20140068 Ver 1_401 Application_20140114

Brown AND
Caldwell
309 E. Morehead Street
Suite 160
Charlotte, NC 28202
T: 704.358.7204
F: 704.358.7205
January 16, 2014
Ms. Laurie Dennison
NCDENR - Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
1
3 ZU14
D NR
WIM.A. O4i. I .: %iAUTY
Subject: CWA Section 401 Permit
Steele Creek Pumping Station Expansion Project, Gravity Sewer, and
Westhall Pump Station Elimination Project
Dear Ms. Dennison:
143489
Enclosed please find the Pre - Construction Notification and supporting documentation in
support of a 401 permit for the above listed project.
Proposed Project:
Charlotte - Mecklenburg Utility Department (CMUD) proposes to replace the existing
Steele Creek pumping station and 24 -inch diameter force main with a new 30 mgd
pumping station and approximately 35,500 feet of 36 -inch diameter force main to serve
the Steele Creek sewer basin in southwestern in Mecklenburg County. This improve-
ment allows CMUD to comply with EPA Consent Order #CWA -04- 2007 -4750 to manage
wet- weather flows, enhance reliability and reduce the risk of sanitary sewer overflows
(SSO). An Environmental Assessment was conducted including detailed field studies
and submitted to the North Carolina State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA)
coordinating with the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. The project was
issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on October 9, 2013.
In addition to the new force main and pump station, two other elements will be con-
structed: 30 -inch diameter Steele Creek gravity sewer and the Wetshall Pumping Station
Elimination Project. The Steele Creek gravity sewer is approximately 1,600 linear feet of
30 -inch diameter sewer. This sewer shares a common corridor with the new force main
and is being constructed with this project to limit the construction impacts to this
corridor. The Westhall Pump Station Elimination Project includes the construction of
approximately 1,000 ft of 8 -inch sewer to serve the area tributary to the Westhall Pump
Station; this will allow the Westhall Pump Station to be taken out of service and demol-
ished.
The proposed pump station, sewer line and decommissioning of the Westhall pump
station and installation of sewer line will temporarily impact, by open cut construction,
thirteen intermittent and four perennial streams. This project will not create permanent
impacts to streams. Immediately after impacts to stream banks and beds these areas
will be restored to pre- construction condition, re- seeded and re- vegetated with native
seed, trees and shrubs.

Ms. Laurie Dennison
NCDENR - Wetlands Unit
January 16, 2014
Page 2
Additionally, this project proposes to temporarily disturb 1.274 acres of wetlands and
permanently convert 0.375 acres of wetland from forested to emergent wetlands.
Compensatory Mitigation is proposed for this project to compensate the state for the
loss of wetlands. In -Lieu Fee arrangements have been made with the North Carolina
Eco System Enhancement Program.
Exceptions to Conditions of General Certification No. 3884:
The majority of the project fully complies with conditions set forth in NCDENR Water
Quality Certification No. 3884 (WQC 3884). However, there are 7 locations along the
proposed route where installation deviates marginally from the conditions outlined in
WQC 3884. In all cases, every effort was made to meet certification requirements during
design; but in the areas described herein, site constraints would not allow for installa-
tion to fully meet all requirements. Descriptions of each location in which conditions
cannot not fully be met are provided below:
Steele Creek Force Main and Gravity Sewer
• Sheet C301, Stations 2 +00 through 4 +00 and 7 +00 through 8 +50 -The maximum
40 -foot construction corridor at this location cannot be met due to the construction of
parallel lines (force main and sewer).
• Sheet C302, Station 15 +00 through 15 +50 - The force main cannot cross Steele
Creek (Stream Crossing #1) at a near perpendicular angle due to the requirement to
cross Carowinds Boulevard (adjacent to the stream) at a 90- degree perpendicular
crossing. The crossing at this location is approximately 50- degrees to the stream
alignment.
• Sheet C305, Station 41 +50 - The force main cannot cross the Tributary (Stream
Crossing #3) at near perpendicular angle due to property boundary constraints to the
south. Altering the crossing at this location would require moving the construction
closer to the top of bank of the larger parallel stream to the north and violating the
10 -foot bank separation requirement. The crossing at this location is approximately
60- degrees to the stream alignment.
• Sheet C326, Station 238 +50 - The force main cannot cross the second Unnamed
Stream crossing (Stream Crossing 913) at a near perpendicular angle due to property
and pipe layout constraints related to the Downs Road (NCDOT SR 1129) right -of -way
and adjacent Stream Crossing #9A to the west. Given the angle of the stream and
local constraints, realignment of the line in this section is not possible.
• Sheet C334, Station 315 +75 through 320 +75 - The 10 -foot minimum separation
between the construction corridor and top of bank to the adjacent stream cannot be
maintained in this location due to the location of the constructed wetland to the
northeast of the alignment and existing parallel sewer alignment to the south. Multi-
ple alternatives were considered in an attempt to minimize impacts to this crossing
area and the chosen alignment is believed to be the best practical alignment.
• Sheet C336, Station 336 +00 - The force main cannot cross the storm drainage
channel (Stream Crossing #15) at near perpendicular angle due to existing sewer line
constraints to the north and the top of bank of Little Sugar Creek to the south. Alter-
ing the crossing at this location would require moving the construction closer to ei-
ther the existing sewer or the top of bank, violating the 10 -foot bank separation re-

Ms. Laurie Dennison
NCDENR - Wetlands Unit
January 16, 2014
Page 3
quirement. The crossing at this location is approximately 45- degrees to the stream
alignment.
Westhall Gravity Sewer
• The alignment of the sewer passes through a wetland that contains a braided stream
system. There is no clearly defined channel and therefore, no determination can be
made as to the angle of the crossing. We are limiting construction to a 30- foot -wide
corridor through this area in order to minimize impacts as much as possible.
Enclosed with the correspondence you will find the following documents:
1. Letter from CMUD authorizing Brown and Caldwell to submit permitting materials
2. Completed and executed Pre - Construction Notification (PCN).
3. Aerial Map with proposed sewer line layout (document not to scale, for visual presen-
tation only).
4. List of Property Owners and Parcel IDs
5. Summary Table of Temporary Stream Crossing Impacts
6. Summary Table of Temporary and Permanent Wetland Impacts.
7. Stream ID and Wetland Delineation Data Sheets.
8. Biological Survey prepared by HARP signed by Dr. Jim Matthews.
9. Letter dated December 9, 2013 from EEP accepting compensatory mitigation in the
form of In -Lieu Fees.
10. The FONSI issued October 13, 2013.
11. 3 sets of 12" x 18" engineering drawings for the proposed project.
12. 2 full sized sets of engineering drawings for the proposed project.
13. Check for $570.00 Payable to NCDENR
Should you have questions about the content of the PCN or this correspondence, please
me at 704.373.7119 or Karri Cecil Blackmon with HARP at 704.841.2841.
Very truly yours,
BROWN AND CALDWWELL
v
John B. (Jay) Fulmer, Jr., PE
cc: Alan Johnson - Mooresville Field office
Amy Vershel, PE - Charlotte - Mecklenburg Utility Department
Karri Cecil Blackmon, HARP
File

�a e� �
r
0 i�
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
0 Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: NW 12 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
0 Yes ❑ No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
0 401 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 0 No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes 0 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.
0 Yes ❑ No
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes 0 No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes Q No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project
Gra
2b.
County:
Mecklenburg County NC and York County SC
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte, NC
2d.
Subdivision name:
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Charlotte - Mecklenburg Utilities Department
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
Please see attached list of property owners and parcel ID numbers.
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Amy Vershel, PE
3d.
Street address:
5100 Brookshire Blvd,
3e.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28216
3f.
Telephone no.:
704 - 391 -5145
3g.
Fax no.:
704 - 398 -9180
3h.
Email address:
avershel @ci.charlotte.nc.us
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
4d.
Street address:
4e.
City, state, zip:
4f.
Telephone no.:
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
John B. (Jay) Fulmer, Jr., PE Supervising Engineer
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Brown and Caldwell
5c.
Street address:
309 E Morehead St, Ste 160
5d.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 -2325
5e.
Telephone no.:
704 - 373 -7119
5f.
Fax no.:
704 - 358 -7205
5g.
Email address:
JFulmer @Brwncald.com
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
See attached list of property owners and parcel IDs.
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: - 80.953825 Longitude: 35.1047
1 c.
Property size:
58.74 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Steele Creek, Little Sugar Creek, McCullough Branch
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C, C and C respectively
2c.
River basin:
Lower Catawba HUC: 03050103
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 proposed project is located within North Carolina's Southern Piedmont region. Land use in the area is a mix of commercial, agricultural,
residential, industrial, and recreational (Carrowinds Theme Park).
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 1.75 acres within the construction corridor
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 1,035
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Please see attached "Purpose of Proposed Project ".
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Please see attached "Detailed Project Description ".
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?
❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments: Wetland delineations were performed b HARP, Inc.
p y
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (If known): John T. Soule, Biologist Wetland Delineator
Agency /Consultant Company: Habitat Assessment and
Other: Restoration Program, Inc. (HARP)
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Documentation for each stream or wetland crossing in the form of Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets, and Routine Wetland Determination Data
forms are attached.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
E] Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑X Wetlands Q 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 impact
Type of wetland
Forested
Type of jurisdiction
Area of
number
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or
DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W2
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W3
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W4
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W5
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W6
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.375
2h. Comments:
PLEASE see attached "Table of Wetland Impacts" All temporary impacts to wetlands will be regraded to pre- construction topography and re- seeded
with native wetland see mix. A maintenance corridor of 10 feet will be managed by mowing every 3 -5 years. It is anticipated the wetland vegetation will
be allowed to re- establish during this time.
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 (PER) or
Type of
Average
Impact
number
intermittent (INT)?
jurisdiction
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(feet)
feet)
S1
Choose one
S2
Choose one
S3
Choose one
S4
Choose one
S5
Choose one
S6
Choose one
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
1,035
3i. Comments:
PLEASE see attached "Table of Stream Impacts" Efforts have been made to cross each stream perpendicular to flow. In a few instances this is not
possible. All stream banks will be regraded to pre- construction topography and re- seeded with native seed mix and re- vegetated with native trees and
or shrubs.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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 indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01
Choose one
Choose
02
Choose one
Choose
03
Choose one
Choose
04
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
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 any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑X Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet )
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1
Yes /No
B2
Yes /No
B3
Yes /No
B4
Yes /No
B5
Yes /No
B6
Yes /No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
61. Comments: The project is located within the Lower Catawba River Basin however, the Catawba River Buffers are not directly impacted.
Communication with Alan Johnson in Mooresville DWQ office confirmed no buffer mitigation is necessary.
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
An alternative analysis was performed, the proposed project was the result of this analysis. Based upon topography, service area, and required
capacity the proposed project is the least detrimental to the environment and most economical to CMUD. All stream impacts are temporary. Of the
1.75 acres of wetland impact only 0.375 is permanent in nature and results from the maintenance easement of —10 feet which will be mowed every
3 -5 years. It is anticipated that the wetland vegetation will be allowed to reestablish during the long periods between mowing.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
The selected contractor will be required to conform to all requirements of the Nationwide 12 permit, conditions of the Water Quality Certification No.
3884 and the Sediment and Erosion Control plan approved by the NCDENR Land Quality Section. Additionally the contractor will be bound by the
conditions local City and County ordinances.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑X DWQ ❑X Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
Q 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: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
Q Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
0 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0.375 acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments: PLEASE see attached acceptance letter from NCEEP's In -Lieu Fee program. All stream impacts are temporary and will be restored
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 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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
❑ Yes Q No
buffer mitigation?
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.
6c.
6d.
6e.
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
o
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 7 of 10

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 ❑X 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.
Communication
with Alan Johnson of Mooresville DWQ confirmed that since this is a utility project not a
❑ Yes ❑X No
development project a diffused flow plan is not required.
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0.017%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
Communication
with Alan Johnson of Mooresville DWQ confirms that because this is a utility project not a
development a Stormwater Management
Plan is not required.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Mecklenburg County NC
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑Yes 0 No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a.
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006 -246
❑Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes 0 No
attached?
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 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
0 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
OYes ❑ 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.) A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued on October 9, 2013. A copy
❑X Yes ❑ No
Comments: is attached.
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 0 No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑Yes 0 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
DYes ❑ 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.
It is anticipated that the additional capacity of the Steele Creek expansion project will allow additional development in the Steele Creek service area in
years
to come, it is not however the purpose of this project to provide service for immanent development. All development in Mecklenburg County is
regulated
and all development must adhere to State, County and Municipal development ordinances many of which are designed specifically to protect
water quality.
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.
All wastewater from this project will be conveyed to the McAlpine Creek WWTP which has a capacity of 64 million gallons per day.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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 Q No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑X Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
The Natural Heritage Program Database was utilized to prepare a list of possible species of concern followed by a thorough site survey of the entire
alignment. Dr. Jim Matthews of Habitat Assessment and Restoration Program, Inc. along with field biologists perform the field work and report, attach
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Fish and Wildlife.
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 ❑X 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?
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office and North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑X Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
All areas of construction will be restored to their pre- construction contours and evaluations. No fill will take place in the 100 -year floodplain. The
driveway for the new pump station will be excavated and backfilled or paved with appropriate material to create a drivable surface. Back fill or
pavement will not increase elevations within the 100 -year floodplain as excavation will occur first.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA Flood Insurance Maps.
John B. (Jay) Fulmer, PE
Brown and Caldwell 01/15/2014
a
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

309 E. Morehead Street
Suite 160
Charlotte, NC 28202
T: 704.358.7204
F: 704.358.7205
January 16, 2014
Brown AND
Caldwell '
Ms. Laurie Dennison
NCDENR - Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Subject: CWA Section 401 Permit
Steele Creek Pumping Station Expansion Project, Gravity Sewer, and
Westhall Pump Station Elimination Project
Dear Ms. Dennison:
`EA [CIAte•
Enclosed please find the Pre - Construction Notification and supporting documentation in
support of a 401 permit for the above listed project.
Proposed Project:
Charlotte - Mecklenburg Utility Department (CMUD) proposes to replace the existing
Steele Creek pumping station and 24 -inch diameter force main with a new 30 mgd
pumping station and approximately 35,500 feet of 36 -inch diameter force main to serve
the Steele Creek sewer basin in southwestern in Mecklenburg County. This improve-
ment allows CMUD to comply with EPA Consent Order #CWA -04- 2007 -4750 to manage
wet - weather flows, enhance reliability and reduce the risk of sanitary sewer overflows
(SSO). An Environmental Assessment was conducted including detailed field studies
and submitted to the North Carolina State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA)
coordinating with the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. The project was
issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on October 9, 2013.
In addition to the new force main and pump station, two other elements will be con-
structed: 30 -inch diameter Steele Creek gravity sewer and the Wetshall Pumping Station
Elimination Project. The Steele Creek gravity sewer is approximately 1,600 linear feet of
30 -inch diameter sewer. This sewer shares a common corridor with the new force main
and is being constructed with this project to limit the construction impacts to this
corridor. The Westhall Pump Station Elimination Project includes the construction of
approximately 1,000 ft of 8 -inch sewer to serve the area tributary to the Westhall Pump
Station; this will allow the Westhall Pump Station to be taken out of service and demol-
ished.
The proposed pump station, sewer line and decommissioning of the Westhall pump
station and installation of sewer line will temporarily impact, by open cut construction,
thirteen intermittent and four perennial streams. This project will not create permanent
impacts to streams. Immediately after impacts to stream banks and beds these areas
will be restored to pre- construction condition, re- seeded and re- vegetated with native
seed, trees and shrubs.
ncdenr dennison cover letter.doc,

