) n Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) n 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
n Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 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)
5
M
k
Mi
l Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
?
cm
_
uc
y
nera
(A7) (LRR P, T, U) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)-
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) ?ry1
Redox Depressions (F8) @=i Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) _ Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
n Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
!
3
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P
T
U)
tl
d h
d
l

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O
S) ?_
,
,
we
an
y
ro
ogy must be present,
77
fI
E_! Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
l
di
t
b
d
bl
i
,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) un
ess
s
ur
e
or pro
emat
c.
l ! Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5) 0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A
153C
153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U) ,
,
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes El No Q
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Westside Regional PS / Wetland AJ-AY,AZ City/County: Greenville/Pitt Sampling Date: 10-13-09
Applicant/Owner: City of Greenville State: NC Sampling Point: AJ02
Investigator(s): Scherrer/PBS&J
Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): toe of slope of floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P Lat: 35.620270 Long: -77.405469 Datum: Degrees
Soil Map Unit Name: Bibb complex NWI classification: PF01 C
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil n, or Hydrology Elsignificantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation, Soil 13, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes El No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes M No ? Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes El No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes El No
Remarks:
Large wetland area at toe of slope of Schoolhouse Branch/Tar River floodplain
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) _n Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al) S Water-Stained Leaves (69) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (613) Drainage Patterns (610)
j Saturation (A3) _ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62) t
t-] Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) t Crayfish Burrows (C8)
1
E. Drift Deposits (B3) E_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) El Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (65) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes E-1 No
Depth (inches): 0
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes 0 No Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 19 No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: AJ02
2500 S ft
Pl
i
q )
T
St
t
t Absolute
% Cover Dominant Indicator
ecies? Status
S Dominance Test worksheet:
um (
o
s
ze:
ree
ra p Number of Dominant Species
1 Quercus nigra 5 No FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
2 Ulmus americana 5 No FACW
Betula ni
3. gra 8 Yes FACW Total Number of Dominant 7
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4 Acer rubrum 10 Yes FAC
Percent of Dominant Species
100
5. (A/B)
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
.
28 = Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 2500 Sq ft ) OBL species x 1 =
1. FACW species x 2 =
2. FAC species x3=
3. FACU species x4=
4. UPL species x 5 =
5. Column Totals: (A) (B)
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7
.
0
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

2500 s q ft
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
) = Total Cover
X Dominance Test is >50%
1 Arundinaria gigantea 10 Yes FACW El Prevalence Index is:53.01
2 Ligustrum sinense 5 No FAC Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5
.
6. Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
7.
15 Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,

2500 sq ft = Total Cover approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 Saururus cernuus 20 Yes OBL
2 Impatiens capensis 10 No FACW Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3 Boehmeria cylindrica 10 No OBL than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4 Microstegium vimineum 15 Yes FAC
Shrub -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5. approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
7. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
$ plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
.
9.
10. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
12.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) 55 = Total Cover
Vitis rotundifolia 5 Y
FAC
1 es
2 Bignonia capreolata 5 Yes FAC
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic

10 Vegetation
P
t? Y
Q
= Total Cover resen
es
No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
SOIL

Sampling Point: AJ02
- - - ??? •r••?••• I WOU .uI& .W UM uCPL11 rleeueu to aocument ine mmcator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
0-12+ 10YR 4/1 100 Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
sandy lod
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
n Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
0 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) -
n 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
E3 Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (1718) (outside MLRA 150A B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified La
ers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
D
l fl Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
y
O
i
B
i ep
eted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
rgan
c
od
es (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Muck
Miner
l
A7
LRR P
T
U Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1538)
_
y
(
a
) (
,
,
) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (T172)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) Redox Depressions (178) t l Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T
U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Marl (F10) (LRR U) ,
n Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P
T
U) w
tl
d h
d
l

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) ,
,
I Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) e
an
y
ro
ogy must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5) E]Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
E3Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A
153C
153D)
E] Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U) ,
,
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes El No 11
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
? A
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Westside Regional PS / Wetland AO,AQ City/County: Greenville/Pitt Sampling Date: 10-14-09
Applicant/Owner: City of Greenville State: NC Sampling Point: A001
Investigator(s): Scherrer/PBS&J Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace and toe of slope ofd Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave-convex Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P Lat: 35.627671 Long: -77.353583 Datum: Degrees
Soil Map Unit Name: Lakeland sand, 0-6% slopes NWI classification: upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation 13, Soil 11, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No E3
Are Vegetation , Soil El, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes El No Q Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes IF] No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes El No within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
plain and terrace of Parker Creek.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that aooly) _El Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Surface Water (Al) Water-Stained Leaves (69)
21 nn Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
x High Water Table (A2) ?
E7 Aquatic Fauna (613) L'?J Drainage Patterns (610)
Saturation (A3) _ Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U) Moss Trim Lines (1316)
El Water Marks (131) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
R-1 Sediment Deposits (62) 7
f Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2)
n Iron Deposits (65) El Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) El Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 1:1 No
0 Depth (inches): 0
Water Table Present? Yes E]No El Depth (inches): 4
Saturation Present? Yes 0 No El Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes El No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: A001
2500 s q
Tree Stratum (Plot size: q Absolute Dominant Indicator
% C
S
i
? St
t Dominance Test worksheet:
)
1 Platanus occidentalis ove
5 r
pec
es
No a
us
FACW Number of Dominant Species
9

- That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
2 Acer rubrum TO e FAC
Betula nigra
3 10 Yes OBL Total Number of Dominant
8
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4 Taxodium distichum 8 Yes FACW
5 Liquidambar styraciflua 5 No FAC Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL
FACW
FAC
89
A/B
6 Acer negundo
8 Yes
FACW ,
, or
:
(
)
7 Populus deltoides 5 No FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
51 = Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 2500 Sq ft ) OBL species x 1 =
1 Acer rubrum 10 Yes FAC FACW species x 2 =
2 Liquidambar styraciflua 5 No FAC FAC species x 3 =
3 Acer negundo 8 Yes FACW FACU species x4=
4. UPL species X5=
5. Column Totals: (A) (B)
6.
7
. Prevalence Index = B/A =
23 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) Total Cover
=
Dominance Test is >50%
1 Ilex decidua 3 Yes FACW 1:1 Prevalence Index is s3.0'
2 Fraxinus caroliniana 2 NO OBL D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5
.
6. Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
7.
5 Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2500 s q
q = Total Cover approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
) (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 Murdannia keisack 50 Yes OBL
2 Polygonum sagittatum 10 NO OBL Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3 Boehmeria cylindrica 10 No OBL than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5. approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6. Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
7. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
$ plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
9.
10 Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
it.
12.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) 70 =Total Cover
ifl
l 3 Y UPL
ora
utea
1 Pass es
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5

3
Vegetation
11
= Total Cove r Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: A001
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) % Tvoe Loc Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 2/1 100 loamy sW
4-12+ 10YR 3/1 100 loamy stj
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
11 Histosol (Al) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
El Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) n 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
n Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) n 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3) ] Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A
B)
n Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified La
ers (A5) ,
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
D
l
y
O
i
B
di ep
eted Matrix (F3) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
rgan
c
o
es (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Muck
Mineral (A7
LRR P
T
U Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
y
) (
,
,
) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) E
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) 1
Redox Depressions (F8) 1 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T
U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ,
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) ^I Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
U
i
b
S
f
F

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S) m
r
c
ur
ace (
13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
?t
LJ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
l
di

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) un
ess
sturbed or problematic.
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A
1508)
a
J Sandy Redox (S5) ,
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
n Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
0 Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes S No 0
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Westside Regional PS / Wetland AS City/County: Greenville/Pitt Sampling Date: 10-14-09
Applicant/Owner: City of Greenville State: NC Sampling Point: AS01
Investigator(s): Scherrer/PBS&J
Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P Lat: 35.620654 Long: -77.387631 Datum: Degrees
Soil Map Unit Name: swamp NWI classification: PFO1 C
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation, Soil El, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil 17, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes rxl No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
x within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Tar River floodplain.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) _El Surface Soil Cracks (66)
x Surface Water (Al) FZ Water-Stained Leaves (69) rl Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
x High Water Table (A2) El Aquatic Fauna (613) L^7 Drainage Patterns (610)
Saturation (A3) Q Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U) Moss Trim Lines (816)
El Water Marks (131) ?
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) L Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62) E
t
El Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) ? Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63) El Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) El Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (64) lj Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) M Geomorphic Position (D2)
-
Iron Deposits (B5) El Thin Muck Surface (C7) 0 Shallow Aquitard (D3)
El Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) El Other (Explain in Remarks) 21 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes El No
El Depth (inches): 0-8
Water Table Present? Yes El No 11 Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes 131 No 11 Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes El No 11
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: AS01
2500 s q
Tree Stratum (Plot size: q Absolute Dominant Indicator
% C
S Dominance Test worksheet:
)
1 Platanus occidentalis over
pecies? Status
5 Yes FACW Number of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
2 Liquidambar styraciflua 5 Yes FAC

3. Total Number of Dominant
5
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
4.

5. Percent of Dominant Species
100
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A/B)
6.
7 Prevalence Index worksheet:
10 = T
t
l C Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2500 Sq ft
Saplin
Str
t
Pl
t
i o
over
a
)
g
a
um (
ze:
o
s OBL species x 1 =
1 • FACW species x 2 =

2. FAC species x 3 =
3. FACU species x 4 _-
4. UPL species x5=
5. Column Totals: (A) (B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) E Dominance Test is >50%
1 Salix nigra 80 Yes OBL Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
2. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5 be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

6. Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
7.

80 Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2500 s q
Herb Stratum (Plot size: q ) = Total Cover approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1 Boehmeria cylindrica 10 Yes OBL (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).

2 Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3. than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5. approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6.