Ms. Laurie Dennison
NCDENR - Wetlands Unit
January 16, 2014
Page 2
Additionally, this project proposes to temporarily disturb 1.274 acres of wetlands and
permanently convert 0.375 acres of wetland from forested to emergent wetlands.
Compensatory Mitigation is proposed for this project to compensate the state for the
loss of wetlands. In -Lieu Fee arrangements have been made with the North Carolina
Eco System Enhancement Program.
Exceptions to Conditions of General Certification No. 3884:
The majority of the project fully complies with conditions set forth in NCDENR Water
Quality Certification No. 3884 (WQC 3884). However, there are 7 locations along the
proposed route where installation deviates marginally from the conditions outlined in
WQC 3884. In all cases, every effort was made to meet certification requirements during
design; but in the areas described herein, site constraints would not allow for installa-
tion to fully meet all requirements. Descriptions of each location in which conditions
cannot not fully be met are provided below:
Steele Creek Force Main and Gravity Sewer
• Sheet C301, Stations 2 +00 through 4 +00 and 7 +00 through 8 +50 - The maximum
40 -foot construction corridor at this location cannot be met due to the construction of
parallel lines (force main and sewer).
• Sheet C302, Station 15 +00 through 15 +50 - The force main cannot cross Steele
Creek (Stream Crossing #1) at a near perpendicular angle due to the requirement to
cross Carowinds Boulevard (adjacent to the stream) at a 90- degree perpendicular
crossing. The crossing at this location is approximately 50- degrees to the stream
alignment.
• Sheet C305, Station 41 +50 - The force main cannot cross the Tributary (Stream
Crossing #3) at near perpendicular angle due to property boundary constraints to the
south. Altering the crossing at this location would require moving the construction
closer to the top of bank of the larger parallel stream to the north and violating the
10 -foot bank separation requirement. The crossing at this location is approximately
60- degrees to the stream alignment.
• Sheet C326, Station 238 +50 - The force main cannot cross the second Unnamed
Stream crossing (Stream Crossing 9B) at a near perpendicular angle due to property
and pipe layout constraints related to the Downs Road (NCDOT SR 1129) right -of -way
and adjacent Stream Crossing #9A to the west. Given the angle of the stream and
local constraints, realignment of the line in this section is not possible.
• Sheet C334, Station 315 +75 through 320 +75 - The 10 -foot minimum separation
between the construction corridor and top of bank to the adjacent stream cannot be
maintained in this location due to the location of the constructed wetland to the
northeast of the alignment and existing parallel sewer alignment to the south. Multi-
ple alternatives were considered in an attempt to minimize impacts to this crossing
area and the chosen alignment is believed to be the best practical alignment.
• Sheet C336, Station 336 +00 - The force main cannot cross the storm drainage
channel (Stream Crossing #15) at near perpendicular angle due to existing sewer line
constraints to the north and the top of bank of Little Sugar Creek to the south. Alter-
ing the crossing at this location would require moving the construction closer to ei-
ther the existing sewer or the top of bank, violating the 10 -foot bank separation re-
ncdenr dennison cover letter.doc,

Ms. Laurie Dennison
NCDENR - Wetlands Unit
January 16, 2014
Page 3
quirement. The crossing at this location is approximately 45- degrees to the stream
alignment.
Westhall Gravity Sewer
The alignment of the sewer passes through a wetland that contains a braided stream
system. There is no clearly defined channel and therefore, no determination can be
made as to the angle of the crossing. We are limiting construction to a 30- foot -wide
corridor through this area in order to minimize impacts as much as possible.
Enclosed with the correspondence you will find the following documents:
1. Letter from CMUD authorizing Brown and Caldwell to submit permitting materials
2. Completed and executed Pre - Construction Notification (PCN).
3. Aerial Map with proposed sewer line layout (document not to scale, for visual presen-
tation only).
4. List of Property Owners and Parcel IDs
5. Summary Table of Temporary Stream Crossing Impacts
6. Summary Table of Temporary and Permanent Wetland Impacts.
7. Stream ID and Wetland Delineation Data Sheets.
8. Biological Survey prepared by HARP signed by Dr. Jim Matthews.
9. Letter dated December 9, 2013 from EEP accepting compensatory mitigation in the
form of In -Lieu Fees.
10. The FONSI issued October 13, 2013.
11. 3 sets of 12" x 18" engineering drawings for the proposed project.
12. 2 full sized sets of engineering drawings for the proposed project.
13. Check for $570.00 Payable to NCDENR
Should you have questions about the content of the PCN or this correspondence, please
me at 704.373.7119 or Karri Cecil Blackmon with HARP at 704.841.2841.
Very truly yours,
BROWN AND CALDWELL
John B. (Jay) Fulmer, Jr., PE
cc: Alan Johnson - Mooresville Field office
Amy Vershel, PE - Charlotte - Mecklenburg Utility Department
Karri Cecil Blackmon, HARP
File
ncdenr dennison cover letter.doc,

KYb
Oil 11 ills
January 8, 2014
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -5006
Subject: Clean Water Act Section 401/404 Permitting for
the Steele Creek Pumping Station Replacement Project
To Whom it may Concern:
Charlotte - Mecklenburg Utility Department is in the process of applying for and obtaining permits
regarding the above referenced project. Our consultant, Brown and Caldwell, is authorized to submit
permit applications (i.e., Pre- Construction notification Form) and other supporting documents related
to 401/404 permitting. This process will include submittals to various agencies, including the US
Army Corps of Engineers, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control.
Very truly yours,
Amy R. Vershol, P. E.
Project Manager
Charlotte - Mecklenburg Utility Department
Engineering Division 5100 Brookshire Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28216 704/399 -2551
Charlotte - Mecklenburg Utility Department

Item 3d Purpose of Project
In order to comply with EPA Consent Order (No: CWA- 0402007 - 4750), manage wet - weather flows,
enhance reliability and reduce risk of sanitary sewer overflows (SSO), Charlotte - Mecklenburg Utility
Department (CMUD) is proposing the construction of a new pump station to replace the undersized
existing facility at the same location. The project proposes to replace the existing Steele Creek pump
station and 24 -inch diameter force main with a new 30 mgd pumping station and 35,500 -foot 36-
inch force main connected to an existing discharge at CMUD's McAlpine Creek Waste Water
Treatment Plant (WW-FP).
The project is needed to provide capacity for CMUD to manage wet - weather flow at the desired level
of services for the Steele Creek service area as part of CMUD's Capacity Assurance Program.
Implementation of the Capacity Assurance Program was required by EPA Consent Order (No: CWA-
0402007- 4750). This order was received on February 27, 2007 and the Capacity Assurance
Program was initiated on January 15, 2009. The overall goal of the Consent Order was to decrease
the likelihood of SSO and discharge of sanitary sewer to Waters of the United States (WOUS).
The existing Steele Creek pumping station cannot be practically expanded as the existing wetwell
does not have sufficient space for additional pumps. Additionally, the existing pump station is
located within the 100 -year floodplain. The proposed project will remove the pump station from the
floodplain, provide the needed capacity to manage wet - weather flows at the desired level of service
for the Steele Creek service area, and support compliance with the Consent Order.
In addition to the new force main and pump station, two other elements will be constructed: a 30-
inch diameter gravity sewer which connects to the proposed Steele Creek pump station, and the
Westhall Pumping Station Elimination Project. The proposed gravity sewer expansion is being
implemented adjacent to the proposed force main alignment. Constructing the gravity sewer as part
of this project allows CMUD to eliminate the need to disturb the area within the easement more than
once. The Westhall gravity sewer project is necessary to eliminate a pump station in a small area
north of the Steele Creek project.

Item 3e Detailed Project Description
The proposed Steele Creek pump station will be a wetwell collection and multi -pump discharge
facility located along Choate Circle, in Southwest Charlotte, NC. The station will be sited on a parcel
that is currently partially occupied by the existing Steele Creek pump station. Site work will consist of
a permanent building to house the pumping equipment and materials and a new permanent
driveway for improved access to the station.
The existing Steele Creek pump station will be demolished to below grade, backfilled to match the
surrounding contours, and re- vegetated. This existing pump station currently delivers wastewater to
a collection system via an existing 24 -inch force main where it discharges by gravity flow to CMUD's
McAlpine WWTP near Carolina Place Mall in South Charlotte. Upon completion of the replacement
pump station, the existing 24 -inch force mail will remain in service as a backup system and only be
used in emergencies or during maintenance on the new 36 -inch diameter force main.
The project also consists of a new 35,500 -foot force main proposed to connect the pump station to a
discharge point on an existing 78 -inch sewer near Carolina Place Mall in Pineville, NC. This force
main will generally follow a route along the North Carolina / South Carolina state line in Southern
Mecklenburg County in North Carolina and Northern York County in South Carolina.
In addition to the new pump station and force main, a 30 -inch diameter gravity sewer expansion and
elimination of a pump station along Westhall Road will be completed. The gravity sewer expansion is
proposed to be approximately 1,600 linear feet of 30 -inch diameter conduit, constructed from the
proposed pump station site to a point west of Carowinds Boulevard. This sewer shares a common
corridor with the force main and is being constructed with this project to eliminate the need for
multiple construction phases, minimizing overall impacts to this corridor.
The Westhall Pump Station Elimination Project includes construction of approximately 1,000 ft of fl-
inch gravity sewer to serve a small industrial area north of the Steele Creek pump station.
Construction of this gravity sewer will allow the Westhall Pump Station to be taken out of service and
demolished.
Plans and details for all portions of the project are attached with this submittal. Equipment to be
used for construction of these projects will likely include dump trucks, excavators, bulldozers, trucks,
and track hoes.

000eer
160 Westhall °'Sr "r
Sa:n .tieelY Rrl o d E hebrOrr 4 Sh,,�
Gravity Sewer
Er Dr 3ohn4nce�a �tordst .a RamParkood �otaR 1
G{eQk 0� ( <1°n 634E
S Cor 2 v ,
0117/110,) a
Ra Q co
.h F C <
or
49
0 m w / +„ o13se 81v
o b tie EWeslinA l -Ooeif Dr
Gravity `01>9
SewerJ °aria, Martin Marietta
gat, oate
4 ChPark
Qr Force Main Route
0
Choi Has � , 4 `a
e Cr m� ` ti ac Sr
Steele Creek ,�6
Pumping Station 22 _a ASS �s o�ns�
��� v W� io4�i11 FargrR C, d4 Co tl..
Carowinds 54r 51 a \ ,` Ror.kHillPincvilleR o
/ I Q
e�tner Or
a ea �o Ca ro I i n a ack s,, Pine
P
�
Altura fkd u hes d ` C /d Place Mall 9 51 ''
,arolina
Beacon Knoi1� q Ivy irali yf,� Goc ve ; lace
�'' 3to ?arne a Ghds 4P`/ f �a Lary St Mall
V
A 1+G, G��en Or snotn LakPS �i C4 Belle 0
Pine Bo G�' 6� +a Johnston v
Arc "j Park �
a/r'rron Q`' d °t3\p J / Regent Pky 4
�qe 6te/bourne of Regent Park �
'C Gott Club
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NOT TO SCALE
FOR VISUAL REPRESENTATION ONLY
he
211 �OOdq r�r�ge 13lya McAlpine VWUF P a �,
G 7
°CeStpS tt F3
e a` or
\60/�i �reen0
_ „,,,, Sources: Esri, Del-orme, NAVTEQ, USGS, NRCAN, METI, PC, TomTom

Parcel#
PID Number
Property Owners and Parcel ID Numbers
Property Owner
MPP South Point Land, LLC
Property Address
1
2
203 - 211 -01
MPP South Point Land, LLC
14325 WoodspringCt.
3
203 - 211 -12
Lake South Point Real Estate, LLC
14125 South Bridge Cir.
4
203 - 152 -06
Anna B. Holbrook & The William M. Holbrook Family Trust
Carowinds Blvd.
5
203 - 152 -08
Cedar Fair Southwest, Inc. FKA Paramount Parks, Inc.
14523 Carowinds Blvd.
6
203 - 152 -12
CK Lakepointe Corporate Center, LLC
10215 Ridge Creek Dr.
7
203 - 152 -13
East Group Properties LP
Ridge Creek Dr.
8
203 - 171 -03
ArrowoodSouthern Company
12455 Nevada Blvd.
9
203 - 171 -02
Cedar Fair Southwest, Inc. FKA Paramount Parks, Inc.
S 1 -77 HWY
10
203 - 171 -05
Under offerfrom Beacon Properties
2099 Nevada Blvd.
11
203 - 121 -01
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
BC and LDSI
12
203 - 131 -05
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Texland Blvd.
13
203 - 131 -01
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
12610 Nations Ford Rd.
14
205 - 041 -14
The James Ross Miller, Jr. Family Limited Partnership
13328 Rock Hill- Pineville Rd.
15
205 - 041 -10
The James Ross Miller, Jr. Family Limited Partnership
Downs Road
16
205 - 191 -08
John Stephen Miller, Sr. and Spouse John Stephen Miller, Jr. and
Spouse Rebecca Bouchelle Miller and spouse
Downs Road
17
205 - 032 -01
Travis M. Jenkins
Downs Road
18
205 - 081 -02
The John S. Miller Family Limited Partnership
Cranford Drive
19
205 - 032 -12
Robert E. Lanier
12825 Downs Cir.
20
205 - 021 -18
John Stephen Miller, Jr. & Rebecca B. Miller *QC's needed from: -
Kenneth R. Downs, Jr. - Robert E. Lanier
Franklin Street
21
205 - 023 -87
The John S. Miller Family Limited Partnership
Cranford Drive
22
205 - 011 -07
Mecklenburg Development Group, Inc.
Cranford Drive
23
205 - 012 -11
Mirsa 2 LLC
413 N. Polk Street
24
207 - 093 -16
Marianna M. Raugh (Fee owner) Greg Currie - Tenant w/ 30 lease
400 N. Polk Street
25
207 - 093 -46
Department of Transportation
Park Road
26
207 - 093 -47
Miller Family Holdings, LLC & William Brevard Miller and wife Patricia
Bainard Miller
9930 Leitner Drive
27
221 - 131 -16
ICarolina Place Joint Venture & Long Term Leasee (R.E.I.)
Carolina Place Pkwy.
28
The John S. Miller Family, L.P.
-John Stephen Miller, Sr.
-John Stephen Miller, Jr.
-Rebecca Miller Mahon
- Travis M. Jenkins
-Sun Hee Kim
Reputed Ownership
John Stephen Miller, Jr. & Rebecca Miller Mahon
Kenneth R. Downs, Jr.
29
30
221 - 131 -15
Toys "R" Us Property Company 11, LLC
11300 Carolina Place Pkwy.
31
199 - 431 -69
E & D Properties, LLC
12610 Steele Creek Rd.
32
199 - 432 -97
E & D Properties, LLC
12600 Westhall Dr.
33
199 - 432 -68
Andrew Kunkle
12806 Hedgeway Dr.
34
199 - 432 -67
Robert William Ashman & Michelle Ashman
12812 Hedgeway Dr.
35
221 - 131 -17
Hopetown Limited, LLC
11200 Carolina Place Pkwy.
36
New Tax ID :205- 032 -03
Sun Hee Kim
Downs Road
37
207 - 093 -48
1 Miller Family Holdings, LLC
LeitnerDr& Hwy 51
P: \Clients \CMUD \143489 - Steele Creek Amendment 2 \100 Perm its_Regulatory\NCDE N R 401 Wetland Perm it\ Property _owner_data_for_PCMdeied on 1/15/2014

Total Stream and Tributary Impacts 1 1,035
Average Stream Width Impact Length
Type of Jurisdiction (feet) (Linearfeet)
USACOE 20 80
Engineering Drawing Page
# (Ref)
Stream Impact
Number
Type of Impact
Steele Creek and Westhall Project Stream Impacts
Stream Name Perennial (PER) or Intermittent (INT)
Steele Creek Perennial
Stormwater Drainage Ditch Perennial
1
Tempory
C302
N/A
Tempory
N/A
N/A
N/A
C303
2
Tempory
Un -named Tributary (UT) #1 to Steele Creek
Intermittent
USACOE
4
64
C304
3
Tempory
UT #2 to Steele Creek
Intermittent
USACOE
5
96
C305
4
Tempory
UT #2 to Steele Creek
Intermittent
USACOE
3
98
C306
N/A
Tempory
Stormwater Drainage Ditch
Unknown
N/A
N/A
N/A
C310
5
Tempory
UT #1 to McCullough Branch
Intermittent
USACOE
20' to 30'
40
C312
6
Tempory
UT #2 to McCullough Branch
Intermittent
USACOE
2
50
C318
7
Tempory
UT #3 to McCullough Branch
Intermittent
USACOE
4
83
C319
8
Tempory
McCullough Branch
Perennial
USACOE
10' to 12'
47
C323
9A
Tempory
UT #1 to Sugar Creek- Crossing 1
Intermittent
USACOE
4
55
C325
9B
Tempory
UT #1 to SugarCreek- Crossing 1
Intermittent
USACOE
4
110
C326
10
Tempory
UT #2 to Sugar Creek- Crossing 2
Intermittent
USACOE
4
50
C327
11
Tempory
SugarCreek
Perennial
USACOE
75
40
C328
12
Tempory
UT #2 to Sugar Creek
Intermittent
USACOE
4
52
C329
13
Tempory
Little SugarCreek
Perennial
USACOE
65
20
C334
14
Tempory
UT #1 to Little Sugar Creek
Intermittent
USACOE
4
15
C334
15
Tempory
UT #2 to Little Sugar Creek
Intermittent
USACOE
8 105 C336
N/A N/A C337
3 30 C402
N/A
Tempory
Storm Drain (Carolina Place Mail) Outtall
Unknown
N/A
N/A (Westhall)
Tempory
Un -named braided channel
Intermittent
USACOE
Total Stream and Tributary Impacts 1 1,035

Wetland Impact
Number
Type of Impact
Type of Wetland
Steele Creek and
Forested
Westhall Project Wetland
Type of Jurisdiction
Impacts
Area of Temporary Impact
(Acres)
Area of Permanent Impact
(Acres)
Corresponding Drawing Number
(Sheet Reference)
A
Land Clearing
PSS PUBH,PFO
Yes
USACOE
0.167
0.037
C335 and C336
B
Land Clearing
PFO
Yes
USACOE
0
0
C337
B -C
Land Clearing
PFO, PSS
Yes
USACOE
0
0
C312
E
Land Clearing
PSS, PUBh
No
USACOE
0.081
0
C318
F
Land Clearing
PSS
No
USACOE
0.194
0
C335
G
Land Clearing
PSS, PUBh
No
USACOE
0
0
C334 and C335
J
Land Clearing
PFO
Yes
USACOE
0.015
0.009
C201
K
Land Clearing
PFO
Yes
USACOE
0.215
0.106
C301
L
Land Clearing
PFO
Yes
USACOE
0.107
0.032
C301
T
Land Clearing
PFO
Yes
USACOE
0.169
0.047
C331
U,V
Land Clearing
PEM
No
USACOE
0
0
C333 and C334
W
Land Clearing
PSS
No
USACOE
0
0
C334
X
Land Clearing
PSS
No
USACOE
0.017
0
C335
Y
Land Clearing
PSS, PUBh
No
USACOE
0
0
C334
Z
Land Clearing
PUBh
No
USACOE
0
0
C334
CW
Land Clearing
PFO
Yes
USACOE
0
0
C306 and C307
N/A (Westhall) Land Clearing PFO Yes USACOE 0.309 0.144 C401 and C402
Total Temporary Wetland Impacts 1.274
Total Permanent Wetland Impacts 0.375

Wetland Delineation Data Sheets
Brown AND Caldwell

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: STEEL G � �UMf'S7�4, -s'L � ?<�t�'FYtr =ti,-r'
Date: 30 ,L moo
Applicant/Owner: 13ROWN
County: MCCKL0,150Pc,
Investigator: .JO+I►A T
State: KC
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? Yes No
Community ID: F'55 /A
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes C1Vo
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o
Plot ID: S-P- Al
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
pE
(i
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. royx n u s Qenn5y it UaYy;!Ai
5S
FA
9.
2.Le-er51'61 mT ►' z ;des
' Inundated
0j9L
10.
3..JUh(�I S �` �t'rllSuSl
pE
(i
AW+
11.
4. ILf17�r �D[��`
Water Marks
613L
12.
5.
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
13_
6_
14.------ - - - - --
7. -
®" S
15.
8. -- - --
(in.)
16. - - - -- -- --
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
Y
(excluding FAC -).
Water- Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
Jn.)
Remarks: `
//
VeIeAq(iON 15
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
' Inundated
Other
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations:
_ (( Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
®" S
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water:
(in.)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water- Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
Jn.)
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC - Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil:
Jn.)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
t
_/
B'
�'�' • 1
tl-

SOILS
a
Map Unit Name i
(Series and Phase): l` (�,�C+Cl1
Drainage Class: Spt>
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): T l�l �°t'n?1 G�(�C�J.U.C� ✓% l G ��i (1'aG l7I''rr; S Confirm Mapped Type? Yes (-No-'\
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist
Abundance /Contrast Structure. etc.
0 Ai 6 _ , M
-D \ (-T-f C L IA *14 L 04vy\\
0 - (Cn L.. 5 75y 51Z-
L b {'i m
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _
Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _
High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ryes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? s No
Hydric Soils Present? Yei No
Remarks:
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
S i E�l� 7-11MP � i7 ,
'=n
FDate:
�� APR) L ZOO'
County:M KLE !t�G
Applicant/Owner: 15RoWM s e_-Al2,VJE_Li_
Investigator: -_J o 4 tit "T . S 0 U L,5
HARP)
State: 1q G
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site?
Pe No
Community ID : T'SS I A
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
C�IVo
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Yes
Plot ID: 5-'— A Z
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. �' � ev>7� s, �, uu�Q�► �
L) PL
9.
2.
lo-
3.
11.
4
12.
5.
13.
6.
14.
7. _
15.
8
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (� ! -�
(excluding FAC -).
1 i
Remarks: ��r�fi�)C;)lr�
�lC'' E- "t2'a3
IS— ►?t�i�SP..
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations: . I
Depth of Surface Water: l�dp�° (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: �� td�:- (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: �� F (in.)
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water- Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC - Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:°f1BiVlor h.1jry b ./ - j� -ki4fi Yc''Seelt,

SOILS
Az.
Map Unit Name h� DY! fJ} CG9 �I
(Series and Phase):
Drainage Class: s Pb
Taxonomy (Subgroup): eherml 7 �U1�! 'i (1 _ �_'
L / Field Observations
EULYOG I ?r Pj� 5 Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance /Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 A, l b` M 3
Pam's
3 `lCP Az ; • ,
eLAY L61; vl,^\
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions
_T Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low- Chroma Colors
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: ����r'i 5 �Sf C' Y1� 1`�v�;_
,r. ✓1-�-�
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No� (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes t7o
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Ye No
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 3192

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: STEELS CPi~ £]e F>UV/,P 5`it}°. R €PtA 0IFA4 C-
Date: 30 AT R, L- 260')
County: MEGKLE SURv
Applicant/Owner: 13RbWO A WEGG CAle7JAIEFEk*)e_'7
Investigator: _ J p 14 tJ i S o u LE
F-I A E P
State: NIC_
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site?
<_ Si) No
Community ID: Pro I P�r
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Yes 0
Transect ID: ---
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Yes No
Plot ID: 5P- 5 1
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
Oxidized in Upper 12"
13.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species++
Stratum Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.T y_-a)6'b11�1S pevy)5Y V inntm
7- 4'ACVJ
9.
2,AC er- 150 Q Y
FA: GVl
10.
ff
3.POy l,1(U 5 dell "df
_ ' FAC f
11.
4.ACe.r` WOeTUY -dL1
�c.-I FAC V,/
12.
5.
Oxidized in Upper 12"
13.
6.
_
14.
7.
FAC - Neutral Test
15.
8.
Remarks: 'i� �41 t" �{ �/�d l [ y SYPSc°YI L ,
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
4-14 /too
(excluding FAC -).
Remarks: �./ dY"U � 1! I�7 � G
vP^/ e° a--6 160 j S
rr�'`�
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
Inundated
Other
-,Z,No Recorded Data Available
r' Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
! Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations:
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
'' tt E
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Root Channels
Depth of Surface Water: N (in.)
Oxidized in Upper 12"
Water- Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Local Soil Survey Data
/a
FAC - Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: 'i� �41 t" �{ �/�d l [ y SYPSc°YI L ,

vl
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): W> m c>nnCayl
Drainage Class: S�
) "� 1 Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): therm! i, �IUYag Ue_ y&r C i�1 f foC %rP�T S Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist)
0-1 O 2,SY 5/Z-
(Munsell Moist)
-
Abundance /Contrast Structure etc.
.--- e,,5-AF Uf i E,e fliUE T�
1 --la 25 5 2
25'K
Mjn pJsf;ri�" SILT`( ccwY
io— I CP Az
'5 YL, q 1.o Comrnor►
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
_
Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon
_
High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor
_
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
`Aquic Moisture Regime
_
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions
_
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors
_
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?,"- Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? es. No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks:
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes , No
mr r_J

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: STEFE LE CRE-- EK PUMP 574, RI; PU3 CeM &-iV T
Date: a a AFRI L z6a9
Applicant/Owner: E'rJi:a! L Itea
County: M6fV-L t- BUR(7
Investigator: J,00 T SOU/ F 4AKP )
State: NG
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? Yes No
Community ID : T ?RA A
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes C-0-2-0
Transect ID: -'
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Z-' o .
Plot ID: :5p- 15Z
1.
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
2. Acer f) q twe D FACIA[
3. Fr�iX vt U 5 r>E'r�n 5� /li�Qrut�� FAC
15.
17,
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC -).
Remarks: J�t�/T�G Veg2gi4 f'0' i' 15
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Dominant Plant Species
1
11
12.
13.
15.
-'A = , &o
present ��,
Stratum Indicator
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 1J 0��6- (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water- Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit. l�U (y1v (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil:
Remarks: We-fl eve-4
FAC - Neutral Test
O
(in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
'y t`, not

SOILS
w
Map Unit Name Ma A ono'co
(Series and Phase): [�✓i
Drainage Class: spb
If- , , 11 i Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aermile - 16-g1Lled t'e- EU(i'DCL)t'C°jof5 Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Abundance /Contrast Structure, etc.
—5 A, roY
! LAY c OAYYN
cc J3� _
A z—e�`
- - --
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _
Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _
High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present ?(, Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes Q.— o Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3192

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: S 75E1-G CRE:0.4 PuMP SW), FCl,y- f)c';"m °"T
Date: 28 ARIL Zo��
Applicant/Owner: PRbVly! � CA-LDVJC-LL-
County: M e!�LRtiJ�L�t�C,
Investigator: 7; Se' Li t- E �� =' `i
Stater
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? Yes No
Community ID : PF10IA
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Transect ID: --
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o
Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
T
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.ir e,'n as
T
FA ell
9
2. k)er nMyf? ,4o
T
FA C W
10. --
3. ufmll5 0'Mei'e O/`11c ,
T
Fpt c)Ai
11.
4 ll vl cls � q °d A
T
F-AC
12.
1
GIYlUnGug USI11U.S
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
FA�-W
5R
6.�a lycer;g s rata
-4
6>8 L
13.
14.
7.
15. -
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
L-(/'(,o t 4
(excluding FAC -).
!
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
Inundated
Other
C Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available
Water Marks
C Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations:
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: IJL'G� (in.)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
X Water- Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC - Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: Jn.)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wef land hIJr610QV 15 7--='r�V -s of

SOILS
Cl
Map Unit Name r �I _ J� 1 j
� l._.) �.Gt I `
M, i 1
W
(Series and Phase):
Drainage Class:
/
Taxonomy (Subgrouft1hermic `ry%�J C
1aI �a� Field Observations
j f Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist)
(Munsell Moist)
Abundance /Contrast Structure etc.
A-I
� Le
M=vr o 'n� rlerrif 5i't GL Loan
iii�CQ A SYid -4 4-
TSYR z o
B p ,►� 6W loawi,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
_
Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon
_
High Organic Content in Suria ce Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor
_
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime
_
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions
_
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors
_
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:yPi�r i!� c'�" `}�
rte„ 1
f✓ea�y
s
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? No
Hydric Soils Present? `es No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3192

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: STEELE CRErK PU",P 5TH, FZEpLACC-M1_�---t.tT
Stratum Indicator
Date: AT R)Z -c
Applicant/Owner: E611Zavuk1r- CAIbV�rc.z,
County: MrGki,l✓nlb1 /&
Investigator: _IV14ti1 T SOG1Le ARP
2. yYi N5 1'a 0111) , iyl*
State: N(1 _
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site?
(YeDs No
Community ID: I
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Yes C-No ,
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Yes No
Plot ID: SP — C Z_
(if needed, explain on reverse.)
V FA r—
14.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
T
1.1 "r?
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
9.
2. yYi N5 1'a 0111) , iyl*
%� FAAC �I
10.
3. //I 1 YYI.{,i s a l G% Gl
T FA(fJ i
11.
4.�...Jt`1,+7�i e.'(M,S U 1 rg1n1�Q(la
I FA-� U �
12.
5. i��c-'60� rims Up? b?J)q�4 � � 0 F
13.
r �
6. Lorieoyei apboI6a
V FA r—
14.
7.��X1Ga�GJh�I'D✓1 1(JIC�I��j'S V FAC,
15.
8.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC -).
Remarks: PlL1Irdph
{
rffSe17t .
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
Inundated
Other
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations:
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
%►
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water:
(in.)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water- Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
(in.)
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC - Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil:
(in.)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: f�� C �q y,� �
fyr J
;!5 y? C,�

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):
=Y 8 �r`
J' D
Drainage Class: Yy
Z l�lc�d�!l11�G T
Taxonomy (Subgroup): V
I'C' /U _ o f 5 Field Observations !, _
�� Ll � Confirm Mapped Type? Yes{ No 'r,
Profile Description:
Depth
Matrix Color
Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
,(inches) Horizon
(Munsell Moist)
(Munsell Moist)
Abundance /Contrast Structure etc.
lei', 'd ebr� s
015-0
5 K 4, &
SJK 31z
Cornrnon !� ✓o►n�r�Pn� G'L�7
`S-E 'V;6
3
(�mrnovl �'�o�l�een� G� ►'`Y
Al Y7 neat 0– LAY
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors —Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: c are rilDt re-se-" .4
–� -
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes A p (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes o )
Hydric Soils Present? Yes IVo Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: SMFLC GP `elf F.
Date: 01 MAI Z60',
Applicant/Owner- 8ROWlJ
County:
Investigator: J o P� 1: ��r <� - i'! `� :�_ .i
State:
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? es No
Community ID : �° f -
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes
Plot ID: .5P - CW I
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
14.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Ulm &1 rA ri'cemr
2. L�IQUIdL�f�las`s�rG�!'rl�I�t� Fr���
10.
3. IDTQ1iIr �O °d;�r1�" yl,�L �t. '� - f=ACVJ
11.
4.( \O!i?Uy)1ae -(AtyS P7u ; /IjG/s FA KI
12.
5.��c�t)�1�'b` ?ri'3 iLYGIrCQI?� Y TAG
13.
6. Lc) n;ee V FAG `
14.
7.
15.
8.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC -).
Remarks: L� � � �'b ��'1 ��� �s✓ ���L .� �d C�r'� f �, �/' � °.a, ?E� ,
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
Inundated
Other
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations:
C Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
,rr I r
�N
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: /�1 (in.)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
1
Water- Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 15 (in.)
Local Soil Survey Data
3
FAC - Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
//
t