7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
8. plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
9.
3 ft (1 m) in height.
10. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height
.
11.
12.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft
)
10 Total Cover
=
1 Smilax rotundifolia 10 Yes FAC

2.
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
10
= Total Cover Vegetation
Present? Yes No 11
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: AS01
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) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 5/1 90 5YR 4/6 10 C M clay loam
4-12+ 10YR 5/1 95 5YR 4/6 5 C M silty clay
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al) Q Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) rl 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 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) rj Redox Dark Surface (176) (MLRA 15313)
®
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) 1
Redox Depressions (F8) E_t Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) _ Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
rl Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) Umbric Surface (1713) (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.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
_ Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
n Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
f] Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes El No 11
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
i A
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Westside Regional PS / Wetland AM City/County. Greenville/Pitt Sampling Date: 10-14-09
ApplicanUOwner: City of Greenville State: NC Sampling Point: AM01
Investigator(s): Scherrer/PBS&J Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace and toe of slope ofd' Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave-convex Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P Lat: 35.627701 Long: -77.352883 Datum: Degrees
Soil Map Unit Name: Bibb complex NWI classification: upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Q Soil n, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes El No 11
Are Vegetation , Soil 13, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
® Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Floodplain and terrace of Parker Creek.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
E] Surface Water (Al) rXI Water-Stained Leaves (139) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
J High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (613) _ Drainage Patterns (610)
Saturation (A3) _ Marl Deposits (815) (LRR U) Moss Trim Lines (616)
Water Marks (131) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ?9t
t-] Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) t-t Crayfish Burrows (C8)
?- Drift Deposits (63) E_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) El Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) H Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2)
rl Iron Deposits (65) 13 Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
11 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes rl No
Depth (inches): 0
Water Table Present? Yes No El Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes 19 No 0 Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes IF] No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: AM01
2500 s q
Tree Stratum (Plot size: q Absolute Dominant Indicator
% C
S
i
? St
t Dominance Test worksheet:
)

Platanus occidentalis ove

10 r
pec
es
a
us
Yes FACW
Number of Dominant Species
6
1 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
2 Acer rubrum 25 Yes FAC
3 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 Yes FACW Total Number of Dominant
6
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
4 Quercus phellos 10 Yes FACW

5 Percent of Dominant Species
100
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A/B)
6.
7 Prevalence Index worksheet:
55 = Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) OBL species x 1 =
1. FACW species x2=
2. FAC species x 3 =
3. FACU species x4=
4. UPL species x 5 =
5. Column Totals: (A) (B)
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7.
0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) = Total Cover F (I Dominance Test is >50%
1 Acer rubrum 25 Yes FAC Prevalence Index is 553.0'
V
'
l
i
P
bl
ti
H
d
h
ti
t
ti
E
2. on
(
n)
ro
ema
c
y
rop
y
c
ege
a
xp
a
3.
4. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5
.
6. Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
7.
25 Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2500 s q
q = Total Cover approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
) (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 Murdannia keisack 80 Yes 0131-
Impatiens capensis
2 10 No FACW Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
. approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3 Boehmeria cylindrica 10 No OBL than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4 Juncus effusus 15 No FACW
Shrub -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
T ha latifolia
5. yP 5 NO OBL approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6 Polygonum sagittatum 10 No OBL

7 Polygonum pennsylvanicum
5
No FACW Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
$ plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
9-
10. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
12.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) 135 =Total Cover

1 Campsis radicans 5 Yes FAC
2.
3.
4. Hydrophytic
5.
5 Vegetation
n N
= Total Cover o
Present? Yes
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: AM01
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
0-12+ 10YR 2/1 100 silt loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
El Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U){ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
{ Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) j Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
.3 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 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 15313)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) Redox Depressions (F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (1713) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) 7
[ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
_ Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
0 Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes M No El
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
R i
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Westside Regional PS / Wetlands AD,AF,AG City/County: Greenville/Pitt Sampling Date: 10-13-09
Applicant/Owner: City of Greenville NC AD03
State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Scherrer/PBS&J
Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): slope of stream terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P Lat: 35.618945 Long: -77.402736 Datum: Degrees
Soil Map Unit Name: Bibb complex NWI classification: PFO1 C
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation El, Soil, or Hydrology p significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology El naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features. etc-
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Fwithinawtland? e SapledeArea Yes
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ? No
Remarks:
Edges of Schoolhouse Branch floodplain. Fill deposited at site of housing development to southeast
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (66)
x Surface Water (Al) n water-stained Leaves (B9) _
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) El Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (610)
J3 Saturation (A3) _El Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) _
Moss Trim Lines (616)
1 Water Marks (B1) El Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) 7
t-J Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
11 Sediment Deposits (B2) CJ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
1-J Drift Deposits (63) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) E3 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 11 Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Iron Deposits (B5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Q Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_El Other (Explain in Remarks) ID Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_El FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 0-4
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes El No
includes capillary fringe) n Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: AD03
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
2500 S ft
Tree Stratum (Plot size: q ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1 Acer rubrum 15 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
2 Quercus phellos 5 No FACW
Platanus occidentalis
3. 20 Yes FACW Total Number of Dominant 6
Species Across All Strata: (B)

4.
Percent of Dominant Species
100
5. (A/B)
That Are OBL
FACW
or FAC:
,
,
6
.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
40 = Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) OBL species x 1 =
1 Acer rubrum 10 Yes FAC FACW species x 2 =
2. FAC species x 3 =
3. FACU species x 4 =
4. UPL species x 5 =
5. Column Totals: (A) (B)
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7
.
10
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

2500 S q ft
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
) = Total Cover
x Dominance Test is >50%
1 Arundinaria gigantea 30 Yes FACW Prevalence Index is:53.0'
2 Morella cerifera 10 No FAC El Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
.
5.
6. Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
7.

40 Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2500 s q
q = Total Cover approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
) (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 Polygonum pennsylvanicum 50 Yes FACW
2 BOehmeria Cyllndrica 10 IT FACW Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3 Murdannia keisack 100 Yes OBL than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4 Vernonia noveboracensis 5 No FACW
Shrub -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5. approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6. Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
7. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
$ plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
9.
10. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
12.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) 165 =Total Cover
1.
2.
3.
4.

5. Hydrophytic
V
ti
t

0 ege
on
a
P
n
?
= Total Cover resent
Yes
No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: AD03
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 10YR 3/2 100 clay loam
5-12+ 10YR 3/1 100 clay loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
13 Histosol (Al) n Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
ri Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 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)
T
A7
LRR P
U
k
Mi
l _n Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
ted Dark Surface (F7)
D
l
,
) (
,
)
y
nera
(
5 cm Muc
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) ep
e
1
Redox Depressions (F8) L Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Marl (F10) (LRR U) n Other (Explain in Remarks)
_
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
n Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) E_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
h Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S) Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
E3Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
f] Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed): .
Type:
0
El
Depth (inches): No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
r
r 4
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Westside Regional PS / Wetland AE City/County: Greenville/Pitt Sampling Date: 10-13-09
Applicant/Owner: City of Greenville State: NC Sampling Point: AE03
Investigator(s): Scherrer/PBS&J Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): slope of stream terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P Lat: 35.620270 Long: -77.405469 Datum: Degrees
Soil Map Unit Name: Alaga loamy sand, banded substratum, 0-6% slopes NWI classification: upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation 13, Soil Q or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ID No
Are Vegetation , Soil 11, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No El Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes rxl No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No
Remarks:
Toe of slope of Tar River floodplain. Fill deposited at site of housing development to southwest.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) 1:1 Surface Soil Cracks (66)
?x Surface Water (Al) rl water-stained Leaves (69) 13 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (613) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) _ Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U) Moss Trim Lines (616)
Water Marks (61) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62) t
t-7 Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 9
R- Crayfish Burrows (C8)
?qq
E Drift Deposits (63) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (64) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135)

El Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) Thin Muck Surface (C7)

? Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
x
? FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes El No 0 Depth (inches): 0-12
Water Table Present? Yes IF] No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes El No Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes rxl No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
r
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Samnlina Point- AE03
2500 s q
Tree Stratum (Plot size: q Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1' 4
That Are OBL
FACW
or FAC
,
,
:
(A)
2.
3 Total Number of Dominant
.
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4.
5 Percent of Dominant Species
100
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6
.
7, Prevalence Index worksheet:

Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft 0 = Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
) OBL species x 1 =
1 FACW species x 2 =
2. FAC species x 3 =
3. FACU species x 4 =
4. UPL species x 5 =
5. Column Totals: (A) (B)
6.
7 Prevalence Index = B/A =
0 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) ElDominance Test is >50%
1 Platanus occidentalis 5 Yes FAC El Prevalence Index is s3.0'
2 Salix nigra 5 Yes OBL Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5 be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

6. Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
7.
10 Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2500 s q
Herb Stratum (Plot size: q ) = Total Cover approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1 Polygonum sagittatum 30 Yes OBL (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2 Boehmeria cylindrica 5 No FACW Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,

Typha latifolia
5
No OBL approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3 than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4 Hibiscus moscheutos 5 No OBL
5 Juncus effusus 50 Yes FACW Shrub Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6 Erianthus giganteus 10 No FACW

7 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
8. plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
9.
T
3 ft (1 m) in height.
10. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
12.

)
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft
105 =
Total Cover

1.
2.
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic

0
= T Vegetation
P
t? Y
13
otal Cover resen
es No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: AE03
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) % Tvge Loc Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 3/2 100 organic
3-12+ 10YR 4/ 1 100 silt muck
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) n 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (At 0) (LRR S)
E3 Black Histic (A3) _E] Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
f] Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
n Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (173) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 c
M
k
Mi
l
A7
LRR P rl Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
m
uc
y
nera
(
) (
, T, U) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Marl (F10) (LRR U) n Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron-Manganese Masses (1712) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
n Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P
T
U)
tl
d h
d
l

n Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O
S) ,
,
we
an
y
ro
ogy must be present,
f
t 7 Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
l
di
t
b
d
,
11 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) un
ess
s
ur
e
or problematic.
ID Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
El Sandy Redo. (S5) 0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
rl Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
r] Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
11 +
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Westside Regional PS / Wetland AA City/County: Greenville/Pitt Sampling Date:
10-13-09
Applicant/Owner: City of Greenville NC AA03
State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Scherrer/PBS&J Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): toe of slope on floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P Lat: 35.624286 Long: -77.410244 Datum: Degrees
Soil Map Unit Name: Craven fine sandy loam, 6-10% slopes PF01/2F
NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation El, Soil, or Hydrology Elsignificantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes M No El
Are Vegetation 13, Soil, or Hydrology 11 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts. imnortant featurec_ Atr
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes n No 11 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes El No n within a Wetland? Yes rxl No
Remarks:
Wetland on toe of slope of fill on edge of Tar River Floodplain. Fill deposited at site of housing development to south.
HYUKULOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) El Water-Stained Leaves (69) _
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
High Water Table (A2) n Aquatic Fauna (613) L_t Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) _E]Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) Moss Trim Lines (616)
Water Marks (61) El Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) t-f Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Q Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (65)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) El Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Ex
lain in R
k Shallow Aquitard (D3)
El
_
p
emar
s) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes rl No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes El No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe) 13 Depth (inches): 4 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: AA03
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
2500 s q
Tree Stratum (Plot size: q ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1 Acer rubrum 40 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 9 (A)
2 Celtis laevigata 10 No FACW
Fraxinus enns Ivanica
3. p y 20 Yes FACW Total Number of Dominant 9
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4 Liquidambar styraciflua 10 No FAC
Ulmus americana 10 No FACW Percent of Dominant Species
100
5• (p?B)
That Are OBL
FACW
or FAC:
,
,
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
.
90 = Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) OBL species x 1 =
1 Acer rubrum 20 Yes FAC FACW species x 2 =
2 Carpinus caroliniana 25 Yes FAC FAC species x3=
3 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 No FACW FACU species x 4 =
4. UPL species X5=
5. Column Totals: (A) (B)
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7
.
55
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