SOILS
ewl
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): ' °ti� �� Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth
inches
Horizon
C_-
L:,
1­5
&
5-1z
Az
12 -1 LP
A3
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle
(Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance /Contrast
YIDYK 3
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
�C Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors
Remarks: f jd r, I° 5o/l5 are pre_ -,eoi,
WETLAND DETERMINATION
m N
Texture, Concretions,
Structure. etc.
5AObj L04 Y/11\
_ Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy'Soils
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? -Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: S7-1_�CLG' C+rEnC - -9 t' // L__1_ NOe- -,Nf-t J
Date: ©
County: ME(' rtl;,%iPUR(7
Applicant/Owner: 8goe, 5M r
Investigator: J Q h+ti I° 5 014 L 1-; A F: P 1i
State: M C'. _
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? Ye No
Community ID : P F& 0\
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Transect ID: - -
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes _ N_ o
Plot ID: �Evl( Z_
(if needed, explain on reverse.)
6. ®"(l �'C'lC zv' i 1 l Q ►`" IrC7J'Cgr1 rj V FA C-
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
,. Lfk� +,
9. - -- -- -
2.t�lynu� �m�r+cr_ Fhci�
10. —
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
4.- t �U(Cij �I��i'dlr(jY� AC(I`-
12.
5. q Qye%rr_u � d� Y`1et �bs T rKG y�F -
13.
6. ®"(l �'C'lC zv' i 1 l Q ►`" IrC7J'Cgr1 rj V FA C-
14._
7. LO n,J rP i� :�rtr4G� t� FAA c
k5oloof'oro -)
15
8. �v1�uvn� r �r-a
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC -). J
Remarks: ro h ' b'; Vel P 41 9 0y)
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
Inundated
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations:
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
t: `
Water- Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit:i (in.)
Local Soil Survey Data
I `- .
FAC - Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Weii l rd hj' tf` l oq ; :S �vl :; ; re5 e o
)-1
t
:A f

SOILS
Gw z
Map Unit Name r`— p � %
p
(Series and Phase): Y ` `'
Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): herMG 1�C
J AP1� � S
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist)
(Munsell Moist)
Abundance /Contrast Structure, etc.
0 s ��y 354,_
'i � �..� !D l � LQ
�Ji � Q
G P �W-►.rD'� GL�k�
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
_
Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon
_
High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor
_
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime
_
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions
_
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors
—Other
(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: L r';r�� b' 4 °5
► ^ +',' ` -_ Yt?54' in,
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No)
Remarks:
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Approved by HOUSACE 3192

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: S7681--E C17150� F14r)1P 5MI10k R&--►'LJ0E -:/ 1 r
Date: 05 JA,10 244n
Applicant/Owner: 6k6WM F e.ALE)WELL- EAJ61AI e6r1 J6,
County: Mock je►n burg
Investigator: JO LI M I SOU L F , HARP
State: ' N G
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? Ye N
Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
Plot ID: 5 P- EI
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
t4
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. SAI-Y' Yu, grA
-F
0 �; L
9
2. L u;darnbArnhma
pm T
FAe-F
10.
3.'T YP�1Gt la�'fol��
t4
68L
11.
4.M ��1rua s�an�en5
li
FACYJf
12.
5. C6V-eX r 1'e 6 LIID;d0 -S
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
FACW i-
13.
6. 54fl,NM UlmlpeUgi 4
FAc--
14.
7. �JLlYi�ltS GTlUSGlS
-7-.15
15.
8.
(in.)
FAC —
16.
Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW or FAC
14, . _ 0-157,
(excluding FAC -).
Other (Explain in Remarks
Remarks: VaWand IlXdOlz) yy %5
Tres &Jtf
Remarks: Hyd 'b,0A1JiG
—fre- Se►?f
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
Inundated
Other
JG Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations:
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: fyd���
(in.)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
-7-.15
Water- Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
(in.)
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC - Neutral Test j
Depth to Saturated Soil: _
Jn.)
Other (Explain in Remarks
Remarks: VaWand IlXdOlz) yy %5
Tres &Jtf
;

SOILS
-151
Map Unit Name Me- lYl � len bur
Me- q
N
(Series and Phase):
Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): therm le- C u ffi' c f dap l a d a l fS
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped ;Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Abundance /Contrast Structure, etc.
o , U R.
,
loom ;A fr
10Y)Z 312
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _
Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _
High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
educing Conditions _
_,Reducing
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
or Low - Chroma Colors —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
R1
Remarks:
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? & No
Approved by HQUSACE 3192

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 5Tr—ELe
Date: O`S -/AkJ ZGo!�
County: MG- '«BuL"r'r
Applicant/Owner: BROWN f CALDVJE _.i. t✓►\c- IWEEP?IN6
Investigator: J O tiro `f"• 5O u l E, H A r-f
State: N C'
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? es No
Community ID: PFOIAt
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential: Problem Area? Yes C No
Plot ID: 5 P - EZ
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
s
VEGETATION
Dominant S ecie/s
Stratum Indicator
Dominant_ Plant_Sgecies Stratum Indicator
JPlant
1. L I C to i'da 11 b(l f ljT�1�GJCl f /114
I
FAe,"+
-
2. QMeF6a5 PAP -1105
T
-FAeW -
10.
3. ,7u�J' er�is V�'tq�nactr►a
s
��cU-
,,. -- --
4 o rY�U S n��YV�r�y�
5
FAG UCH -1-
12.
�Cf
5. r'' bu rn�vw prtuni'�Q'IGIYI
��iCU
13. - - -
6. �� rn ID Si 5 rf1GiJ Gg41S
V
FAG
14.
7. kc nj6e ra J a pow',
y
FAC
15.
8.
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
1 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
�- 7 _ tlD
/T �T /
(excluding FAC -).
f�01�
Remarks: LIc /�I'D �{ l `T ��G vel e
61 t/00 ;'5 �resen •
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
Inundated
Other
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
V/No Recorded Data Available
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations:
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: >Sd
(in.)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
f�01�
Water- Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
(in.)
Local Soil Survey Data
I{`
N�N�
FAC- Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil:
(in.)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: W E1IAnd �1 fd ral���
+� i�

SOILS
5z-
SP -1b
Map Unit Name Met) M`t C^ GrK w,'
�°''1 ��y
(Series and Phase):
.Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): fhe"yYU G 0/6'G
Field Observations
14'P I m GU l i Confirm Mapped Type? Yes +" NO
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist)
(Munsell Moist)
Abundance /Contrast Structure, etc.
o- AP IbYr, 3 3
132- 2,5 1z 5/4
`jGiriDiy ���
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
_
Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon
_
High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor
_
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime
_
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions
_
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors
—Other
(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: �yG���G ar of
pr'e:`en
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? es o
Hydric Soils Present? Yes c o Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
F, 2,
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: -57 -�LE CREW Ptf"P 5-M
Fl�t.F4 f fi r,t T
Date: G� O,,vr:l ?&&c ,
County:
Applicant/Owner. T�-Pbwnl -F- e-ALibVJ _-LL
Investigator: J o ! kJ 1 Sou t-E ( 4/: RP )
State: i
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site?
Yes , No
Community ID : P55 I A,
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
e !"
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
,Nod
Yes %No
Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
UL
i
2. F�CIsC� VDU 3 Tx'�/15�111�C+r
7
8.
Stratum Indicator
FAC6,t(
Dominant Plant Species
9.
11
fib]
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC -). 1
Remarks:
L--
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water:
Depth to Free Water in Pit
Depth to Saturated Soil:
Remarks: Viol Iay64
f (in.)
(in.)
h� r6l N.
Stratum Indicator
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
C Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water- Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC - Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)

SOILS
FI
Map Unit Name k � b mtooc"ad1
SP
(Series and Phase): l
Drainage Class:
//,,, -7,
Taxonomy -therm 1'6 �lUYg9U�°l?
Field Observations
( �u�l�b ►'P 5 Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No
(Subgroup):
-1C
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist)
(Munsell Moist)
Abundance /Contrast Structure, etc.
2, 5 y S
5 K$
�►Nyor a E tz ours
3 -� /4/ 7,SY, 3
ID Z-51
P 'L Ato I'Wyl
8 -.z A2
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
_
Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon
_
High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor
_
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
— Aquic Moisture Regime
_
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions
_
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors
_
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: jl,t � �d'@ prc°9?47�
e
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No
Hydric Soils Present? es No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Qes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: STEE-G,5 C2 P915►< PUMP'
t=C-P(.ACGiV)5 ,J_;_
Date:
Applicant/Owner: �3 P10 W N F C A Lf VJ Ir LL
County:
Investigator: _'.J �'?'
State: ! I
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site?
Yes -) No_
Community ID: F5S P
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Yes �No {
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Yes ;; "No" ,
Plot ID: =-
(if needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Le ped eZ!! Guri�a � 1
2.% yfe_vn,'6,q �.�p'�
3. V1G1G Y1S���0. Y��,`{Qr�I� U1 t!
4.
Dominant Plant Species
9. -
10.
11.
12.
5. 13.
6. _ _ 14.
7. 15,
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC -). d
Remarks: �'� gtr �°`-�N �'I C1 n �') Y" :5 ,06 t
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
7t& No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: , M (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: b (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Stratum Indicator
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water- Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC - Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: �I,jG,AYte 1��%�L�t,r� IS Yla1Y.�a r

SOILS
FL
Map Unit Name M O mold oGg �
(Series and Phase):
Drainage Class: S p
Taxonomy (Subgroup): -A erm(C T1L/C dC V f i G Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon Munsell Moist (Munsell Moist)
Abundance /Contrast Structure. etc.
PC 1 o '-1 %` - ±- (o
' L Loh►
P
5lz WK 518
c -' ct,4)1 LvAM
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _
Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _
High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors ^
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: \, rte' QrF+t�lj G�'i i'DD± }r'i'�'��Gl^
10 Upper �Zll
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 6,yot' (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes �, No jj
Hydric Soils Present? Yes { N�
Remarks:
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Approved by HQUSACE 3192

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: STS eKC- E,k °ptI:� ,.y, <t t s T Date: 2�
Applicant/Owner: T3Rf>XkK' County: MECKLenI &IPL'?
4�vestigator: -J,014 - 5 o a G E H A R, F State: N C
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? Yes No _ Community ID: PFol A,
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes o Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (NP Plot ID: 5' -T I
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species
1. al wW S EA G W 9.
FAC lei 10.
3.C�
4. ro)UC3 °eodren ['gdrer w�. V FAC. 12.
5. 13_
6. — 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC YA
o ��
(excluding FAC -).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in. Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: �d� (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: f I (in.)
Remarks:
Stratum Indicator
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
X Drift Lines
". Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
X Water- Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC - Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)

SOILS
.11
Map Unit Name M O n o yl l , 'l�
(Series and Phase): `�'1� Drainage Class:
/- 1/
Taxonomy (Subgroup): l eYli1 � C l ll(VGI
f=ield Observations
�j dt Pn C U�roc h�etc Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist)
(Munsell Moist) Abundance /Contrast Structure, etc.
o -S At IbYK 411
S —I[p hz SIP, 3 3
2.S E, M G �y
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
Concretions
—_
_ Histic Epipedon
High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_&Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No
Hydric Soils Present? es No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: STz�F-L.E O-Ru GK -Pu M e-l' STA -.
Date:
Applicant/Owner: 5ROVJA1 r- GALb)AJ L-L ENGifAJ4 %cal''JAJ :1
-C7
County: MEGKL0,J810 ?4
Investigator: -J ate T SOT'- ' HA RF `:
State: N C -
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? es No
Community ID: -Pfd //4
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o
Plot ID: S_-P -,72-
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
% h,5 Y
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator
1.Azr llegtl Ndo
7-
FAG!J
2. PIS U15 �ccrdey�t�l,s
`�
-
3. ,f ryyyi 5e'oQyl�°
-U-IRU
cbJe .4 y*. d', (a (�4
4. i cI>X 1 T
% h,5 Y
FAC-
�. Lorti;oerei'
V
i
� G-
7
8.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC -).
Remarks:�4
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake7or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations: t
Depth of Surface Water: Iv b (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ��� (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil:
Dominant Plant Species
9.
10.
11.
12.
14.
15-
4/5 ::= 0 , !-3 n
T o
Stratum Indicator
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water - Stained Leaves,
Local Soil Survey. Data
FAC - Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
6 t
Remarks U �-� �� Y`t d ���! �FQq� ,r � �� ��� � reSeYI �

SOILS
.Tz
Map Unit Name At �1
(Series and Phase): Mb /MlO1�liI C �>7
Drainage Class: S p b
y� /
Taxonomy (Subgroup): hwrniG 7fu1�aga�'►'t��C
rbchrer: Field Observations
Gl j �5 Confirm Mapped Type? Yes( No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist)
(Munsell Moist) Abundance /Contrast Structure. etc.
0— p A- I ,5�� '
5 ►��1tiy C zl�� Loam
tl��e Z (oYr, 4
Hydric Soil Indicators: ;
_ Histosol
_ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Hid 'e' 5 p j/5
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes _� No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? l7es (Vo
Hydric Soils Present? Yes o
Remarks:
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No)
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 57EEL Cl?EEk �'Gi/v��' STAf, FEPLA f
Date: 2<j 4,, ;P171 L 20�
Applicant/Owner; 1P-0VQ l v
County: MFGICLE+�1T?ti�1l;
Investigator: ,.J 0 7
State: [rI G
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? Yes No
Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes 5o)
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Nod
Plot ID: SP -1- I
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
l�Ut"�
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
�I-n^diicator
1. 1 rv� �nU`j ►trJ; ��Gi►)t`G�i -I- i YCGKI
9.
2. L 141, mh4r- Soy rae it A" I r—Ac
10.
3.�IYhUS G�YYJGriCB��Q ��ACVt1
11.
4. Acer ne(yyk) o -5 r =AcV,,.o
X Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
5 Loy' Ge.y'q 0)MY14101 V FA
13._
_� Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
l�Ut"�
7. _
15.
8.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAG 4-
(excluding FAC -).
Remarks: �iy�� ^��at:,
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
Inundated
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
X Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations:
_� Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
l�Ut"�
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12°
j
_ Water- Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Local Soil Survey Data
�
FAC - Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
p
Remarks:3�i�f�t1► f)'!f ®���y �_i�°5 % °✓��

Ris]IC1
L1
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): MOYaCA�C�fi
Drainage Class: 5�D
`� (±C,t ! Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): y/ LN1Qi'�J"C UV i'�t✓'i� jGL►tfLr( o1/C'� Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Abundance /Contrast Structure, etc.
loyp
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _
Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _
High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: AiJ YiG. G5o IS n ``-±
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes . No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ess No
Hydric Soils Present? `_ es No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? +�Ye No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: S76EL,-'- GRCEK fu"P -57x),REPSACj5li41-T/+►T
Date: 29 fT l-d ZxGJ
Applicant/Owner: JE5Rov4M CAL t) VQ EJ.► -- c AJ6 1 tJ F-E PZJ e-'J
County: MECK tCjkJ Bi 1 C&
Investigator: HARP
State: N�
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? -Yes No
Community ID : :PF01
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
Plot ID: SP- Kz
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
-r rCC4-
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum
Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. ker- iU bru m
9.
z.jlivllris r;`c'nei,.
E,-
10.
Other
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-�°
4. L" q �1li ✓ 1 l� � ` -:34, j ►'jt "t !dpi {
4.
-r rCC4-
Water Marks
5. A- ey- oelytido 5
J AJ CN
13.
6. LI qM 4\ 1rUw 5410 ,JV— ��
14.
Y
mcle- okpiLYroi '(e?c-Vohs
FA
15.
1y
8. LO "'C�lrca 114j0pyu2� Y /
FAC —
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL,
FACW or FACE
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
(excluding FAC -).
Ir
Remarks: >�) �i!',P} (or
I C 1
r'
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
Inundated
Other
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations:
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: ���
(in.)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
6K\E
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Water- Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
ol b
Depth to Saturated Soil: !�'
(in.)
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:' j

Map Unit Name ��eGI�Ieyl bur
11 11
WD
(Series and Phase):
Drainage Class:
//
11 JJ__ / I/ 77� ludQ�f s Field Observations �.�
Taxonomy (Subgroup): " he' 'ml'e �l lBe P Confirm Mapped Type? Yes , No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon ,(Munsell Moistt 1 (Munsell Moist)
Abundance /Contrast Structure etc.
o -�S A 3/+
l�cQ Az Z'SYK //,e
-
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _
Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _
High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:yf
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present*?( Yes) No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? -Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Ye No
Remarks:

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: STC-61G eREEK P11A4P S7s4, 'REPLAi!tW E"T
Date: 2`) Ap rl 11 Z60IN
Applicant/Owner: BROOM f- CALbVUCI.J_
County: MECKL &NSu1 -,&
Investigator: __)044N7-, SOU L r IJ APP
State: /4
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? No
Community ID : PF61
_
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes CND
Plot ID: Sf- KI
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
FAGO
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum
Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Acer
FA
9.
2. Fr '1X1' AV �ennsy� var cg T
EA C_W
10.
ttll,I
3. QIY41hS lQMe�'ellM T-
`;'
FA- GVv
11.
FAGO
12.
5 GIJ J .elm wctldl
EACi-
13
6. �aad__l,(� t t�l ��i C� r'► ��1Li t C� �n S` }�J
FP, C
14.
7, C.G' J°�d aGi J raJ�O+'S 6C�
—
15.
8.
Depth to Saturated Soil: G1 (in.)
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
5 /
(excluding FAC -).
Remarks: �Ijrophlll&
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
Inundated
Other
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available
�K, Water Marks
Drift Lines
>' Sediment Deposits
Field'Observations:
T Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
..,."�.
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth�of Surface Water: N (in.)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
b`
Water- Stained Leaves
DepthJo Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Local Soil Survey Data
Q
FAC- Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: G1 (in.)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: V.16flaod �'�l° 1 S

SOILS
K)
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): f� D l "�evloC '1✓t Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup):, 1Gry7iG � U1(g9UeJ1&d rufrb --h � h
Confirm Mapped Type. Ye o
Profile Description:
Depth
inches Horizon
Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle
Abundance /Contrast
Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
01
Lr; 'q VC's
I �Z
07
3 Z
fAA-KI'l Flat: E'661S
1�,LKITS
1b -15
.s_,
toy
�sv��
�,
5,=�►� �� La
2/O
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:�OtrlG
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?(_Yes� No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? es� No
Hydric Soils Present? es) No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? CD No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
ra

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: STEEGc- C1eEEK POAAP
STA K PLACE MENIT
Date: Z� Af iL Z60S
Applicant/Owner: aPDW 9 :� eJ LbV1, ~L1L
EC'i~ I r'6
County: h/jGC�'-tENSuR'c-7
Investigator: ,) D O 7 S 7.77, " 6
'. p�
State: T I C–
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site?
Yes No
Community ID: PFO t �
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es ,� NQ
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Yes No
Plot ID: sP- L Z
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
L o n clip VMI4A
—�� —�
FA �9_ -
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum
Indicator
Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator
1. �° �qG�G�� 1'uYr1 T
}' - AC11 —
9.
2. Gelb'S occ,dey)bll' 7
FACIJ
10.
3. I IIm A r
rt',GV1
11.
( I
4. 1'C��1 rids { t--/IlFY % I t(ohS"4n, T
F-A<_f W
12.
5. 7 cer V� eq if ni o S S
FAC_ ry
13.
L o n clip VMI4A
—�� —�
FA �9_ -
14.
7
15.
8.
+'
16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
3/� !
(excluding FAC -).
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Remarks: i"O P %le! ,i a -11,6 o
1,!5 Y? b
ti
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
Inundated
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations:
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
+'
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water:
(in.)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
'tt
Water- Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
ND��� (in.)
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC - Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil:
(in.)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: j
)
t
L
��
, t

SOILS
Lv
Map Unit Name p ec,k IeM�rr
p
(Series and Phase):
Drainage Class:
�/ ,
Taxonomy (Subgroup): LO/eonl C ( yle-
/'
pqp lud a l
Field Observations
f s Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon Munsell Moist
(Munsell Moist)
Abundance /Contrast Structure, etc.
0 -3 At 51K -f 3
t10M
Az- � � � LP
"_
G�L�gi LOAM
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
_
Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon
_
High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor
_
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime
_
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions
_
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors
_
Other (Explain in Remarks)
r �
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3192

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: STE�56C GReE 1�G/M ST4. REPLAOC- .ekc'. -MT
Date: 30 PtF rRIL Zoos
Applicant/Owner: t3p6vv►� c CAiLbV, C-L. Et361NIEFF-ft ,
County: M&KLC-KJ13QR(ti
Investigator: __-JOH&I '7_ -SoUC c� I -iAR {'
State: NCB
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? es No
Community ID : FFo I P
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es (N-0
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes
Plot ID: Sic'- T1
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
�')c' i @GPs
1'rc11S
7—
FACV %1—
9.
pp
2.I6I iP'4ea?AA
FAG
10.
++1e);&'q
3.U!h1IAS 001er!,�.e� r,6
F"ACNk/
11. -
4.�UYIli�ei'G15 VI r r 1 YLI ino
`r
rht a-
12.
S. �Y�Ct��o�;r�QE- Se``PfPnfravrQ1�5 T
LIPL
13.
6.ikefxtliif I 'e;/1�f2�%tryre4
«�'�
14.
f
7.T-11eA Glelclstitm'.
S/S
• "'
���1� -"
15.
s.Cm�un? SG'►n°Y1/iiE!?S
Y
FAC
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL,
FACW or FAC
YO P Q!
(excluding FAC -).
= Water-Stained Leaves
Remarks' J �O �i �t uGal1f
/'yT
i s _ ' r',;ct'ir
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
Inundated
Other
C Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
X No Recorded Data Available
C Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations:
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
%� E
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: >�6
(in.)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
1
= Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
(in.)
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC - Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: —(in.)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: �,�"1Gt>•� � fy°� ►`�� � �°,y`
� �
�' I r ".�'� a '�

Map Unit Name
Z rA rH�'
AA , +'
,��
I x ` Wt
(Series and Phase):
Drainage Class:
Term fc `TJ
Taxonomy (Subgroup): �1%
/ G [/� i l ( Field Observations
T[ !� (GdG cff —s Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist)
(Munsell Moist)
Abundance /Contrast Structure. etc.
Ai 5Y 5/1
Z51r-
Hydoil.. t�i�rs:
Histosol
_
Concretions
Histic Epipedon
_
High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions
_
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors
^
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: ,r
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No
Hydric Soils Present? es No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: STCEGE CPEEK 71 t4 I, f' zTP,
T'EPI 14eE m L :::-e T
Date: 30 Af R►L Zovg
Applicant/Owner: 3Pov.t R , g CAt -b1N ir' L t„ E-E r;') N 6
County: MfL K LEN 8Bu Q67
Investigator: —J O140 T SDULe 14AW
2iani'peois,, \6;! J f riarvk
State: IBC.
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site?
Yes No
Community ID: PFD l
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Yes o
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Yes o
Plot ID: 2-
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
��, { (,
6. 'i y),) �E`5 q'a trr be '"C►7p�`,4i r Gf /4 rAC- %1�
14.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
2iani'peois,, \6;! J f riarvk
l % G r
10.
3. Lr�USrgrE `��Y)�'V►
�JS AC.
11.
4. YY1do S!S YI1A "1105
V T �C-.
12.
/�
5.' �� OYet'l� �'Q'11�t4C..
�� "
13.
��, { (,
6. 'i y),) �E`5 q'a trr be '"C►7p�`,4i r Gf /4 rAC- %1�
14.
7.�0XICnQCY1G�V��i IG�GiIC�IIS F�G
15.
s. Govllcer-g LZ 'atv
V PAC, -
i 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are.OBL, FACW or FAC
'
(excluding FAC -).
V8 'ej-'IZ "Oki 1T5
oo
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: N6�C (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N or (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: ri [; (in.)
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water- Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC - Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: V�1( !' ►l �' c V. o Ji}` ��� i1���
F

SOILS
-r2-
Map Unit Name,
ZYr�
, d
(Series and Phase):
Drainage Class: jN
II__ Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): f heirml c Tio , C f 1) Al ' Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Abundance /Contrast Structure. etc.
LC--4F7
Q ,-1 0 51g- G ,5h -
!✓Q --)7-&"
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _
Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _
High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low- Chroma Colors _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: /�G SOs /s are- not
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 1 No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes o
Remarks:
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Approved by HOUSACE 3192

DATRA Fl"
4GUMINE W11MA1N115 &ETFEWM WIN
(i "T vows t'gw" mwk"g1
Project/Site: A 5t,�-i
Date: L11 MA I
County: NjrC;-'L.--1-1,J gG /C'G
Applicant/Owner: BROVitJ s-� CALDVJELL iEN6''IA;CEEFZ-tN 7
Investigator. _LO/fN T, 501416 / H AR11
State: IN C-
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? Y No
Community ID
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? es No
Plot ID: SP- u
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
No Recorded Data Available
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
2. �fg�, I�►¢o["0' N OBL
3.
4.
5.
7
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
s.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC -).
Remarks: JIy r J; �1
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
Inundated
Other
C Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations:
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
'[[
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: bN6
(in.)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12'
/"!o')E
Water- Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
(in.)
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC - Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil:
(in.)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
U1
Map Unit Name
Mom �
ST1b
(Series and Phase): -din
Drainage Class:
'7
Taxonomy (Subgroup): 3 °t l�d�f�' �IuVgy(64i'e,
// Field Observations
&ArO,2hreAts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes 09
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist)
(Munsell Moist)
Abundance /Contrast Structure etc.
L-5 D 1° K 5/1
°�- 13 AZ !vYI, 3 J,
Gluey coAm
! A_ 109- 9 9- Z
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
_
Concretions
Histic Epipedon
�_
_
High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy. Soils
Sulfidic Odor
_
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime
_
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions
_
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors
—Other
(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: �-4S are
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? i` Yes No
Remarks:
0
I S �orvYW-r (Z)C A,or1 0 S -Erect �v�� 1�/ � , I had dro,n pll ,!e :—,e to. cl re?4
1 nYj bed Ernie /Mr5 01-1111), ���3L ���',,�� i,y�,.�� �z� ^� 40

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 5TrE:L6 CRE r K PUr .4f- X71) , EPE.i #; .'r'�.t f:'hi'�'
Date: &/ lgtq Z�3
Applicant/Owner:FST?M14 i F GALIIII3 P� irl�Calt` �7t� �a
County: El(c°C .ehh(AV-
Investigator: _.10144,1 7. Sd01,6 6- HAR-P i
State: i7,
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? _Yes No
Community ID :pr—,m
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No -
Transect ID: -'
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No'
Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
Field Observations:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
_
1. on
Inundated
FACU
9
No Recorded Data Available
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
3. ���ov>� C� ��,rJi'cq
Field Observations:
�.i�L-
11.
4.
Depth of Surface Water: N� (in.)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
12.
5.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Local Soil Survey Data
13._
6.
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
14.
7.
15.
8.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
t/ = s ?�
(excluding FAC -).
Remarks: AI J I-0 D 1
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
Inundated
Other
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations:
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N� (in.)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
N CSI
Water- Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Local Soil Survey Data
�4bh4
FAC - Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Q�Y'D�
/

SOILS
L1 Z
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): r �' `� t "� �n�Cl#�Yi Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy ( Subgroup): C ���i YYIiG 7 IUII`A�la 't� / C Eu(rachrept Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance /Contrast Structure, etc.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
�Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors
CI-Al LO Avg
_I Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: iA I A o'c
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes - _ (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes o
t_ .
Remarks: �� �"j D r" V ✓1 c� Q ✓�� E' .
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

WESTHALL WETLAND DELINEATION AND DATA SHEETS

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 10 'J1JQ F_ Z Dd l Project: yJl✓TWILL PUMP atitude: 5.12 [ �101�75
GT T►OM C- UMtX-11"ETl
Evaluator: JoNi� SD L Site: Longitude: -86,0,9306876
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent �(Q County :G; [ Other
LL-
if a 19 or perennial if ? 30 e.g. Quad Name: F0 l [_j _
F
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=
Absent
Weals
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3
1 Sinuosity
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
0
0.5
2
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
2
5
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
9 a Natural levees
0
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
co
1
2
3
11. Grade controls
0
0.5
' 1
1.5
12. !Natural valley or drainageway
0
0.5
1 l'
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. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 4 - � )
14. Groundwater flow /discharge
21111
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
_..0
I-T- %..
C;i
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
5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?
No = 0
Yes - 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal
20b. Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21 °. Rooted plants in channel
3
2
1
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)
Q
0.5
1
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
0
1
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus.
0
0.5
1
'
1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed
FAG = 0.5; I=ACW = 0.7; `OBL 1.5 5AV = 2.0; Other= 0
items Zu and 21 Locus 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.)