2500 S q ft
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
) = Total Cover
x: Dominance Test is >50%
--
1 Arundinaria gigantea 40 Yes FACW Prevalence Index is:53.01
2 Acer rubrum 20 Yes FAC Q Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5
.
6. Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
7.
60 Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2500 s q
q
i = Total Cover approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot s
ze:
) (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 Boehmeria cylindrica 30 Yes FACW
Woodwardia virginica 5 No OBL Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2 approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less

3, than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5. approximately 3 to 20 It (1 to 6 m) in height.
6. Herb -All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
7. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
$ plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
9.
10. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
12.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) 35 = Total Cover
Cam
sis radicans 3 Y FAC
p
1 es
2 Toxicodendron radicans 5 Yes FAC
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
V

8 egetation
P
?
El
11
= Total Cov er resent
Yes
No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: AA03
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
1-4 10YR 2/2 100 organic
4-12+ 10YR 5/2 70 10YR 4/1 30 loamy sit
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hy dric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
11 Histosol (Al) El Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) n 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (All 0) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5) ?x Depleted Matrix (F3) !J Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) Redox Depressions (F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) _ Marl (F10) (LRR U) rl Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
t Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
L
r
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) 7
?
1
L Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1506)
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_
E3 Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
f] Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
r
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Westside Regional PS / Upland AM,AO,AO City/County: Greenville/Pitt Sampling Date: 10-14-09
Applicant/Owner: City of Greenville State: NC Sampling Point: AM01
Investigator(s): Scherrer/PBS&J Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace and toe of slope ofilLocal relief (concave, convex, none): concave-convex Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P Lat: 35.627701 Long: -77.352883 Datum: Degrees
Soil Map Unit Name: Bibb complex NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation rl, Soil, or Hydrology Elsignificantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No El
Are Vegetation 13, Soil, or Hydrology 1:1 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes El No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No n-
within a Wetland? Yes rl No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 13 No E
plain and terrace of Parker Creek.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Surface Water (A1) n Water-Stained Leaves (139) El Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) ri Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (610)
n Saturation (A3) El Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
ri Water Marks (B1) M Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) 1
t-? Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132) El Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
7
E-
J Drift Deposits (63) El Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
t
L 1 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) M Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Q Iron Deposits (B5) 13 Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
El Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) 9 Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 0
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: AM01
2500 s q
Tree Strat
m
Plot size: q Absolute Dominant Indicator
% C
S
i
? St
t Dominance Test worksheet:
(
)
u over pec
es
a
us Number of Dominant Species
1 Betula nigra 5 No FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2 Acer rubrum 10 Yes FAC
Total Number of Dominant
4
3. Species Across All Strata:
(B)

4.
Percent of Dominant Species
100
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A/B)
6.
7 Prevalence Index worksheet:
15 = Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) OBL species x 1 =
1. FACW species x 2 =
2. FAC species x 3 =
3. FACU species x4=
4, UPL species x 5 =
5. Column Totals: (A) (B)
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7
.
0
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) Total Cover
=
nX Dominance Test is >50%
1 Acer rubrum 10 Yes FAC D Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
2 Liquidambar styraciflua 25 Yes FAC Q Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3 Ulmus americana 5 No FACW
4 Acer negundo 5 No FACW 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
.
5.
6. Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
7' i
l
l
i
d

45 ng woo
y v
nes,
ants, exc
ud
Tree - Woody p

2500 S
ft = Total Cover approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
q
)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 Phytolacca americana 5 FACU
Euphorbia cyathophora 10 UPL Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2 approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3 than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5. approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6. includin
non-wood
lants
us
)
All h
b
H
b
g
,
(
y
p
er
aceo
er
-
7. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
8
3 It (1 m) in height.
9.
10 Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
12.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 2500 Sq ft ) = Total Cover

1 Campsis radicans 5 No FAC
2 Parthenocissus quinquefolia 10 Yes FAC
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5. Vegetation
El
o
= Total Cover N
Present? Yes
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: AM01
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) % Tvge Loc Texture Remarks
0-12+ 10YR 3/3 80 10YR 5/4 20 CS M loamy sd
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
13 Histosol (Al) n Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) -0 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
rl Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) r 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
0 Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 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 1536)
n
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) Redox Depressions (F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Marl (F10) (LRR U) rj Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) E
t Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P
T
U) w
tl
d h
d
l
t b
t

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) .
,
,
e
an
y
ro
ogy mus
e presen
,
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1
EJ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
_ Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
E3 Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
f] Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Westside Regional Pump Station City/County: Greenville/Pitt
Applicant/Owner: City of Greenville State: NC
Investigator(s): Scherrer/PBS&J Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): toe of slope on floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P Lat: 35.624286 Long: -77.410244 Datum: Degrees
Soil Map Unit Name: Craven fine sandy loam, 6-10% slopes NWI classification: PF01/2F
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation 0, Soil r, or Hydrology rl significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes El No El
Are Vegetation El, Soil , or Hydrology 11 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes n No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present. Yes 1:1 No F1 within a Wetland? Yes n No IF]
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 11 No ®x
Remarks
Wetland on toe of slope of fill on edge of Tar River Floodplain. Fill deposited at site of housing development to south.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) E] Water-Stained Leaves (69) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
fl High Water Table (A2) 13 Aquatic Fauna (1313) i
Lit Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) _El Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U) Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (61) El Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) 1
7 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
?11
Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) El Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
& Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (65) rl Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
?r
F-=9 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) El Other (Explain in Remarks) El FAC-Neutral Test (135)
Field Observations:
N
W
P
? Y
M D
th
i
h
ater
resent
es
o
Surface (
nc
es):
ep
Water Table Present? Yes No El Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes 0 No El Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

Sampling Date: 10-13-09
Sampling Point: AA03
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: AA03
2500 s q
Tr
Str
m (Pl
iz
t
t
: q Absolute Dominant Indicator
% C
i
? St
S
t Dominance Test worksheet:
ee
a
u
o
s
e
) ove r
pec
es
a
us
Number of Dominant Species
Acer rubrum
1. 40 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2 Quercus michauxii 20 Yes FACW
Totai Number of Dominant
7
3. Species Across All Strata: (B)
4. Liquidambar styraciflua 10 No FAC
5 Ulmus americana 20 Yes FACW Percent of Dominant Species 100
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
100 =Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 2500 Sq ft ) OBL species x 1 =
1 Acer rubrum 10 Yes FAC FACW species x2=
2 Carpinus caroliniana 5 No FAC FAC species x3=
3. FACU species x4=
4. UPL species x 5 =
5. Column Totals: (A) (B)

6.
7 Prevalence Index = B/A =
30 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) = Total Cover Dominance Test is >50%
1 Arundinaria gigantea 20 Yes FACW Prevalence Index is 53.0'
2 Ligustrum sinense 40 Yes FAC Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6. Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
7.
60 Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2500 s q
Herb Stratum (Plot size: q ) = Total Cover approximately 20 It (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1.

2 Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
. approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3. than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5. approximately 3 to 20 it (1 to 6 m) in height.

6.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
7. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
8. plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
9
. 3 It (1 m) in height.
10. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
12.

)
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 2500 Sq ft
0
Total Cover
=
Smilax rotundifolia 10 Yes FAC
1
2 Lonicera japonica 5 No FAC
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
15 Vegetation
P
?
n
= Total Cover resent
Yes
No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: AA03
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
0-12+ 10YR 3/6 100 loamy s;l
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sarid Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al) Q Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) rl 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) ] Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A B)
n Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
n 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)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) I
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
TAI
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) lei 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.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
E3 Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes 13 No El
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Westside Regional PS / Upland AS,AU City/County: Greenville/Pitt Sampling Date: 10-14-09
Applicant/Owner: City of Greenville State: NC Sampling Point: AS01
Investigator(s): Scherrer/PBS&J Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P Lat: 35.620654 Long: -77.387631 Datum: Degrees
Soil Map Unit Name: Bibb complex, swamp NWI classification: PF01 C
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation 13, Soil El, or Hydrology p significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes El No 0
Are Vegetation El, Soil , or Hydrology O naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 121 No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ? No ? Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes El No X
Tar River floodplain.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) 11 Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) E3 Water-Stained Leaves (139) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) El Aquatic Fauna (613) Drainage Patterns (610)
J Saturation (A3) _ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) _
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (131) r! Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Q Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Q Geomorphic Position (D2)
n Iron Deposits (135) Thin Muck Surface (C7) 11 Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes El No
El Depth (inches): 0
Water Table Present? Yes ® No 0 Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes 13 No

includes capillary fringe) 0 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes N.
rX1
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: AS01
2500 s q
q
T
St
t
Pl
t
i Absolute Dominant Indicator
% C
S
i
? St
t Dominance Test worksheet:
ree
ra
um (
o
s
ze:
) over
pec
es
a
us Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)

2.
Total Number of Dominant
2
3. Species Across All Strata:
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
100
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A/B)
6.
7 Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) OBL species x 1 =
1. FACW species x 2 =
2. FAC species x 3 =
3. FACU species x4=
4. UPL species x 5 =
5. Column Totals: (A) (B)
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7
.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

2500 S q ft
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
) =
Total Cover

113M Dominance Test is >50%
-
1 Liquidambar styraciflua 30 Yes FAC Prevalence index is <_3.0'
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2
3.
4 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
.
5.
6. Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
7. i

30 Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody v
nes,
2500 s q
q
i = Total Cover approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
t h
i
ht
DBH
l
i
di
b
Herb Stratum (Plot s
ze:
) reas
g
).
(7.6 cm) or
arger
n
ameter at
e
(
1.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2. approximately 20 It (6 m) or more in height and less
3 than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5. approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6. Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
7. herbaceous Vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
8 plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
9.
10 Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
12.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) = Total Cover

1 Vitis rotundifolia 30 Yes FAC
2 Passiflora incarnata 10 No UPL
3 Smilax rotundifolia 5 No FAC
4.
Hydrophytic
5.
45 Vegetation
El
= Total Cover Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
II
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: AS01
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) % Tvoe Loc Texture Remarks
0-12+ 10YR 4/3 85 5YR 4/6 15 C M silty loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
El Histosol (Al) E l Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) n 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0)
Histic 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) n Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
n Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (173) _ 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)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) t
Redox Depressions (F8) L 1 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) _ Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
n Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
l Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
1 Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P
T
U) wetland h
d
l
t b
t

n Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S) ,
,
y
ro
ogy mus
e presen
,
?tt
tJ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
El Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Lf Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
_El Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
rl Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
f] Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes El No
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Westside Reg. PS/Uplands AD,E,F,G,J,Z City/County: Greenville/Pitt Sampling Date: 10-13-09
Applicant/Owner: City of Greenville State: NC Sampling Point: AD03
Investigator(s): Scherrer/PBS&J Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): slope of stream terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P Lat: 35.618945 Long: -77.402736 Datum: Degrees
Soil Map Unit Name: Bibb complex NWI classification: PF01 C
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation n, Soil El, or Hydrology n significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes El No
Are Vegetation , Soil E, or Hydrology 0 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No r, Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present. Yes ? No El
? ' ? No ? within a Wetland? Yes El
Wetland Hydrology Present. Yes
Remarks:
Edge of Schoolhouse Branch floodplain. Fill deposited at site of housing development to southeast.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) rl water-stained Leaves (B9) _rl Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
13 High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ Drainage Patterns (610)
, Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (131) _
El Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
?
7
-t Sediment Deposits (B2) t-1 Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) l
L t Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Q Geomorphic Position (D2)
rl Iron Deposits (65) 11 Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
El Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) El Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
n N
? Y
th
i
h
El D
o
Surface Water Present
es (
nc
es):
ep
Water Table Present? Yes 11 No El Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes El No El Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: AD03
2500 s q
Tree Stratum (Plot size: q Absolute Dominant Indicator
% C
S
i
? St
t Dominance Test worksheet:
)
Acer rubrum over
pec
es
a
us
20 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species
4
1 That Are OBL
FACW
or FAC:
(A)
2 Quercus rubra 5 No FACU ,
,
3 Platanus occidentalis 20 Yes FACW Total Number of Dominant 4
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.

5. Percent of Dominant Species
100
Th
t A
OBL
FACW
FAC
a
re
,
, or
:
(A/B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
45 = Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 2500 Sq ft ) OBL species x 1 =
1 Acer rubrum 10 Yes FAC FACW species x2=
2. FAC species x3=
3. FACU species x4=
4. UPL species X5=
5. Column Totals: (A) (B)

6.
7.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
10 Total Cover
= Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 2500 sq ft ) ?7
M Dominance Test is >50%
1. Prevalence Index is:53.01
2. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

6. Definitions of Vegetation Strata:

7.
0 Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2500 s q
Herb Stratum (Plot size: q ) = Total Cover approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
L

2. Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
i
l
approx
mate
y 20 It (6 m) or more in height and less
3. than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5. approximately 3 to 20 It (1 to 6 m) in height.
6.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
7. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
8, plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
9.
3 ft (1 m) in height.
10. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
it.
12.

)
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 2500 Sq ft
0 Total Cover
=
1 Vitis rotundifolia 30 Yes FAC

2.
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
30
= T
t
l C Vegetation
P
?
o
a
over resent
Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: AD03
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) % Tvge Loc Texture Remarks
0-12+ 10YR 3/2 100 loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hy dric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (A1) Li Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) n 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
{ Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
n Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 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)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) a
Redox Depressions (F8) E Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) _ Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
9
Thick Dark Surface (A12) 1
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
t Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) 7
Est Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1506)
_ Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
0 Stripped Matrix (S6) El Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
0 Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
13
Depth (inches): No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
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:GUC Westside Regional Pump Station
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Tar River (Stream AR); Surface waters ATY, AS, and AV;
Wetlands AJ-AY, AZ, AX-AW, AS, and AU
State:NC County/parish/borough: Pitt City: Greenville
, Long. -77.389773° W.
Center coordinates of site (1at11ong in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.6182300
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Tar River
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Tar River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 0302010304
0 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:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Arc "navigable waters of the U.S." 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: The US] 3 bridge over the Tar River is listed as a bridge over a navigable water in "Bridges over the Navigable Waters of
the United States" (COMDTPUB 16590.1) by the US Coast Guard (1984).
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the 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):'
TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
0 Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? 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 of jurisdictional 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: 264 linear feet: 30 to 325 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 2.2 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Nl4nual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z 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).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
[] Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
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: Tar River.
Summarize rationale supporting determination: The Tar River is the main stem of a major river basin in North Carolina; the area in
question is approximately 60 miles upstream of the river mouth. The US 13 bridge over the Tar River is listed as a bridge over
a navigable water in "Bridges over the Navigable Waters of the United States" (COMDTPUB 16590.1) by the US Coast
Guard (1984).
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": Wetlands AJ-AY, AS, AU, AX-AW, and AZ all occur
within the Tar River floodplain.
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) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
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 waterbodya is not an 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 III.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 I.isl
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick list aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
(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/riflle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List 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 ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
6A 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):
? 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 Lis( 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 Lit 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 type/percent 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? (YIN) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres)
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:
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 III.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:
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:
D TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
b Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Surface waters AS, AT, and AV are swales within the Tar River floodplain. Although partially
channelized to accommodate flow from adjacent uplands, the swales are permanent waters that carry substantial flow.
0 Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
0 Tributary waters: 160 linear feet 30 width (ft).
E] Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Q 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.
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.
E1 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: Wetland AS surrounds the two swales AS and AT.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 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: 0.3 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
[j 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 II1.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Q 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.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
EJ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
[J Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
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): 10
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:
El Other factors. Explain:
8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
El . 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 fhe "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 (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
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:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? 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:24K Greenville SW.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
? Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
Jurisdicitonal delineations performed by PBS&J personnel on October 13 and 14, 2009.
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
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:GUC Westside Regional Pump Station
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Parker Creek (Stream AN-AP); Streams AK, AL; Wetlands AO,
AM, and AQ
State:NC County/parish/borough: Pitt City: Greenville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.627624° N. Long. -77.353081° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Parker Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Tar River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 0302010304
? 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:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." 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 x "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) Jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR Part 328) in the review area. [Required]
Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):
? TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
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 of jurisdictional 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: 159 linear feet: 4 feet and 37 feet width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.06 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on. 1957 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
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
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
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.I.; 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) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
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 waterbodyn is not an 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 III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 8.2 square miles
Drainage area: 8.2 Pick List
Average annual rainfall: 49.6 inches
Average annual snowfall: 3.4 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
® Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are I (or less) river miles from TNW.
Project waters are l (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are I (or less) aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: directly to Tar River.
Tributary stream order, if known: 3.
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the grid
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, 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: 74 feet
Average depth: 1.5 feet
Average side slopes: 3:1 .
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: Stable banks.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Moderately developed within review area (centered at bridge).
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 0-2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of tlow events in review area/year: 20 (or greater)
Describe flow regime: Perennial.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: l'es. Explain findings: Subsurface connection with abutting and adjacent wetlands.
? 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
® changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
? 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):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine 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: Tributary is relatively undisturbed, with an average 150-foot forested buffer.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: Received highway runoff at bridge.
6A 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):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Bottomland hardwoods, 150 feet wide.
® Wetland fringe. Characteristics: Wetlands AO and AM.
® Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
® Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: Perennial stream with woody debris and other habitat types.
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Forested wetlands connected to greater Tar River floodplain.
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:0.01 acres
Wetland type. Explain:Bottomland hardwoods.
Wetland quality. Explain:High quality forested.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: ;Intermittent 1L»c Explain: Wetland AQ is separated from Wetland AO and Parker Creek by an access road for
a sewer line. Subsurface flow still occurs.
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined
Characteristics: Occasional runotf through low spots in sewer access road.
Subsurface flow: Yes. Explain findings: Within Parker Creek floodplain.
? 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: Separated by access road of sewer line. Access road has occasional low
spots that permit surface flow. Subsurface flow and elevations below water table also occur.
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 1 (or Icss) river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: 11?etl:and to/from navigable ?%atcrs.
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: No surface water was seen, but surface was saturated. Watershed is well wooded.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: Some pollutants may seep from adjacent sewer line.
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):Bottomland hardwoods, 150 feet wide.
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:Wooded, 90 percent. Herbaceous, 25 to 90 percent.
® Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Well-stratified forested wetland with connection to Tar River floodplain.
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( 0.01 ) 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)
Wetland AQ (N) 0.01
Wetland AO (Y) 0.03
Wetland MM (Y) 0.02
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:
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 III.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 AQ was originally part of the Parker Creek floodplain, but has been separated from the floodplain by an
access road for a sewer line. Wetlands AQ, AO and AM are all part of the larger Tar River floodplain and share subsurface flow.
Overland flow to/from Wetland AQ also occasionally occurs.
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:
0' TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TN Ws where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Parker Creek is a named 3rd-order stream with a watershed of 8.2 square miles at the study corridor.
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional 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:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? 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.
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.
E Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section II1.13.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: Wetlands AO and AM are directly adjacent to Parker Creek and exchange regular and
frequent overland flow to and from the stream.
G] Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 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: 0.05 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: 0.01 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.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
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).
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:
8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
?, Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional 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 (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
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:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? 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:24k Greenville NE.
? USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
Jurisdicitonal delineations performed by PBS&J personnel on October 13 and 14, 2009.
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
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:GUC Westside Regional Pump Station
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Schoolhouse Branch (Streams AB, AC, AH, AI; Wetlands AA,
AD, AE, AF, AG)
State:NC County/parish/borough: Pitt City: Greenville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.619163° N, Long. -77.403509° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Schoolhouse Branch
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Tar River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 0302010304
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. RF,VIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There A re no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RBA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review,ne;i. [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 of the US." 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):'
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
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 of jurisdictional 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: 9801inear feet: 4-7width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.6 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known): 10-11 feet.
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
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.
Z 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).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
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) now, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
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 waterbodya is not an 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 III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: L 7square miles
Drainage area: 1.7 square miles
Average annual rainfall: 49.6 inches
Average annual snowfall: 3.4 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through t tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: Streams AB, AH, and Al flow into Schoolhouse Branch, which flows into the Tar River.
Tributary stream order, if known: 1.
a Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, 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: Streams are culverted and/or channelized. .
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 4-6 feet
Average depth: 1 feet
Average side slopes: 1:1.
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: Channels have very unstable steep banks,
with collapsing trees and sediment input.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Weak, but present. Runoff is very flashy.
Tributary geometry: Rclmivcl5 strai--ht
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 11-20
Describe flow regime: Frequent intense runoff events.
Other information on duration and volume: Channels have large amounts of impervious area upstream.
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: l es Explain findings: Based on sandy substrates, subsurface flow is assumed.
? 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
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
® sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
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):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine 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: Reaches are located downstream from developed areas, with resulting sediment and pollutant input. Water
looks clear for the most part .
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A 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):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Upstream, corridor is sparse. Downstream, corridor extends
throughout Tar River floodplain.
? 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: Crayfish, other invertebrates and fish adapted to low water quality.
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:0.6 acres
Wetland type. Explain: mostly forested with bottomland hardwoods.
Wetland quality. Explain: poor to good depending on distance from development.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flo_w__Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Intermittent flow Explain: Wetlands drain into streams mainly through subsurface flow.
Surface flow is: Discrete mid confined'
Characteristics- ( )verland flow occurs during larger rain events.
Subsurface flow: Yes. Explain findings: Topography and soil characteristics suggest subsurface flow.
? Dye (or others test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
® Directly abutting
® Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
® Ecological connection. Explain: Wetlands occur within Tar River floodplain.
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 1 (or less) river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Weiland to/from navioahle waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 2-year or less 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: Water color is clear, but wetlands receive overland flow from developed areas. Sediment,
pollutants from fertilizer and vehicles may be among ppllutants flowing into waterways.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):Bottomland hardwoods; extensive on downstream side.
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:Wetland areas are 90%- 100% vegetated with herbaceous and woody plants.
® Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:Crayfish, salamanders, other floodplain invertebrates and vertebrates.
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis:
Approximately ( 0.6 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Wetland AA (N) 0.02
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Wetland AF (Y) 0.2
Wetland AD (Y) 0.3
Wetland AE (N) 0.02
Wetland AG (N) 0.02
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Wetlands absorb runoff, sediment and
pollutants. They mitigate erosive characteristics of overland runoff and provide habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic flora and
fauna.
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:
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 III.D: The tributaries and adjacent wetlands store floodwaters, mitigate erosive flow, and
store pollutants. They provide habitat and support populations of aquatic and semi-aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates. They
contribute to the overall area of the Tar River floodplain and add to its capacity to store floodwaters, nutrients, and pollutants.
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: Wetlands AA, AE and AG do not directly abut streams but are hydrologically connected by topography and a high
water table within the Tar River floodplain.
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.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: In Stream AC (Schoolhouse Branch), observed water depth was 4 feet; a beaver dam was seen just
downstream of the review area. The stream width was 10 feet, and it is expected that this stream flows continually except
during drought events. The stream has a 1.7-square-mile watershed.
?j Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: Streams AB and AH Al have ratings on the NCDWQ Stream Identification form (Version 3.1) of 18.5 to 19.5.
Each stream exhibited persistent pools to 24 inches in depth.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
0 Tributary waters: 254 linear feet 6 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
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.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 50 linear feet 4 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.
EJ 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 AD and AF are directly abutting Schoolhouse Branch (Stream AC) and form
part of its floodplain.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 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: 0.5 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: 0.04 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.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.02 acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters .9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
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):10
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 for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
F1 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.
L] 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 (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
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:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? 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:24K Greenville SW.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Pitt County SSURGO soils.
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
? Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
Jurisdicitonal delineations performed by PBS&J personnel on October 13 and 14, 2009.
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
HCDEH.
NWh Cardona DeparTment of Environment aid Natural Resouncle
Division of 'outer Guatity
Beverly raves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins,
Governor Nectar
,lulu. Z 2010
Mr. Sw en Potter. RE.
Grc?cowil[c ITtilit .s C'omrn s<sion
PO lim 1847
'`Flattiville, NC 2'1835
Dee i=teemart
Secret N
SUBJECT: C;recriville Utilities Commission
Wc5t:s tl I'urup SLI6011tzal
Force Nbin
SHF ProJo t No C'S.170481-07
Ue..tr \,Ir_ Poi1cr:
11tis is to ittfomi you that the Finding of No Sig?tificlant Impact (FONSI) and the
Lnvit,oamental Assessment have heen Submitted to the Stme Cleariny"'touse. The docttt:tem will
be a itiertisicl for tlt rt ° t3£tt ralrtstrl r d ays ire tIx N. `. I aYtircyntnents?l I ull tin. Advemsing the.
FONSI is required prier to a loo it unit of government ieccivirtg tinjociA support from the St€tte
Reyolvi?ig Loan program. You will be inforwed of any significant comment or public objectio t
when the advertise:tttent penod is srotr?pJetccl
A copy of 11w, docurne?7is is trar,txt?ttr?<i for yow- vci?ryrtl_ 'I"hc doi:11111e?zt'. slioukl be r aik
rIvaijahl,e its thge ptlblic.
If tlic;re are stay questions, please cant act me at (911)) 71-5-621 L
Si t?ccrel V,
Daniel ICI, I l ttsalell, f',F,, Chief
Construction Grants and Loans Section
SUK,dr
Attttchmew tall cc:'
GondrOior Grar.% and toers S•ecacri
1832 tail Service Centoi Pa?e-gh NC 2760-1613 One
Phore' 419-733.69014; FA}t 419•'15 62 , Intern:t mvw rr?cgl ret NoE?lli An W ;Af' rda , At?ip€? t? & - F F. +ed'a ?v PV Co suit TIQ- r Alatwwl&
Mfr. Porter
July 23, 2010
P.Igc 2
Cc:, Alin Sterne, P.ti. Hwen and Sawyer
Jessica suttun
S b Robertson, P.E.
Mark HikbaRl, RE.
Jennifer Hstyme
?u?an Knbacki
P\,jRf[]MU/FEU/SRF
I:I?VIIING OF No SIGNIFICANT IMPAM'
AND LNVIRC)NMENTAL AS-SF.SSNIENT
GREENVIL.LE tri'll,111US COMMISSION
N4'EMISID , PUMP STATION AND FORCE MAIN
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: NORTH CAROLINA IWPAR"I'MEN'I' O FNMONMENT
AND NATUR- L R-ES(I1!RCI S
coNTACT DANIEL N1. BLAISII U, P.f,'., CHIEF
C_ONSTRIIC'I'ION GRANTS AND LOANS SIX140ti
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
1633 MAIL 4I?R 1CL•' C"I<NTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27594.1533
(414)) 715-6311
.Tale 23, 2,0111
f'II,ispr?gt, jiltrtrlionafly left blank.)