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/ Site: WeS h011 puyP)0,411 'SfaIoh t�,!�l�,�Dl�,fan
Date: k JUQE. Zoo9
County: MECKLE-015 12-6
Applicant/ Owner: 13RoWM e C ALt W aL L_
Investigator: -J c>40 i SOULS (14Akp
State: f-4c. _
Primary Indicators:
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes_ No
Community ID:_ F0
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No__X^
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No._..___ZC
Plot ID: 5P-IA
(explain on reverse if needed)
Jae_ V4
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Me,- YZA b (-IA M
Primary Indicators:
�hG
9.
2. rax�KrtS a »0�, ►Ignic __
AC-W
10.
3.Zj hZ 5 Q*U0Geln4,
Jae_ V4
11.
4. CACS)t, t►- i' bu Ia;des
Pf
FACIN t-
12.
5. Ga,v,cer$ io rm'Ga
V
FAC—
13.
6.- melanopod�
�_
OBL
14.
14.
7.
Remarks:4i[e,�G+7d
15.
8.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC -). S =
Remarks: t Idr'op)46
Vejeb-Uon
Ia - rese,,, �
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Primary Indicators:
Other
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
�( No Recorded Data Available
Water Marks
A Drift Lines
Field Observations:
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (iu.)
Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water - Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
FAC - Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:4i[e,�G+7d
SOILS

Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Tr 8 Trade J) , f
rr Drainage Class: �VV
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ` 4�1'rvu G� G Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No_x
Profile_ Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon Munsell_Moistl Munsell Moist Abundance /Contrast Structure etc.
® -1 Ai 6 D Y 2 3 -� --- ---- e t?
4 =`z— Z."*( —5/ D.5� 4/4
Hydric Soil Indicators:
H istosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: 1
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes —y—
Remarks:
No Is the Sampling Point
No Within a Wetland? Yes No
No

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/ Site: UVQAa1.) Pi ��lc sin fl0 7 �14'e rnr3� Cori
Date: JO OE 2abg
County: MECkCe- OBM26'
State: mc,
Applicant/ Owner: igR&OM G4L W-0L[,
Investigator: JoP J T 50UL8 AR
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes�C No
Community ID: PF6
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No____
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No
Transect ID:
Plot ID: 5S P- i
(explain on reverse if needed)
3. eor rabr"vvi ;
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
c bl
9.
2. L,' u 1' ,- f
JUA I AC_ -f-
10.
3. eor rabr"vvi ;
C
11,
4. F4 w he 0 04- "S5r45
_FA
V& V rAC
12.
5._g2wfr azfi rJ 61 as
T_ f�
13.
6.
Secondary Indicators:
14.
7.
i
15.
8.
FAC - Neutral Test
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC -). `/ /5='80
Remarks: 6 od hranot R
77 -- '
Remarks: ! j� �b��a� irk,
�
�%Gq A 6 � � Pfe- 5e"
1
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Primary Indicators:
Other
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations:
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0IJ45 (in.)
Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water- Stained Leaves
i
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil (in.)
FAC - Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: 6 od hranot R
77 -- '
*904.1

Map Unit Name 5�,� �rec�e,Il
(Series and Phase):
Drainage Class b
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Iherr yua �I1G
i
� �a'p I-� � Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ NO
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance /Contrast tructure, etc.
®- C7 , 5!E
�S_
Y�OOS . leafbri3
�-
by iz
-- -- -- C- a Ion
`-- rile A 7 _
Hydric Soil indicators:
Histosol
Concretions
Histic Epipedon
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime
Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low- Chroma Colors
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: d l','U '50A eve, nod'
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Remarks:
No Is the Sampling Point
No Within a Wetland? Yes_ No-�—<
No
x

Stream Data Sheets
Brown AND Caldwell

I USACE AID#
Grf,55i+i l it I
DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
M-1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:J5r6v1n � COW Well &rf' eOrr rq 2. Evaluator's name: J b h r) 7 S a u te/
3. Date of evaluation- lb PFIC 2 Cos 4. Time of evaluation: O
5. Name of stream: -E5;f�°! e_ 6. River basin: Lcm e r Nla o 3056163
7. Approximate drainage area: CD. '1f U 5 8. Stream order: z Ad,
00 41 1 meclk 16,Y1 burl
9. Length of reach evaluated: 4' 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal
al degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): 14
Latitude (ex. 34.872312). 3 5, 10 T T Longitude (ex. — 77.556611): — 60 • 53 g 2
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other r PT M ILL QUAb
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note n roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): S67YU A!' S8W ef- Fbr?, Nisi+ n
IF
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Z�I&q►_
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: LP 5 aC`
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: l q.5 % Residential S % Commercial (0 b % Industrial — % Agricultural
22. Bankfull width
Z,D
I T r- % Forested -~-- % Cleared / Logged -- % Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): S
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2 1/o) Gentle (2 to 4 1/o) Moderate (4 to 10 %) Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: 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): b ` Comments:
Evaluator's Signature 3I� _ Date i5 1),5c-
This channel evaluation form i 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.

G -/
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
ECOREGIO T
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 — 5
0 4
0-5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0 - 4
0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
Q
Uno
discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
0*
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
Z
a'
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
Q
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
(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 points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
3
>0
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
F-4
13
13
of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
L�
a
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
H
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle - pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0 5
0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
-
S
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
Z
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points
mod'
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
x
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA *
0-4
0 - 4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
J
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points
U►
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points
*4
O
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
(�
�no
evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 7 G pC,B Project:
IN iio1�1 K� P�ACENA ��l Latitude: J E). D 4-T
1
Evaluator: _j a) � , �� �U le OAT Site: G�������� � ��
3
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_ 19 or perennial if ? 30
County:
r
E Cf� �YT �Llt`
0
Other
e.g. Quad Name: FDf�'r (►/� J ��,
ILL-
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= (J )
Absent
Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
r 1.5
2
0
3
2. Sinuosity
1
0
No = 0
1
1
2
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
3
3. In- channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
1
0
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
1 _
1
2
3
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0.5
0
1
I FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0(, Other = 0
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
9 a Natural levees
0
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
11. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0
0.5
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
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = I
14. Groundwater flow /discharge
0
1
2 1
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
0
1
2
0
16. Leaflitter
1.5
1
0.5
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
r 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
0.5
1
1
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?
No = 0
YQs = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = ? )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
2lb. Rooted plants in channel
CdD
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
(-0.5D
1
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
0
1
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus.
( 0
0.5
1
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed
I FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0(, Other = 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.)

Photo 1. Stream Crossing No. 1, Steele Creek, looking upstream toward Carowinds Blvd., SR 1441
Photo 2. Stream Crossing No. 1, Steele Creek, looking upstream above Carowinds Blvd., SR 1441

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
IM-1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: r I
1. Applicant's name:15,1bwn ; ��? ��w�° i �vgja aeeri`yi1 2. Evaluator's name:.����'�1 7 5 L AW'
3. Date of evaluation: f� � � 2608 I 4. Time of evaluation: 14: 50
5. Name of stream: U ! -t,, Sf e d e 6reck 6. River basin: L O aVEP, CATAW Bq. 4 M 305010-5
7. Approximate drainage area:
pp g 2 0 1,:2. 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 5 do I 10. County: m: CK L F-1I B UFZ G
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): MA
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): s 1 Longitude (ex. — 77.556611): —p • `� �J3 ��
Method location determined (circle): GPS T�near t Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other F.5Rr MILL QIJAL
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): �s,4mr'ARY S,5W QF, FORCE: MAI
15. Recent weather conditions: b6— 4 561D► A 1-- 41 C PT P OA
16. Site conditions at time of visit: G L &42 ; 4j GIN N
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 _Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
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 S 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial `° % Agricultural
1 1 % Forested % Cleared / Logged 65% Other (Th C-M E PA R k e-AM P OIn eh a l
22. Bankfull width: + 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) XGentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: 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. T he 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): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 2111j �� 2G❑
This channel evaluation formfs 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 etreaam
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this forth is subject to USACE approval and does :tut imp-by a
irr'3i'ii�iiaiii [Filil�Fiti�iu iriZl% Of" i "�'q's3iis ^i3Eirit. 1'L3ri11 SfilJji:i:T iCt ::17csnb� — v2r91iiii :iG!03, itJ Ct:iilnlC:nt, plCciSc; call �i�} -� f{i -b'�l ii �i3.

-Z-
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGIO INT RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
— 4
0-5
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 — 5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0 - 4
0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max oints
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
,.�
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
Uno
discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 -4
0 -4
0 -2
O
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain =max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0 — 4
0-2
D
p'
deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0 - 4
0-2
l3
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0 - 4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive deposition— 0; little or no sediment = max points)
I I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
.t
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
-3
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
S
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
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
0 — 4
0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle - pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
L{
no riffles/ripples les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
F
17
Habitat complexity
Habitat
0-6
0 — 6
0-6
or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
l
>4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
C
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
0
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
r
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Cr�EEkPUV))1'� 35, lots 33 3
Dater D�� �b�$ Project :STW" WA �PCACIEMt;N Latitude:
Evaluator: _jp�y T ��LE�Site: ^ra���n Longitude:
5 u T +o T E�� ciz; F �
Total Points:
v: hI fULEIjBuRC other
Stream is at least intermittent Z Count 1 e.g. Quad Name: F6 P
if >_ 19 or perennial if 2:30 Z ' 5 T ! LL_
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Str
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
2p
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
ro
1
2
3
9 a Natural levees
FAC =_0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; ' ther = 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 _o
Yes = 3
- Man -made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Hvdrolonv (Siihtotal = q 1
14. Groundwater flow /discharge
0
1_ )
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
0
1
J
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 = 5, 5
)
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
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
1
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
1
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria /fungus.
0
0.5
1
1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed
FAC =_0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; ' ther = 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.)

Photo 3. Stream Crossing No. 2, UT #1 to Steele Creek, looking upstream
Photo 4. Stream Crossing No. 2, UT #1 to Steele Creek, looking downstream

USACE AID#
DWQ #.
CieaSS1►�I(� �' �
Site # (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -Jop
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: I '
1. Applicant's name:'Br6tMh i�Vvei� fn7 $ iGer +nq 2. Evaluator's name: -J0gfJ (, SPU 6 6 (c 1,1. E
3. Date of evaluation: Cat MAC 2'005
5. Name of stream: IJ 7* Z -tD 5-rLvEGE CP E6 K
7. Approximate drainage area: 6
9. Length of reach evaluated: Zto-o
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
4. Time of evaluation: 11 . 56
6. River basin: Z O VJ 6F'.. C4TAW B A fo tki C ' 36 S 4D
8. Stream order: 5t
10. County: Ma)Q-6h18 ut~47
12. Subdivision name (if any): NA
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3 5. 10 Co 0 3'� -�- Longitude (ex. - 77.556611): - 49 0, It I Is T5 I
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS her GI Other iCkiel�ire1 CD. i�f�L►��I
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attac�entifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): S1►.t • 04 S6
15. Recent weather conditions: �L�q le , YjI M
16. Site conditions at time of visit: QVE(ZCr?ST
"o 814114
M1A)M
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
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? YE `NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial - % Agricultural
% Forested - % Cleared / Logged 5 % Other (A m � voeo f
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): ''
I -- e.91
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) X Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 1/6) _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): 15 1 Comments:
Evaluator's Signa l Date Of MAY FW3
This channel evaluation for +s intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data require 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.

e --5
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGIO RQINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0 — 4
0-5
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 po inis
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
0--*
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0 — 4
0-2
]
a
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0 - 4
0-2
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
�!
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
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 points
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
[1
,>0
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
F,
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
I S
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 4
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
—
0-5
16
Presence of riffle- pool /ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
no riffles /ripples or pools = 0; well - developed = max points)
1
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 — 6
0-6
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 5
0-5
x
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canoe = max points)
—
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 — 4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
>4
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
C_7
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 — 4
0-4
Q
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points)
Evidence of wildlife use
~'
23
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
0-6
0 — 5
0-5
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
,
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

c- -f�5
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
V Q SvEEILC dRSEk.. 'PUMP Latitude: 35� 16 (� 0 3--`4
Date: ©� MAY 1 [y �j Project:57Wn br-1 EKPA04SIOM
Evaluator: j}j� ��(� j Site: G Ro5S ltJe3 3
41_ :O�Z io 5fe'dg_ 6,e e k Longitude:j3,
�),J f
Total Points: County: ���) ot4 Other
Stream is at least intermittent ` � � Court r?A'3
if? 19 or perennial if ;> 30 e.g. Quad Name: T 6RT M I LL�
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= { G' )
Absent
Weak.
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
0
2. Sinuosity
L-0-75
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: riffle-pool sequence
0
1
1
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
1
3
5. Active /relic floodplain
(L 0 )
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0,_
1
2
3
7. Braided channel
0
1
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
. Cam-
1
2
3
9 a Natural levees
0
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
0
1
2
' L3
11. Grade controls !
0
0.5
1
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0
1
1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No DO
Yes = 3
- Man -made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
r
B Hvdroloav (Subtotal = r5 1
14. Groundwater flow /discharge
0
1
2 )
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
0
1
2
0
16. Leaflitter
1.5
1
0.5
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0.
1
1
1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
CO .5
1
1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?
No = 0
`Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = { )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21b. Rooted plants in channel
$ D
2
1
0
22. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Bivalves
0
1
2
3
24. Fish
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
C-0-D
1
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria /fungus.
e-n-ED
0.5
1
1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2. Other = 0
- Items 20 and 21 tocus 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.)
� 4
'U ra yl 5

r ,}
Photo 5. Stream Crossing No. 3, UT #2 to Steele Creek, looking upstream
Photo 6. Stream Crossing No. 3, UT #2 to Steele Creek, looking downstream
s -
�
� A�1, �. � - ' Via. ':a•� .14 -: -" =
r ,}
Photo 5. Stream Crossing No. 3, UT #2 to Steele Creek, looking upstream
Photo 6. Stream Crossing No. 3, UT #2 to Steele Creek, looking downstream

USACE AID #.
DWQ #.
�K47S5lI�Ca
Site # (indicate on attached map)
Ful STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: ��'�`Nn ��'N�f Yl�rYl�r?l�tv1r{ 2. Evaluator's name:. &4tJ 7 SOUL E (+1,4 zp
3. Date of evaluation: 01 �� �0�9 4. Time of evaluation: • � '
5. Name of stream: 1 `r# 3 fo 579E4 F- C1V0-:,_ 6. River basin: Z 0 iNF-/�-' C ATAWBA, Wle : 3 0 b a 10 �
7. Approximate drainage area: 7-5 OCr-CS 8. Stream order: S-
9. Length of reach evaluated: 150, 10. County: NECK- BUK6
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): —O ,�\ �,
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): -5 5 G , L Old i t Longitude (ex. — 77.556611): r Q. 1:J> 4 Z 2 {J 0
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS her GIS Other MECK [-mil 811 R6 CD, P ZAR; S
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attac map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): J` A iJ ITA R J t" a 1ZCE r,A A 1 F�
15. Recent weather conditions: C C EA R , W AM%N t4 b R A 10
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 6VC-R G A ST
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES elf yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 6D 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial —% Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested -- % Cleared / Logged Q5 % Other (1�1riu5pa wY4 Far )
22. Bankfull width: t 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2 '- It !
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) Jt Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: 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): �e�- Comments: ID ro �
Evaluator's Signature Aw Date C)11 MAY Odd 15
This channel evaluation form 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.
k

r,'k
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGJO. NT0RTT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 — 5
0-4
0 - 5
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max poi nts
Y
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0 — 4
0-5
-=
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
Uno
discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0 - 4
0-2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0 — 4
0-2
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
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 points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
CA
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 — 6
0-6
or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
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)
20
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types =max points)
0 -4
0 -5
0 -5,
L7
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
C
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
'4
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 — 4
0-4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points)
op
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 — 5
0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
L(+2
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 6>1 MAI 2606 j TA -ro E P
l Q At,4g b j Latitude:
Evaluator: JC}j`� j (] (i Site: cIZU55lI�1G`j Longitude: _ T
UT 4t 3 fo STELE CRk 9 `Z. `3 O
Total Points: ty /�4pjJeYtID Wr7 Other
Stream is at least intermittent Coun
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30 e.g. Quad Name: F02T 1,A )LA,
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
SjvoAa
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 0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
C75
2
3
7. Braided channel
0
1
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
9 a Natural levees
_ 0
1
2
3
10. adcuts
0
1
2
3
11. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0
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 Hwirolonv (Suhtntal
14. Groundwater flow /discharge
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season
0
1
2
r� 3
16. Leaflitter
1.5
ell D
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
C Yes = 1.5
C. Biolociv (Subtotal = &'?, 'S )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
2lb. Rooted plants in channel
3
2-
1
0
22. Crayfish
0
0.5
1 D
1.5
23. Bivalve's _
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
�. OJ
1
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus.
0
0.5
1
1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; QtKer = 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.)