Article 1, Chapter 113.E of the North C:arohil.t Cjenera.l Statutes requires art octi€in to be suhjek?t to
the requirements of the North Cumhrla EnviroimenivI Pol€c} Act a,NCEPAi It it in cikcs the
c,,peri itirr€ of public futads And if a potential impact is ,inticipated to the environment, The
project t€ti been e?,duated for compliance with (lip NCFPA and k Jere rminc.d to he € major
iltenc tk`13€th wIll a fet'.t the t n4ironnictit
Project ,applicant: Geenville Utilities Commission
Project Descriptio Flit palposed prcji'c t includcti decttri missionint? the N1,`cNtsije
l' m-gyp Station and Paladin Pl;€ e Pump `. uifiloi) and con? ttltcti E ;t
tit kV rc4itnial Wc,,J ijde Putrip `?tatit.,€t. Tl e pr(ijoCj will tso include
corv)mlctint> an interceptor tct mw w 11ow from the exitt;tt.: Wests do
1'mwil St,iColl to tlic ne v NVL.',tsidc, Rovit-€ti d Pump Stililo t, a
WCItaN'iiN sm,er to rowe slow, from th( P;tladin 1'ia<T Puntll Station tO
(tie proptt,vd re_,it nal pkinip ,tatic?n, and s fort- c main (o r€€ute float
(i'orc the puopoked regional pump s::iSton w t1"U '.ra-.tcwawu
Ireattiiem plain.
Pr©jc t umber: CS 3 t_t-#8 : 4)
Project (:tart: 12.482,1'00
State kevorFiri- Loan l24S2',t)0
Viintl:
1W re%iow process €ndicatt:d thai 4 ti*_rtihcdllt cItkerw t:JIVttcMIJJ sii;tl impacts slt=, ldd (tctt occur it
€ititigati%C ii]ec;-MIFC", are iimplt °?.:nt 1, :md :iii ciivirciritttttatal ii pact statetiicril wdi nto llir
rCyuired, °I"he tlC 0,it)II was W1,1 M 011 infetrnIati0li iti the 1_ n?inccrinl! Rcport ;ttiil re-vicwk , lly
0O ernrttettta(l ;i£k nr.les. Ttte ittached f-w iroomental Asses stnetit supo or,(,. dik actio:i and
aiitl3?iC.? ?tltti^`3tf`+`t i:s it iSt? t; .It m,,I,;3 4C fo l,:;t'ed, This Htjidi;l' ol, No Sit'ni1wmit Inip:i (
fl ONSI co mpletcs the enk?ii?.,rti?7eattai rcliew rek,ord, w1m,11 is x?alklble for iilspcrtt€ttt at the
;Mate C'lc*ar°in?sh??trse.
No :idTI111ti."tr+ilive actiml u'il) Iv taker (it) tlic proposed lrtti)ect lin` .it lease 30 days of Ecr
tic?tICicatiott that tkic; l-`ONS1, hats been published iti (lie North Carolina L=nvirotimcmal Bulletiti.
incercly,
leen H. Sullins, Director
Divi,;ion of Water Quality
(Eh is page rrfealrorralt v lcfi blank.)
ENV) RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. ProPosed Varciiitir:.ti rnd Actions
The Greenville t tilities Commission iG C) pro%idcs; electric, hater. 4rrvwt, and nawral g:r,
services to the (°stt' -jt Gremvillc ani ire. of Pitt C oonly, wasicw,'.wr collation s?sleut is
divided into ci ht service areas, ncc propcised }lr??jtm is in the V4kcstside SerI'ictc ,Area, whielt
includes the Cattolina ha3st?r?rt?°4uitntc Center, Fitt County klemorial 11c1ytuiL and medical
facilities rssociwed. with the medi"d district. The proposed project is coot trucliorl o a O O
million gallon per wry (nt Td) regional Westside Punrp Station consisikog of a &, -pit/,xet-pit
stni tune hou ittg, Once 100-HP ve7ieal noa-clod; cenlritugal pumps its o duty pumps. ant:: sl rnd-
byl. a zep araty wrc`cnin?; trtt 1t[r'e '4 'itlt a single olec'h'rnival scr?r? .roil ht p.rs, ,:hannel, t ,Iandh?
emcvri.,ency ?encnaior. and a tti1 c?-st:arc parckage ,criibbk`t' tirr odor control with cheinic al siorage
tanks` The exiting 2_ii2 mgd'N'estside Pump Station and 150 P:?11??n per rtaityutc fgpnt M C';tl tclirt
l'lacc. Pump Station will he decommissioned The pre?jest will also include the following
aclclitions to the cfrllection and :onvcYaocc system! I t 1,40 linear feel tI t,l of I5-itrctt :rnEl
300 l.f. tit ? 1 Inch VOsIsiclc inwicc:ptor to rotrtc: Ilc'w t'rom the c\ istiop Wcstsidz Punill Statj(?n
to the pr?Ypt)? d regional putlil? Mi:lllc?rlr q 1 lit 1,?, Of h-rrrcli 4'ra%v% ?:to locate I'low tro;1; the
e; ,istin?; P iakin phice Pump Station to the: protio,,M ri;zional pump ?,t rtwrt, and 3'i 32,000 I f ctt
4-inch f >rc to main io route flow t'rotir thy: prrrpoE:,cl rc?gwaal pump Manor` to the GL
W'a"uevvafer TrealInent Plant (y'rrW T°f1). The auacht?d littrre shows the proIcct location.
E crndOm `iL}CUB: 1N es6ruated total eost AT the prol"i is SI0520101 I"lw (tl;t" i` €p1?l4ir€
fora State Nvolt inn Furxl hmn of `*+l2.-tRAN).
It. Existing Eovir'4?rrnle.nt
rnrxT??_r,at i -??nc :S,r?ls. 11itt Couwy is in the Cum Ud `'lain PhysiogrrpIuc i}rovincc: in ea win.
North Carolirr:r. The gco raplrv crl` llw central roiiirai' o this province is typically Hat and rollingo
tc-rrain. Ele ationi U K& the cout?ty range unmrr six trr 112 feet above `r`ein se"i 1,2xel l'ortittn>
of the szrt'rc:c area arc local-AM witlriti be lEtt4)ar fl,hk1 slain. Thr tiVe5tsufe arc a
ir}eiutles titter acrirra*1 coif associaiion The Noriolt, E,euna-C +ttt?slkrtc? wsils are in brc?,rcl rfisrcles
and mnooth aisle skgns in upland areas are med- crier ly wet3 drrin€d wrier welhiramcd sotN Neill) a
friable sandy clay loam subsoil. '17he Pc}mwke-LatclunlAha ima sw t,ecur in broad Has.
slight depressions, and rounded divides on suvani wrra ces and upiands and arc twriy cirrainecl to
exce ssisvely drained 0% % th a suNoii of friable W y y day ktam or vay first` else and arc::
underlain i?y lest ,sc satml. The Bibb-NrtsnxMtlr soils Lac-caw tin hro;O, solkX?tlt flats and In drac%s
and dep€css tc?rr =art Kadplairts grad statists t4rr°,ice wed arv pocgly dramcd soils underlain by fine
sandy loam IT Pliable sandy to rill and sandy clay loani soil.
Surface I? The Westside SerNice area is located in the Tar-Pantit'cn River s b-hasin
03-03-05 The'rar River ruris through Pitt County and the service area, Surface eaters it) the
w,ea. including the Tar River, area designated as Nutrient ,Sensitive. Waters Walcr quality i sues
assc,c:iated IXit.it the sub-tnsin include run-off, elc%attd levels of rncrcurti, chafinclizaation,
a`ri:Ultuto, and cono
t;t_atcj al-iir3tal fccdi.ag i»ratiors.
1ti';ttcr .p1'1lLv. "t'h? t.t C trperrtcs a tltgd wmer treatment pliant that drstw water from the
Tar Kiti er and also operattes eight deep group waster Wells that provide additional water to tneet
peak dernand,
C. Existing WaOewater Facilities
ThC GUC ' "1'P ;s Petrrtitted for 17.5 nagd dischurVe to the Tar itiver: The NVNVTP was pla ed
into operation in 1996 and underwcrrt a ntatjor exr=ui%ion in 1997. It treats flow from the. City of
Greenville, Town 4 Bethel, and Tou n of (irimesland. The GUC wastewater svstt m includes
357 ntilc4 of gravity tnain5 ranging in size front eight to 48 inches in diameter anti 63 miles of
fowe main ranging In s6,e from four to 48 nchrti, and 33 pump stations ranging from 0.1 to 144
rngd. The West odc Service Area. ncludcss four pump stations, three ol'which route flow to the
existing Westside f'urttl) Station. The Paladin Place Punip Station was constructed in 1' ? for it
priva(c development and is in g condition. The Ironwood Pantp Station has been in opcratiran
since 1996, s i- es a privi3tt 011' club r:onutlunity, and is in good condition: 'l he Howell's,
Childearc C;nter Punip S%oion was constructed in 1989 and is in good contrition. Tl.c existing
Westsitle PuRIp Station w,is c orstructe€1 in 1970 and is nearing the end of its useful life. €t ?t <as
not designed for the cx.i,ttng pumps to be replctc d with larger units.
D. Need for P'rugoi;tA Facilities and Artinri
Tht: City of Grccnv llc is expCeting rapid growill in the coming }rear%. and the grot,Mh trends in
that West-,We St•r\-Wv Aiea are very agrrrssive. I lie Medical District, including hit Hospital, i
fix-Woo in the W stsidc Sere=ire Area and growing 10 tk atq, and it is expected that the iC`ity of
tareen•iil,e xvill continue: to attritct medical protosiowds to the arua_ Tile C"r1.1C Wastc:w-atcr
System Master Plain indicate., that the proposed We-stsid Regional Punrp will have average daily
11oNv of 2,242,€I(,}{) g[tcd :turf peak flow of S,nt}U.llt1{t gpd. These flaw estimates are teased on
hydrologic modeling. '1 hc existing pump stations die not have sufficient enp<acity to meet these
needs, In addition, the existing Westsi& PUMP S(fatiUrr is 40 years old, neziring die end of its
useful life, and xv is not originally designed for the existing lxitaps to he m placed with larger
units. The Paladin Pump `st ation Nvas constructed to temporarily service it private development.
Althntrgh it is currc ntly in tx)d condition, it a;rs not designed to serve: its rt Ve"nanent facilitx .
Routing the flow f rt>r=,l the P tl:tdM Place develcrptt-writ to tlic reviontal purnp station will allots fo!
47-
thaw Paladin Purrip Station to he &-commissumed is originally intendid.
) , Alternatives Alnulysis
.No-Actiort Alternat y ,. The No-Action Altornaitivc would mean relying on the existing Westt,tdc
Pump Station to serve: the Westside Service Area. The existing pump station will net he able to
bahdle priajected woww tter hews beyond -1013, so (lie xcrvice area would require: a large
number of septic yctcmt or privately owned pstckyge s-ystem.?: The suite, in the service ate - tW
generally poorly drained and tint suitable: for selHie gsicros. Septic systinn failures would
increase the potential for gtound and surface wztcr contatuinati rn, parsing a tlueut to the
environment and p Nic hcalth. 'l wretore, the No-Action Alterriat tive is not fea-6ble,
2
,dk
Optimum neeratain of Existine Wcsgside Puma Station A tern ataye'. Tlic existing pump static,n
is a dopiex purup st ati€in_ Thc: Iutrnp station was not dc-signed tc allow for expansion by .ac:ldi0"
an additional pump or replacing existing ponies with larger units 'I'hc existing pump station
cannot handle c,xpected flows beyond 2013: therefore, this altcmutive is not feasiblt-.
Ncvi' ! " *i?; ;rt t l`r??atrnettt kietlity- and Discharge Alwrrtntive: t tadtr thi alts rrt;it:?c. a tt? a
w&,tewzitc:r Ireauncrit facility would be constructed to treat washwater flow from the "W7estside
Service Area, Tho facility would he constructed to nleot either reclaimed w;atea staatclards or
nutria t limits cou"istcm With the Tat--Patnlicei Basin Nutrient Study. Fffluctit could be directly
di cliargM to die Tar River of raised for spray irrigation A new- di,,c:har°ge to the Tjr-P uitlico
Rix t*r would not be picferred, and pcnsii`I} would be pr€ bibitc:d by the Division tai Water Quaali y
(D WQ) hecautic,- of Nutrient. Scow five Watcrs deli-natiotis within Tar-Painlico River Basin, AN is
result, a non-disc large faCilit.Y LICE ignesl to treat to reclaimed water -,I andards woutd t?e the most
likely €aptit>n under this altertt.ative. ?W'ith tltt? ptx?rly dr titrecf ails tvl?it'rtl cat I' it C't?unt?.
3approxiraltatek 1,300, acre, csf coat guous l aild would ht required fear a 2.4 tTlgd dirty' is riF?aatioTra
dispos' al €rptiort. 111 cstitrratcrl Capital cost for this riliem ative is This option is otot
preferred hccau. the existing WW`171' has soflicietn capacity to trait 2030 expec._tctl flows-,
suit.ahte land fr?r wpray irrigation is not readily availablc. rand the east 0, prohiht?i?t comp arm tct
t'€oarwtrtretiCsa: cat j rtgton al putrllt statical.
Rif l{Trial Iai3ttl?t lcrt.to? I?lICIrial_ yc (Pretf jj Ll AltLl'atjyt-i,: Fliis idt?:I'mative will itichi e
constructing a ne.w regional pump station in the 1Wetityldc Service Aivat routing «-mic,, ater flow
to the existing 1W'4 rp for tiv atataent and dal `tacar?e to the Tar Iii- er. This, alternative Will ,aista
itlti't} v tic c:ntztais iaAaairxg t.ko exiting 1.;aamp Station`. cmla -tractiarg,rra 111tercept0l to rc;utC l,.aw
from il7i: exiNtiraZ Westside Poinp Statiion to tllc new'tl', 'isidc Wgiconal Put-tip Sl,ition,
constructing a ;tat+rt gravity sewer to ro otc flow from thew, oxisting Paltrdin Place Putnh Station toa
the new regional pump station. ,and constructing a force main to route flow front thz nc ?,c'
rcrtwion al pump st flo+ t to IN WW FP, Threti tare main routs ,alis rinii:r p? alyd 1'011 liurnp stL11101t
situ were considcit:0 as part of thus aftcrn atic e and art di,.cussed bolo w
Silt; Alternative,,
iioa t-Tiais t, ttw me r?'ic=tlrtren€iett in di Sanii ry Scta.ei Masher 111mi- it is itplsatad from.1 the
inten"eclion of Karris ?dill Rim itnd WI tlaTacly W.SOCiatod wide the tat' River. It will rc`yuire the`
greato"It Oxtensian to tileexistirtg Westside Interceptor but elirninai s,additional length of gr:avitt'
sewer to serve di ll.arris Mill Run drainage Nvan. The sitcw i4 open faraaaland upland of 'die lttfl_
year tloodpkiin and requin?s minnt:al c caring and grading. The ptar ip station Nall bl- constnict'M
witliottr wetl aaad eatcroachntrnt. Site .accrss will he through a City-own'Ld lot will) :tit access
dmm au to Stale Roulc 43. This. site is prcyferTed because it dots not fwye environinental or
construc iahility issues, has easy access, and is a cc atrial location for iriterccptoir? tltait wilt food
imo the pump st-ation,
Sire ?--This is a pa-trkel located can die east Lido of Site I ou properly awned hy? the City of
firecnville and the, site of a titture City Park. It has direct ticccss to kcTutrk 1. T'ltir site w as
3
rejected bey cruse it is very w'et and will involve a significant amount of victlantd' disturbance ;md
construction its the IW-year floodpluin.
iie 3-The _smtc: is :.101 feet cast of Site ? toward the cxtsting Westside Pump Station, so it,
rc:c-lucc-? the amount of grant, sewer and ftnc niatit The site was rc"jec l d I%Xau it doe's not
havc direct wcess and it has future dcv lopm nt .ahvt ids planceJ.
Site 4-This is a parcel ac jacent to the existint W's attiide Pump Station that has beets z<atttti
for commercial development associated with the nearby hospital. Site iwctss is available, This
site was rejected because opposition to the pump statical will be aigh tvc cruse of already planned
developments including a niedical part: and hotel,
Route Alamsnma nt,,
Mortheni Roadway Atigirmenr--'('his aligninent begin: at the existing Wcsiside Pump Station
paralleling the existing farce main to and across Mentorial drive bets ecn .3j' Strcet and the Tar
Rip=er Bridge. Then the farce mtiin will follow Memorial Drive norillwjrd and will turn east near
the city-ownW larks anti try read{gin facilities panAllchnz an existing water main to talloss for a
common zustnrment for the vwo lutes. The farce Mufm .kill 1-61lot4 the Properly lire to and acrrt45
N. Green ` mot and the C'SX Tinnsportati€tn K30oxtd to a point near the st1utliern end of Farther
Street. Frcrtn there, the force rain will turn north toward Moore Street and follow behind the
properties on Meadowbrooke urine then turn east to continue across city-owned property to and
acrta5s Holly Sweet, then turn north ttaMutitsford Road. then follow Murrasforal Road to Pactolus
High.=ay, cross, to the south side of MumsfordRo ail and continue until turning southeast along
Old`lpact(Aus highway to the intersection xvith 45reens ille Boulevard where it will patrall-J ilic
existing force main and to the tie-in paint wall the existing 49-inch fo(l c. main, The
disAvantages of this route include conflicts with e;x ting utilities within the NCDOT right-of-
way, inconveniences to the puhlic dame to traffic control, impact to public: recreational ftmcilitie4,
and longer force niain route. Advantages arc th;rt .a ui:a arity of the routtir is within city-owned
property, there is manageable iceess for mtainttnaatioG along most of the rove, and environmenial
impacts atc; limited. This aalignment. is prekrred to mnimincrX, environmental impacts and public
rnpsact y,
Paver Lin t'!arricl TrACi irrrte'tmt? 1'"h s alignment Starts the sa me way front the existing We wide
Pump Station to artd across A?R-ai Trial Drive: but then turns north crossing the Tar River to the
Progress Energy easement. It then goes east along or adjacent to tite power line easement and
parallel to,0IJCs gravity sewer lute to t Northsidc Pump Station, From the Northsido Punip
Station, the propo,,e frxce main will follow the existing farce main to the tie-in point at
Greenville Boulevard. Drisak.lvantages of this route are significant en%-Itonmental and wetland
impacts, severely limited access for cons"etion :anti maintenance due to frequent flooding, and
potentially inure easement acquisition. Advantages are little ter nth intruct to the public, avoiding
existing unclt;rground utilities, direct route, and proximity to a proposed future pump station.
Tttis alignment was rejected due to the considerable envii otimental impacts.
Sowhern Street,Alit;ruixent-'this alignment alp follows the :same initial route froin the existing
Wes-txide Pump Station. but after crossing Memorial Drive. it continues a rat~t through city-
4
mia Anzaitted sirwt, mid prof sties to the l ortlistd Pump .` f.mioDn From the N-oniisid Pump
Station, it follow, the same Aignmem .n the Power Line Corridor :Ali ^nnient, Dlsadvw aa-ges
include substantial gust for road rep?1411'CPIUCOYICM due to ittstallMIC)n in COV streets airttl Pm k-'.
rz'qunrccl eparatiort trom exitititrg* atiltties, m.1'jur;A erne puNic impact and !xotentia€lls Ixonomi4
nttrpa+ci 10 t Owfiti;) n ar2dti. -'itlety isvJcs, and cons"cE: bdit.y. Advantages Mr ; shorla route.
possible use of city-owned property ,nttdlor grectiway right-of-way for a portion tai the route_ aaad
ac ces,tt?ittt}. This ali_?nrr ni wa, relcci, tJ duo to ltThet ?o t sand greeter publw inlpoc(s.
J b sttrnmorile, the preterred alternative for the proiect I the. Regional Purirp Station at Site, I
witln the Northcm Rt,)adw;jv h tc€:'Nltatin Alignment, -l`lac Capflal cost for this atliernattave is
12,482,000-
F. Enyirmimental C'onsetluelle and Mitigative ?Ir??stcrcti
i> act ? rwtt? t anti Soils: Settee impacts to
tr,Pca r;tirtny and .oils arc c?EExctr?l. At the pump statican
'It e, skmic ti,bit u'itl he ana€es'ed frum, bigher elevations and cased (a.p t-tl lower clevation" to p€'ra iltf v