• Y�.i
a"F •:
y 9
31
:r _.:
Photo 7. Stream Crossing No. 4, UT #3 to Steele Creek, looking upstream
"I
Photo 8. Stream Crossing No. 4, UT #3 to Steele Creek, looking downstream

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) WT 41
M ­J STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET - crossing
#5
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: brbuyl and COLO Well 2. Evaluator's name: _JDP J T 50016 (1' -A K P)
� r
3. Date of evaluation: �� �2 4. Time of evaluation: !Ipvl
5. Name of stream: OT (' to 1 l D u Ih_ Brt"Ch 6, giver basin: LbWr =� �
-n � A Ant, 5050106
7. Approximate drainage a rea: AG , D 8. Stream order: 9 ��
9. Length of reach evaluated: 3l]d 10. County: 16 R K-
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
3 5.16 2 f +,f -55 b� Longitude (ex. - 77.556611): _00, 4- Z Z 3-2 8
Method location determined (circle): GPS
13. Location of E reacN under evaluation
at
l \AGI} �LOV -4S
Topo. Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other CIS her
ote.nearby roads and landmarks and attach map iden6Ving stream(s) location):
Jti57" Siny-rfi 0-- tqC -SC STATE Llk4E, AecESS FRAM GNb O
RIM6Nit_L FARM ROAD.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): f'&POE MA i ki 9 P -EK L) xiE
15. Recent weather conditions: C ��
16. Site conditions at time of visit: �L
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
_Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES elf yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? Y NO
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
7- % Commercial A% Industrial 0/4 Agricultural
1 % Forested
e% Cleared / Logged % Other (
22. Bankfiill width: FT uwl zd -gy. r
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 4 V
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2 1/6)
Gentle (2 to 4" /o) Moderate (4 to 10 1/o) _Steep (>10° /n)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends
Frequent meander very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by detem-iining 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): 8 Commen
Ct.1f rizbm pox 0 "Iy I!T u146ER I -4-7 F
nPrl CAAMAJraL_ WJITH- DE-5RIS RACKS FOP-
;M#4_
31 w1 DIF WA
MPaUNAEb EV ECAV
.J
s: STRLAM c>NAS _IM A sTRA)641 CNAAAE L-
P, A5011T X50' 3 '. STR EA" 77+Ekl 5 E�C6M_E S
A56147- 3G,01 -AT JxW1._e14 Po►AJT IT 9fe-I i
L_ Fat- A50UT zoo'. AT 77W,5 PPJAI " 577Z' AAA IS
_y rt+eka- v4As A -PNJD UPSTRr=AsA ,8L4T NPT NOW
Evaluator's Signatu Date This channel evaluation form iyl in o be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required e 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 USAGE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06103. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

Crossing
#5
STREAM (QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION-POIN T
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow 1 persistent pools in stream
0— 5
D— 4
0— 5
0
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
y-
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
(no discharge — 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
..i
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 — 4
0-2
(no floodplain floodplain -- 0; extensive floodplain — max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0_ S
0— 4
0— 2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max -points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0— 4
0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0— 4
7
(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 points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
,r•
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
a
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
;Q
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
-
t/
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
(no riffles /ripples or pools = 0; well - developed = max points)
E
d
1
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 — 6
0-6
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats - max points)
P4
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
_J
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
1
20
Presence of strewn invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
(no evidence — 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Presence of amphibians
21
0-4
0-4
0-4
Q
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
W*
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 — 5
0-5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
A
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

Crossing
#5
NC Division of Water Quality - Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 OT # 1 -O W�441)oui k
Date: 14 pb
ProjectlSite:STEELL- GREek,
rarZc F_ M A/�
Latitude; �. DZ
3 4+4 313
Evaluator: _JD41 T, 56UL t" &R'T'�
County: ORK
Longitude: -8633 ZZ3Z
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if a 13 or perennial ff _- 30* Q�
Stream fDete na circle one)
Ephemeral ntermittent Perennial
Other
e_g. Quad Name: f-t)PT M I L
c
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
(, Z
3
2, Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
/�
1 !�
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5 l
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
-- 0.5
(1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0 ?
Yes = 3
artlilcial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal •�___) !
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
X0.5 `
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
'=_05
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5�
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3 )
U. biology (Subtotal = 1:D ) - ? -•'' a ; , � �
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
!. 3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthas (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5 '
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
- 2
1.5
24, Amphibians
0
0.5
JD
-
1.5
25. Algae
r 0 _
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
.5 ther = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
i
Sketch: JAiIYA S e kw as
l,/�1�'1• "� "'
.
41

Crossing
#5
Photo 31. Stream Crossing No. 5, UT #1 to McCullough Branch, looking upstream
Photo 32. Stream Crossing No. 5, UT #1 to McCullough Branch, looking downstream

Photo 9. Stream Crossing No. 5, UT #1 to McCullough Branch, looking upstream
Photo 10. Stream Crossing No. 5, UT #1 to McCullough Branch, looking downstream

Lross 1 K16 4 LP
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
0211 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following it . Mation for the stream reach under assessment: —AQP
1. Applicant's name: Br-bco } Ca Ooeh Evtcj +r}e"", 2. Evaluator's name: J614tJ Z, 5001 -E , L HAPP
3. Date of evaluation: O t J -K� 2665 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: T # 2 LO M6 -u 11 D 46 1RA26. River basin: t-6kN t~ Z Cj -TAW 13 NUC % 5050103
7. Approximate drainage area: 5 QG 8. Stream order: i Lt
9. Length of reach evaluated: ©� 10. County: M Ef K L Ll-- Al $ NP6
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
35,0g54Q583
12. Subdivision name (if any): NA 1
Longitude (ex. – 77.556611): — 815-01 -513 Q e
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): � �i nl� r�►z S& W E-:1z fbrec- MAW
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -N)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? Y&_ESNO If yes, estimate the water surface area: J QC,.
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other (
22. Bankfull width: '0 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: V Flat (0 to 2 1/o) Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Vll�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): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature 0-� Date 063 Jk1J 96C)5
This channel evaluation form s 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.

G -1¢
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmo nt
Mountain
presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
1
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
v
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0 — 4
0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
Z
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
,.�
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
Uno
discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
�..
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0— 4
0— 4
0— 2
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
Z-
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max p oints
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0 — 4
0-2
3
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
Z
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive deposition— 0; little or no sediment = max oints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max
points)`
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 — 4
0-5
F
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0 5
0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max
-
points)•3
F-
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0; fr uent, varied habitats = max oints
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
x
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
Q
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
(�
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
cj
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
hate: ,C�'�, JRJ,� ZaC�5 ST14r � REpCge&MENT 35.��5Cp583
Project: Latitude:
�614A -r'3 jC, It l- U ✓ ssMC u 110u Z sm)z� to
Evaluator: Site: 1� (P Longitude: -
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent �y County: M EXLEiV BUK6 r
if >_ 19 or perennial if? 30 G e.g. Quad Name: r 0 f y�� r'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Str ng
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
0.5
2
3
7. Braided channel
D
1
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
4
1
2
3
9 a Natural levees
0
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
11. Grade controls
(20p
0.5
1
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainagewa .
0
X4.5
1
1.5
13. Second or greater order chap el on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
_
C�E_ 0
Y es = 3
Man -made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = `D )
14. Groundwater flow /discharge
0.
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growin season
�.
1
2
0
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
es = 1
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = (P •5 )
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.
0.5
1
1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0, Other = 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.)

Photo 11. Stream Crossing No. 6, UT #2 to McCullough Branch, looking upstream
Photo 12. Stream Crossing No. 6, UT #2 to McCullough Branch, looking downstream

USACE AID#
DWQ #_
(!2rDSS1M(:> 4 ri
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:b6orl (70OWe11 En kieeri 2. Evaluator's name: - o�l1 Soule < I
3. Date of evaluation: 8 P5C 4. Time of evaluation: 5
5. Name of stream: u7- 10 IACGU`l ELI Qh K4'G1'16 � � 6. River basin: Ltd Viler C1 14 W �tA 3 0 5d rb'S
7. Approximate drainage area: 3CD 8. Stream order: F sr
9. Length of reach evaluated: :2 O 6 10. County: M lem bu,
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): NA
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35, Longitude (ex. — 77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS (Top, Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other FOr"-T MIL -L 0144b
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): �JQ ► l t�7D1�" y S eWG'� r[� Malo
15. Recent weather
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
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? 0 NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
5'
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
Evaluator's Signatur7�
Date 65 p&-- 2666
This channel evaluation fog 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.
LEI �0
r 1
toA� 42 t {, 4►
I PAD

C.-q
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGIQNT4aIJNT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
}
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max poi nts
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 — 5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0 - 4
0-5
x
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max
points)
J
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 — 4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 — 4
0-4
no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 — 4
0-2
5
(no floodplain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0 - 4
0-2
i
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
1
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
�]
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
(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 points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 4
0-5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
-
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
Q
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 — 4
0-5
F—
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout =max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
r
16
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
Habitat
0 — 6
0 — 6
0 — 6
or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0— 5
0— 5
0— 5
l
,x
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
- �
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
�]
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
(�
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points
4
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 — 4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
Z-
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
45
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: c Project: �TEELE Ci2F1L_KA14wP itude: 7141tvS RePLAeelAbh ( 7_ (6J
`t
Evaluator: J6briT, fro NAB site: S � PF,,\ CV055//44 Longitude: 86 ,13 60(0
Total Points: r Other '
Stream is at least intermittent �% County: Meek I °t �i; burf
if >_ 19 or perennial if z 30 !� e.g. Quad Name: l�lj�i j LL
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = / t ' -' )
Absent
Weak
2
St ng
1a. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
_Moderate
2
3
2. Sinuosity
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
0
1
_
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
_
0
1
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?
3
5. Active /relic floodplain
0 )
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
_1
C2
3
7. Braided channel
r 0
1
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
9 a Natural levees
10. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
0
1
2
3
11. Grade controls
0.5
1
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0 0.5
No = 0
/" 1
1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
Yes = 3
"Man -made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = Ce,5 )
14. Groundwater flow /discharge
0
0
1
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season
2 .1
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 '_
ryes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = �e 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel
2
1
0
21b. Rooted plants in channel
3
2
1
0
22. Crayfish
CDO
0.5
1
1.5
23. Bivalves
C 0
1
2
3
24. Fish
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.
C CO-)
0.5
1
1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; ,Other = 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.)

Photo 13. Stream Crossing No. 7, UT #3 to McCullough Branch, looking upstream
Photo 14. Stream Crossing No. 7, UT #3 to McCullough Branch, looking downstream

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
0 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: f3Y6 wn G4141l dell Eno i'yee- nq
3. Date of evaluation:G
5. Name of stream: ' °lr^i�Gl I ouiY1 Oro
7. Approximate drainage area: 2 :59 ✓yuk
9. Length of reach evaluated: 06
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3 S • O 1J0` (.p,�) I-
2. Evaluator's name: --J d 4'u r 56 U LE , OAR P
4. Time of evaluation: I C-V aD
6. River basin: Lvo�voe� Ca�r�u1 bd M pipe -. -. 30 se) !03 8.
G
8. Stream order: ,n d
10. County: N�e� bury
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. —77.556611): a 80 •"3084 ZZL
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other F-d� A MLL Q�11b
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note n roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): S OYU 4q r-;f W z° f RorCE �•! P�1
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 _Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? (&) NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: ( tQ dc-
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? SNO
21. Estimated watershed land use: <0 % Residential -�) % Commercial 02 % Industrial 14' % Agricultural
t t rat' %Forested 4% Cleared / Logged (� % Other (
I �
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): '
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2 1/o) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: 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): Is e- Comments: Aboc, l yD, 6f �s'LTf15Ci��G
Evaluator's Signature
Date 6 v6c z D$
�y
This channel evaluation form ' 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.

s
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREG RANGE
T
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
'
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
`z
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max poi nts
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points
-4
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 - 4
0-4
U
no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0— 4
0— 4
0— 2
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0 — 4
0 — 2
p'
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0 — 4
0-2
(�
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0 — 4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max. oints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
Z
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence . of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
�
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
F*
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
Q
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 — 4
0-5
J
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points
.
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max oints
16
Presence of riffle - pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
e�
1
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 — 6
0-6
F
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Pq
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
x
no shading vegetation ° 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA
0-4
0 - 4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
l
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
'
O
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 — 5
0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: f)-E6 �OCj45 Project: STeeLE G� EK PUmLatitud e:
SMT/bP RrzPtA 5MEAJ
Evaluator: J�j� r�� Site: GC�' �� Longitude: - 86'988L1
�
6T!E'�!g a_�tje' * P
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: McCk ten 8 ur f ��kT p 1 LL
if >_ 19 or perennial if? 30 e.g. Quad Name: FYI
r R
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
1
Moderate
2
2
Str ng
3
1a. Continuous bed and bank
0
2. Sinuosity
0
1
3
3. In- channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
0
1
1
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0
2
3
3
3
5. Active /relic floodplain
0
1
1
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
7. Braided channel
0
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0.5
2
_
3
9 a Natural levees
c 0
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
' 0
1
2
3
11. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0
0.5
1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or MRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
(:]�es = 3
a Man -made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrolociv (Subtotal
14. Groundwater flow /discharge
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
0
1
2
0
16. Leaflitter
1.5
1
__
l 0.5
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
'P-5 2
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. Biologv (Subtotal =1S )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21b. Rooted plants in channel
3
2
1
0
22. Crayfish
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.
0.5
1
_� 5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2. Other = 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.)