,I Ine're leit?l "itc to un?tnrctiEan. The t?utnil) sliaion will not tvt:rutt+ h un The l00-yeanr flood
plam. Pre cautions will he t,aktn to nn ttimize i_nnlrrcts to w;tterre:,cttdi;(!s fTCaitt erusicatt 111cludin
following a North ( 'atrOhflll t)CI)a inietrt tat E'nvirunment wd Ns iturai ihit_'DlwNRi..
a pproved and, count ' .--approied Fzo,,lun and SMImentaitaa ra €:vntrol lapin xid other pmivi?ions rat
tlatr Sedimentation and Pollimon Conlrol Act tat 11-03.
[, and l i! : ZoFlFtn;l,,' .ins i and u-,e €:hiafiixs no, t.'?cltci is ,1 to Laci?ar :i" is Ilfi i F rt Milt t?t tli[
project The City of C{rcent I I I s cx nil7rckien?it e: land us(. pl ,n and Zoning ord nanwr re f;ulater:
development of the city in at matmer ro l,rotc,;t 011vil-olimentail rt?stturces and provide for oNn
space.
N'Vetlan&, `ll)erc all-t` set?Ctl wit tldnd afros a lid 12 strexp C Ot sings & sc,ciati,c:l atitta lhc: proposed
pro7c?t tkilh potential impacts to'.fit? acres ut lk llmd€ and 1.020 1 f, of sttc. rns- With
-mii mien r?lt?i;xe,, in r4j3 t%perinanew i'.3'sl ac', Io t?,'?i1 9Ylz.? izr? not ? 31?.iFi't? t?71'e ?t?'nl?tc?3F1t.
' on . tCt11p?rary impacts rn7at result from excavation retjulred for itnsiailation tai the lorc'e main.
Care will ha: I,-ken tai mimmize distmilance of :ti tluncl :arvas .:is nntw+ as po"si,bic, Dirmtionv tl
l onna? will h; used it) the ?Tn:'-ximam extent pt'.wtic=able, but '.o-Yc e4pcn cuttitty ; 2l'o Muivipat+ ti.
tit>ils re1110Ved durtn i excttc itIon -vi I I he denim-A to tlnr open-cut ;arc; i5; pyoicet comdOPS W11I 114
relln•Fted te) tlrigin al grade; ;inc3 disturlwd area" will be seeded Willi appropriate native heri?acera.tl
specnes. The Girt" v ill ork with U.S.. Arm Coupw of Ltigitjxrs it'S A[TFi to ohtiiin the
:sppropri<ate permit, either Naliom i& 12 tprc po,-c, t ter ;m ladividwil Pea-niii it 1111pact4 a1
deemet.l l„reatt enotwh during the permitting ph:tse of the project. Care will be take11 tai tlrinin] le
corl'?tritc tton impacts throu'ph tolvipii<ntta:c with (reolmllVs ` cliff Em"ion and Stdnnce nlatlon
Control Ordimma ai, w,-Il as aclhereiioc to a Ts?t.'DENR appro;'ed ,and zountti-apprt vcd Erosion
;inc3 ,Sedittlma6m C: urttrol Plain and rather provisions of the Sedimentation l'iiilution Control ."yet
of 1973 Best management practices (M-fPs) will he implemented to re€-:uce impacts from
ttame1 "ter,
Iirtp1>r1aud Birri?lanrts: The We-Ntside Service Area does illCltrtle Nome pilule Or Unitive farii?h id
soil. however. ttriisi of these areas have been parrs rsnerttly altered and art: not in agriculttir°al it .
No impacis to important forte iands are aniticipated.
Public lands and 1+ct*plc?Reqy?:atttmal. ?trrd State &(tt1` Areas: No public lands or scenic,
recreaulonal. or state nal Ural arias will be dirrolY imp tcfed by the project-
C ultural Resources: Ina niciaorantium drted February 5, 2010 (Nm hR 09-0912), the North
C arolilia State Historic l iv-, rvation Office tSHPO) stater, that no historic: resources would lac
npaele'd by the prollosetl projrct.
rLr (, UPub y Borne incrcas(` in dust and retticlc entis-5i?ins can be expected dtic io construction
aetivilies, but sack impacts will he (eraporary and will be tninirrtized by proffer vehicle
rrnaimc nance, freeluent wetting; ol'exposed soil, .end pr mlit sail stahili7aLioll, Nc? nl)en btirr?ini is
anticipated, Tltc jic-w purnp --wtitsti will include an eniervency generator that will be si,hjec•n 10
stir lKMnt?it cc?nclitxirt> Ittrirtinl the hcrtrrti of operatrtrt pet' ye;srr, tluis ntiiaimi?inl; e nti4sicin {?_
criteria pollutants. The pro Ixrscd West side Regional Purnp SIation wt it inchide a ?;t:rubbec for
odor control,
Norse Uwels° 'lltere will b orne rnzrc asC in not e' levels roue to e:onstnrction ausivitrc -. but
con!itrtic?ion will be limited to normal d iytinie, working areas to the rtta?timmi't extent po-,ii ile.
There may he soiu(occasiolial nuisance tense within the vicinity of 11ie punip station when the
cmergericy! gellenitor is opc siting„ but such impact,; ,411 be aiiniruircd by a soutul reducin
enclose r-cl
Wa-1et Restr?tr? (- Ilea prtrprisrct project includes roar pore nniat. stream crossing.,"- and eight
intertstittem ?tre,iirr ciYtssing , Some itnlxicts related to e_rrnstniction may occur, WiliS nlltiit'ative
ttrtiiM)VeS ill lela(T, itirl-Vlcts itte' n(it eXI)CCIed 10 1V sig;rtif cant_ C,LtC' will work with the. USACE
io obtain the :ippropftate permit. either Nationwide 12 tirropci,Nedl or an Individual Penult is
deterniiueci during the pen`nitting phase of the prc?iect. Oirection:rl herring mill he tried to the
maxirnurn extern practicable.-, bill some open cnlting is also anticipated. ('are will be taken io
urinitnire C'UltslFUCtiOn iMIXictw tlin-)ugly compliance willi Greenville: Sail Em,;i(,),? and
st-difilunt.ir kin Control Ordinance as well as ldherence to a NCUENR .appmved and c runtN
approver, Erosion and Sedimentation C'tttrttol Clan and either pmvisions of ttte Sedimentat t4i
pi?llutidn {'etntruf Act of 1973, 13MPti will lie implemented to reduce impacis froin stortilwwate r_
rotgl Res,ourc ti,._ l e ; than half an acre offorest rtnmirces will bo inpacte d ley con,;tnreticin of
file regional lurtitli station zuid €orce main, The majority of the farce stain and interix-ptor will he
4onslructed in exi; tiu:g maintained easements and in a ncly easentent in an urban area that is ring
forested,
llcl dish or Firsh iantiTtteirHab7tats_ The greatest risk err shellfish fish ami their hahitats is
related to Gros ion and sedimentation. Senate impacts may OCTttw during construction brut
pevrianent impacts ate trot anticipated. Care will tic takers to, min'itnize construction impact=.
thnnigh compliauce with t remvilles W Frosion and Sedinientat m Control Ordinance as well
as adherence tee a alt DENR-uppved w W county-approved Em.sitin and Sedimentation C ontrt'il
6
Plan and other prox, isionN of the Sedimentation PMatron Control Act of 1973.. Sonne protected
aquat is specias have habitat in the service urea, and sonte, Ituve recoroed historical obs, matioti-S
within the projccl area. Recorded observations am either not r", it or not within two miles, of
the prc�icctarea. Significant impacts are tuft expected.
Wildlife and Natural YSSetatitig. Construction will take place primadly In previously cleated
and inaintainedareas. Some minor impacts to wildlifewayoccur durin
_g construction activities.
Mobile organi4ni% will be displacW, to nearby ltabitays, Slow moving or burrowing orgardsmix
maybe, W impacted, bul thm ioijxtct� Are, not expocted to be significant. A numlw of protected
,species huve habitat in the, serviceurea, and sonte have rocoalcd himorical observations within
the project area. Recorded. observationqaTe either not recent or not within two miles, of the
PnIjoct meu_ Significant impacts w- not exerted.
l.ntro(juction(,)f.*rotic Sul).stajic,t*-,-, Th LI 4s
The. potential for introdtiction of toxic substance., s ch ,
vehicle exhaust. oil,, fuel, and odwr fluids wilt be minirnijcd, through proper vehicle maintcoance
and appropriate 4ispost'd of waste fluids, All construction activities will be performed in
accctudance with Federal, state. iuid local rule~ and re Mations, to avoid environ.mental imfiacis,
L.7.S. f4sh and �Vitdlife Service wylewed the. pniposed project and cond- tided that Ow
requires teants cat' Section Act luii,,ebeen fulfilled, TheNorih
C.,rolina Wildlife 'Resources Ckisnnw.,,sion, Natural I leritage Program, and Division cif Water
Quality (IINNYQ) NPDES unit., sand DWQ W411sllilngton Regional Office co leer with the Proposed
prqject, 'rite North Carolina Departmentof CulturalResouwesits not aware of any properties of
arc hit, historical. or arrim-wological significance that would be affmied h tile prql&I,
G - PU blic Partici itrn _d04M-M Consulted.
A public heiring, was held on July 20, 2010 ora the proposed project, The current user charge, for
a typical User N $27.47 per month for 5.000 p1lons. The Proposed Project may result its an
inLnmsed Chalye of S 1.50 M mont"I for 4 Total Of $28-97 Per Month for -5-000 gi-IllOnS. GUC
maintains five-year Capital Improvellients Plan tCTP) to plan fDr all major capital investments
and seta rates at sufficient lexvls to timer operatlow. cost% and debt services. The intost recent,
CIP iTicl uded i Ite propowexl project when sewer rata: were estubi ished ef fective J uly 1, 20()g.
Sources consulted about thm project for information or concurrence in lode:
I I City of Groenville.
2) North Carolina (department of Environment and Natural ReNources
-Wildlife Resources Cornniis:itoa
-DWQ Washington Regional office
-DWQ PERCS Unit
-DWQ NPDES Unit
Division of Air Quality
-Division of Environmental Health
-Diviilort of Water Resources
-Division of Foreo, Resoumes
-Office of Legislative and inteegovemmental Affairs

A} North Carolina L;gartnj:nt (,f Cu[t nd Rcsources
4) Nowth Caru1ina State C°lcarin heauac
53 €.l.4. Fish and Wildlife Ser k
fat U S : Army C orpa Of Engi ct%

R •

§
2
N/
:
I
z
g -j LU
kj
cr z
§§ J
\_\ [
cc
�z
dLU
cc z
§\ LU
k|

Oi
O
Z
07
14
y; ACT
z
O
N
T
< N X
O
0
a
N
Z
N
O
O0���
O ,
O
w
z
coW
O
Z
d
i
Z
C7
m
W
uj
Z O
Q O
g +
Q
U4 U')
a LS
l
\
i
1
1
m
_o
30 H�IVA
07
14
y; ACT
z
O
N
T
< N X
O
a
N
Z
N
O
O0���
E
O
w
z
coW
O
Z
d
Z
C7
m
W
uj
Z O
Q O
g +
Q
U4 U')
Z
U
ti
O
a
N
Z
N
O
Q
O
Z
+
CL
d
m
a
vT
_Z
19 1
0o w
U 0O
z
2 Q
O cr
LU Z O
H W R
J =f W
135 0
LU w
ir Z
w0
CC }} H
C) F C)
U 3.

ICT £
r5
77,
nd
Y
I
iI
E RpUND1REE DRIVE
za
Y
X
0
;1
U
N '
a
1
}
O
J i
zoW
1
N
4
1
1
1 i i
}�
1
N
1
S
b
1,
, z
1
�l`ty
W
1 1
C
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
Z
1
1
�
,1, 8
Z
Q
O
O
L
1 l
LL
W
0 O
1`
1
0
Q
1 1":
1':
1 111E
ZLJ
+
Q N
a
Lo
'n
1
1
o
Q
n
N
r,
4
1. I
1
1
1
e
A
i
t i�
1
O
� U a
y11\
1
1
MATCH
ICT £
r5
77,
nd
Y
I
iI
E RpUND1REE DRIVE
ZQ
za
Y
X
0
U
N '
a
1 W
}
O
J i
zoW
1 i i
}�
LQl1UJ
N
1
, z
1
�l`ty
W
a
1
1
1
Z
Z
ZQ
Y
X
0
U
a
zoW
LQl1UJ
N
W
O
Z
Z
W
Z
Q
O
O
L
to
LL
W
0 O
O N
0
Q
O
ZLJ
+
Q N
a
Lo
'n
a
o
Q
n
N
L�
Z
Q
ZZ
O JW
O
U ¢ 0
U 0
8� o
CL Q
O
wZ O
►= uT
J J a
LLI S ZOC
LU uj
= Z
C7 LU
LL 0
W O
H
c N
ULU
C4 12
gj
s
m
W 3
III

z )\§�
Ql�;!
28;:�
o -■��<
a � / m;:■
z n�!
z I }j§|
` \ kZE
K%`
AWE ` �
/
x
q
�
�
>
k
■
�§
(
%
uj
§�|°
§
2
*|§§■|
cr
�
§
m
z o
e
z
\ \
: ®IL
:;. ..
E E %
U m
CN o
.......
.[: /
. : . \
z § ƒ
j
.««
i
�
I
t
\!4
z
d
kk §
�o 2
� g
«
m§ cc
Ecr
LM
� §
k b
�=
w\
§
k
\q
L�

`gig �d/y/7
TV y, H
°y,Yer
Z
O
N
N
T
pp 5`
LL
X
J '®"
i 66
cc
co
z
W
C4)
w_
8
o
+
CL
a
cr
CL
W
�.b
4
,
�ybgb3S
J
W
c.
....
O
Z
$
Z
W
p
O
z
i+
r
U
LL
x O
z
z
g0 W
2
�U O
OEr
E p
C) 0
O¢
W Z O
E WJ
J J W
LU
CC Z
C7
LL
Wo
w0ccy
0 F- N
V W
11101
a
N
p
N
OO
Q
w_
Z
W
+
CL
a
CL
N
z
z
g0 W
2
�U O
OEr
E p
C) 0
O¢
W Z O
E WJ
J J W
LU
CC Z
C7
LL
Wo
w0ccy
0 F- N
V W
11101
-
—_
• ' ,,..
_. 1335
� ::.
w_
"FR",
�.b
4
,
�ybgb3S
o
....
_..
$
a
s��
d
I
v� 00'`ZFL
b
o
IN
z
z
g0 W
2
�U O
OEr
E p
C) 0
O¢
W Z O
E WJ
J J W
LU
CC Z
C7
LL
Wo
w0ccy
0 F- N
V W
11101
"FR",
....
_..
$
k
I
v� 00'`ZFL
b
z
z
g0 W
2
�U O
OEr
E p
C) 0
O¢
W Z O
E WJ
J J W
LU
CC Z
C7
LL
Wo
w0ccy
0 F- N
V W
11101

O O p
LL
Z
FO=
U
U
$
X
X
�-
i
a
_
o
�
z*I
8
o
i
r Dt
o
RE
a
o
0
�ff-3 "8
Y
J
W
a.
a
F-
F
O
Z
Z
C_'3O
W
p
Z
Q +
J
LLL 0
LL
U
Q
a
i
~
"
o
�
o
a
`�
o
RE
a
o
0
�ff-3 "8
a.
a
F-
N
1�
r
P,
o.
CL
i
"
w
f
�
a
RE
�ff-3 "8
i.
i
I
I
�
I
I;
Ort
I
�szSziy a$a
o.
7
I S�
z
S .m
D #
i
i
I
3
i
JI3
1�
r
P,
MATCH LINE
STA
143+00
Q
Z
z?
O JW
rn O
`n cc a O
�� LL
0
0 c z
O Q
W Z Q
HL O
J d
W
JLu
Q Z
c�
LU
WO
a� �
U W
o.
CL
i
"
w
RE
i.
i
I
I
�
I
I;
I
o.
7
I S�
S .m
D #
I
3
5
a
N I
- 1a
CC
MATCH LINE
STA
143+00
Q
Z
z?
O JW
rn O
`n cc a O
�� LL
0
0 c z
O Q
W Z Q
HL O
J d
W
JLu
Q Z
c�
LU
WO
a� �
U W