Photo 15. Stream Crossing No. 8, McCullough Branch, looking upstream
Photo 16. Stream Crossing No. 8, McCullough Branch, looking downstream

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -AQP
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: gra WVI f da !A' l) 1 ! V}fC11 "7 2. Evaluator's name: -_/ Q �W T 5DuGEE 14 A P'- P
3. Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation: / 51 be)
5. Name of stream: 00 I JP Sliqlr C�0551'00 4 Z 6. River basin: L 6 0 7- 'R C)+TAUJ 54, !-R UC t JCSCj b 1 O �
7. Approximate drainage area: -3 8 ae 8. Stream order: st
9. Length of reach evaluated: 5C30 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer iin decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): N A
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): -5 5, D S 1- f l � I Longitude (ex. - 77.556611): — v ,CAim -
Method location determined (circle): GPS �nar et Ortho (Aeral) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other FORT MILL- Q l A a
13. Location of reach under evaluation (notads
and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): J p u ITARY 5 E W Ek FbizC l- M 1t 1
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit: C)U gree AST
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (1 -IV}
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YE. NO If yes, estimate the water sm face area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20_ Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE ND
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential 3!5 % Commercial 0% Industrial � _� % Agricultural
1 3 O % Forested 4_ % Cleared / Logged 0. % Other (-
22. BankfulI width:_ 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): �[ S
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2a /a Gentle (2 to 4 %) Moderate (4 to 10 %) Steep ( >10 %)
25, Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Y. Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by dctcrnl<ni_ng the mos! appropriate c_orczio_: buzu
location, terrain, vegetation, �• ..u::i classif=ication, etc. Every chsracteriistic must b-: scored using the sa =tea ccaregionn. 'Usign point-,
c - _ of the -:. --h u:1der evaluatiola. If a
_,nh _ - f
[- l-
��ii.��.• _ c a iii�3iS A.-My Coma Trs _sas£i3 zes8mc ii iiMMW i a3sesssm -ZAs of Stream
the data ii- ca D- the % -1'ruit i _rs.��., o k.-
fiSn ratio n re.C; i i i ril. m S'. v f. k'Qrin hlihic i Iii (ii cif r JC -- V _[r.C1 Qrl vn i1.7 i iii f_.f1Mn1,,!I.i 71;L_1 C is1 ii ^11 `I -9 f:;- _

G-`3
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGI T RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont :
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
Q
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 — 5
0-5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0 — 4
0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
04
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
Z
Uno
discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
H.,
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0 — 4
0-2
entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
_(deeply
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent 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
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
Z
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
3
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
S
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 — 4
0-5
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle- pool /ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
1
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 - 6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
PQ
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 5
0-5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
-
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
s
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
f
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
'
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
pq
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 — 5
0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: /8 bgG �nS Project: STS E c iZ C G k P tIm p Latitude. c , U
X35 � i :5TAf$bA Re'PIACE -AEM
Evaluator: J60�" ppt� A� Site:UT4 l 7b S06;4 -k 0-KIet-e-tongitude: - `86,43035
P :5T9'5 h4 GRasSi�G ##
Total Points: �. Other
Stream is at least intermittent - - County: N EGK LE B V C6 e.g. Quad Name: Ft)jp'T M) z „(
if > 19 or perennial if z 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
St ng
1a. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity
0
11-
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
'I
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
9 a Natural levees
0
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
(7-01)
1
2
3
11. Grade controls
0
c "0.5 .'
1
1
1.5
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0
0.5
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_ Hvdroloav (Subtotal = °T )
14. Groundwater flow /discharge 0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season
�1
[ " _ '
1
2
3
_
16. Leaflitter
1.5
1
65
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
'i
1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
0.5
1
1.
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?
No = 0
Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel
3 _
2
1
0
21b. Rooted plants in channel
3
2
1
0
22. Crayfish
0
0
1
1.5
23. Bivalves
C-1- )
1-
2
3
24. Fish
colb,
0.5
1
1.5
25. Amphibians
Oj
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
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed
FAC : 0:5; i FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 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.)

i
i
.ti,,� :fir..• -� °.�.
Photo 17. Stream Crossing No. 9, UT #1 to Sugar Creek, Crossing #1 looking upstream
Photo 18. Stream Crossing No. 9, UT #1 to Sugar Creek, Crossing #1 looking downstream

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site #_
Goss �� *JD
(indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -AW
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
I. Applicant's name:13r °fin 4 C��ciWef� ��Y1r3 2. Evaluator's name: -�oom i 'U�-, OARf
3. Date of evaluation: r' 8 MFG 2 4. Time of evaluation: .1!5 ■ 3 a
5. Name of stream: L # I To :5al AP- , C'rb55►'n j #71 6. River basin: 1-6 W I59 L►A7A1 BA/ 01c 365X10-6
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order:
'�GKL�I��UGr
9. Length of reach evaluated: � ao 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): �J A
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. — 77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS C--Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other FORT MILL Ot UAb
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): 'S AM 11A 5 C- V\I 1 -K FD>R C6 M A JK(
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit: O V E CAS`r
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluati
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
3 ° % Forested
22. Bankfull width:
_Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
:)n point? YES UIf yes, estimate the water surface area:
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
3g % Commercial �% Industrial 31 % Agricultural
�% Cleared / Logged 0% Other (
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): /,5
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2 1/6) Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends AFrequent 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): 5 Z Comments
Evaluator's Signature Date L0 1) F-,, 7t568
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required y 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.

c °1()
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGIO T
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max oints )
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0— 6
0— 5
0— 5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0 — 4
0-5
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 - 4
0-4
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
r-,
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 -4
0 -4
0 -2
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain =max points)
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0 - 4
0-2
77
a
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0 - 4
0-2
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0 — 4
0-3
y
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
(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 points
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
�H.
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
F,
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle -pool /ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
1
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 - 6
0-6
e/b
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
x
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
F 19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
�]
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max
points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
j2
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: /6 D�� G 668
Evaluator:Jt ,44 T, S&ILC jh
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent r>
if ? 19 or perennial if ? 30 G
M[ elp 659 ra",
Project: STE 5T4TIOM e'' PLACEM&J
Site: UT # I Tb 5U47-01 ft' C R 6-1!; ;
6TP!AM r iga IN6 -w ID
County: H ECkLE- 13UP6
Latitude: _5 1S , 01_) 1�5 Z G,
Longitude: _ S0, of 6) b S5 s ki
Other
e.g. Quad Name: F6gT- M) LL_
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = I )
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
Q3D
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Braided channel
0
1
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
9 a Natural levees
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
11. Grade controls
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 f0
Yes = 3
° Man -made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 1
14. Groundwater flow /discharge
0
2
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs 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
CID
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?
No = 0
Yes = 1.5
C. Biolow (Subtotal = )
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.
0 _
0.5
1
1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed
FAC 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 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.)
?G "P I

r.
' - _-
c°''San!C'�.�'a:�?..:"'"ir .'"97,
Photo 19. Stream Crossing No. 10, UT #1 to Sugar Creek, Crossing #2 looking upstream
;r - - �
�_.Y :I
Photo 20. Stream Crossing No. 10, UT #1 to Sugar Creek, Crossing #2 looking downstream

68655 «!4 * II
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -AQO
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
a
1. Applicant's name: �� °�"' ' �ti�I�. rI ►ri�1T i ncj 2. Evaluator's name: -Jbh n 7, 50 {e �'P
3. Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation: / 5 J J b L!
5. Name of stream: �JLi `1 Q� Cr✓° � � 6. River basin: L OVII er' e6 L 4 w aZ Hue-, '30 5610-6
7. Approximate drainage area: IP 8. Stream order: 5 L4
a k- l �
9. Length of reach evaluated: 4x 10. County: �'� °c,G �-
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): 1"`/A Latitude (ex. 34.872312): .3 S • ❑ � T { Z 2 z Longitude (ex. - 77.556611): — eo ' 60j -+ -% LP i
Method location determined (circle): GPS opo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other F0RT I411 QUAD
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): 5A" 1T)0rV 5 6 W 51Z F6keE AAA W
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit: n V EF1ZCA 5
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
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? YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential _% Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other (
22. Bankfull width: S fT- 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: i( Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) ^Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: 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
W cai�h _haractcristic t�ithin the range shown for the ccoregion. Pao;, 3 provides a brief description of IZow to reviciv the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. if a
characteristic cannot be evaluated date to sat- or weather corditions. craer 0 in the !icuiirw .brux �ndf providii a _ �.__ __..___��;? un Mw
[.. cbnxnent section_ 'vvlerc t:cEc :sc .'w:oUL, Uiang4s ,rG =`•l= arii a sEicar uidcr 17,�. Pnsiure
C2, �t l(j reSL)7 li-;C 0r 17 a T. S' 1i7r ti� =�1FL] :� _ .. _ -- -TSd :....;mod L:3 . __1'1;.StC t'.i.i:S?
;•J'riLli_ +_ilL: 1Utti! 'i ± -• "s:.:' _ . � .'.• � ;: _. -._.; 317a �. ; -_'� a}c',. .. ,. I ... _lir [. .. .. . :ililli� c! -.. i2iE i'! \Jl 1i ik:
Dtai Se- r e (s.' u _ - - �- awm all.
. erkig ibu da-aa f-tua w Rif a_ -- - - -- -
�ii:i ci =T _ F¢4i ivue�8 Sti�i =t s�seiia c:_ - .•. ..
parteiuisr auiiigation ratio or reyuiren.e._r
Date / 8 / '� — �Z 8
F
. 4 � v3d3 3� o gP.!lcia• [v E :1 [i s_eii \. ti F is [ix; liIICii iiii prtiiC --. wiv1[ _2, ;tx
=?' Army Corns €si -ng .eers iii Yliiilii✓ Y. j93`e lisii3 sir +i$.Y 3i.i- r.'i7i iii $tr iiri
� ¢
cas U3 -UL cfi0a r3v ax '¢iari i� rPve i2iipt} a
roi "Eli SEJUIt'ct Lo c ± ?aE2,�(_• — VoiSEOti vvili i ti CooLaic.[[e. P; cask: ca!a 9 19-3' /6-u44

sri�'eANI �Cl oss�o�ic, IV 11
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGIO RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
-J
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0 - 4
0-5
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 — 4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 — 4
0-4
3
d
(no discharge = 0; springs, s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
V..,
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0 — 4
0-2
p.,
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0 — 4
0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
Q
(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 points
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
j
y+
(dee ly incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
,F''
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
ai
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 — 4
0-5
F,
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
a_
`�'
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle- pool /ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well - developed = max points)
1
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 - 6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max oints)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
!
,x
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
(]
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)J
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
p
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date:. ! g 1) 6-, z66� Project: � TIOM RE_Pc� ��N atitude:
Evaluator�nS,u,�+ Site: 'I-UK G,re� i� Longitude: -60. 8gg (9 11
Total Points: r' ff Other ,
Stream is at least intermittent County: Mr ek IEY] bUr�1 Fps" M i�
if z 19 or perennial if> 30 1 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
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 i
2
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
2
3
5. Activelrelic 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
9 a Natural levees
0
1
_ 2
3�)
10. Headcuts
j 0
1
2
3
11. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
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 Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 1
14. Groundwater flow /discharge
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season
0
1
2
l f 3 i
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
CYes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = )
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
�
I
1.5
25. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
C 0.5�)
1
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
.0 =
1^
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus.
0.5
1
29b. Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0 -, Other = 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.)
r �

Photo 21. Stream Crossing No. 11, Sugar Creek, looking upstream
Photo 22. Stream Crossing No. 11, Sugar Creek, looking downstream

USACE AID#
DWQ#
cR ,6555144 # J2
Site # (indicate on attached map)
FE-0-1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: 15Pa w 4 4'a ld Weil �Ii9r K�eri�F7C1 2. Evaluator's name: .J0114 r S 0" le
HAP
3. Date of evaluation: pG �4a 8 ! 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: 0T 4 2 -t° '5Q j ,7>• Cfle6k 6. River basin: L owe r CbfaWhO, 14140: 30 50163
7. Approximate drainage area: 1 51) 8. Stream order: I �
9. Length of reach evaluated: 3 C)D 10. County: M e6 k 1e'n bgrq
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): N A
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): -5 5. 0918 e'P f f Longitude (ex- - 77.556611): 80, 8'3 CP--T T g
Method location determined (circle): GPS ' Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other FaRT MILL �iD
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): 5S Q n 1'4,3y cJ z° ,? r FD rte-
(�1� . 11
15. Recent weather conditi
16. Site conditions at time of visit: O ve- CGS
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
_Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _
Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -fV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO f 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 CNO
21. Estimated watershed land use: °r % Residential
% Commercial % Industrial 3 % Agricultural
% Forested
% Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
4
1
22. Bankfull width:
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2 1/o)
!Gentle (2 to 4 %) Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: A,, 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): S Commen
Evaluator's Signature C /./) Date / 0 DEC- 260(5
This channel evaluation form 0 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 USAGE approval and does riot imply a
e
Na• e 06/03. �r f n n. n o i n i
H`tsG'U!a[` Ii4L5gaL'iC/l1 (aLI(�D !�i° �ea'jui� °e :ll8ui. FOiIII subject to cltartge - version 1Q 1�61[Iliiet(t, please call 717-07V'0441 x 2V.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGIO INT RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont)
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 — 5
0 — 4
0 — 5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max oints
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
0
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max poi nts )
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0 - 4
0-5
�(
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
�j
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max
points)
f
,.�
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
Uno
discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
..
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 — 4
0-2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
+
a
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
(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
0
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive deposition— 0; little or no sediment = max oints
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max oints
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
>�
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
F*
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 — 4
0-5
j
E
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
4-
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle - pool /ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
e�
17
Habitat complexity
Habitat
0-6
0 — 6
0-6
or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
dam'
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
1
x
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 — 4
deep) embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
(}
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
L7
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
Z-
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
C
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
0
*0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page),
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

- (,,, p6 ss /gU 0-12
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
S7_96LC GRrtF V_Pury) p
Dater �] � c Project: 5 7 Ar%I o h( Rea p eeh**l � �f Latitude: �J Ci��eB
Evaluator: �p : 1 1 ��, i �" . } AP Site: uT Z � JC 1ca�,r [...Ir� Longitude: -Cam , 81(� 8
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: h �'y�
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30 7 4 Y e.g. Quad Name: F6,bT MILL-
-7:1 r
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= i z- )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
St r ng
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
1 0
1
2
3
7. Braided channel
0
1
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
(Dl,
1
2
3
9a Natural levees
O,j
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
(0J
1
2
3
11. Grade controls
0
431b
1
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0
0.5
1 5
1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No =
"� --
Yes = 3
"Man -made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B-gy (Subtotal = )
14. Groundwater flow /discharge 0 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season
0
1
2
3
16. Leaflitter
1.5
1
0.5
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
2
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. Biology (Subtotal = Lin
20b. Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel
3
2
1
0
22. Crayfish
1
1.5
23. Bivalves
0
1
2
3
24. Fish
CO-)
0.5
1
1.5
25. Amphibians
0 .
Ca5
1
1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
0.5
1
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
0n
1
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus.
E-QJ
0.5
1
1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV .0; Other = 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.)

Photo 23. Stream Crossing No. 12, UT #2 to Sugar Creek, looking upstream
Photo 24. Stream Crossing No. 12, UT #2 to Sugar Creek, looking downstream

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
M 11 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET }
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: r
1. Applicant's name:Br6toy1 C'clfc406.1) Fn9ttl_ er►14 2. Evaluator's name: - oh1 SjOU`E. , I- AKP
3. Date of evaluation: % `� D gG 2 6.0 g
5. Name of stream: L 1 le- 5 y 4a r Creek
7. Approximate drainage area: 4c3
9. Length of reach evaluated: d
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): -J e>, 0 8 E) S,f�) 1 4
4. Time of evaluation: l -n + 5
6. River basin: L ®WGr C q wba, 40C 305611 T,
8. Stream order: 5 tR
10. County: meekien
12. Subdivision name (if any):_
Longitude (ex. - 77.556611): -BO-88?-7028
Method location determined (circle): GPS To o Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other F�� %MILL Q UAL
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note near y roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): 563 Y14'10)ry Se°utlt°r rbrCe Main
15. Recent weather conditions:�iC'r�
16. Site conditions at time of visit: (w-Zn
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? (�g NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: I IF
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 % Industrial 4 % Agricultural
/ Z 0 % Forested % Cleared / Logged 150 % Other ( uRP-14'"0
22. Bankfull width: L' S 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): i a
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 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
teach. 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): 4-8 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature C- --� w I CA Date
This channel evaluation form is�fntended 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
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
ECOREGIOIy -POINT RANGE
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
�+
`1
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0 - 4
0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max poi nts)
a
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 - 4
0-4
7-
Uno
discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
*-0
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0- 4
0- 4
0- 2
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0 - 4
0-2
7-
a
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0 - 4
0-2
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0 - 4
0-3
Z
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
I
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
>�
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
F-4
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
►�
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
F,
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle - pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; welt—developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
,x
(no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
(j
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
(�
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints)
�Z
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
U
C
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
U
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
pq
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
7-
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) —F
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
-15
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

CJZ4551AJe;,
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: S-r�E[_ E Ct; EE lC. pUY�i
l� USG 's Project: 57wTi411 RCFYAeo 'EMEA1 atitude: 55,p8GG944-
Evaluator: JO}}yZT5pule 44A Site: L,' #le Sycjat- er-g4 Longitude: _ �p 88Z -f U2 8
Total Points: f Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Me,C k IP,o L 1 r9 T
if z 19 or perennial if? 30 17. J e.g. Quad Name: t% jYt irk
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = l )
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
Li
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
9 -_
1
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2 _
3
9 a 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. Hydrology (Subtotal = 10 •r` 1 35 G�
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
0
1
2
0
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. Biology (Subtotal = ) �P Z
20 . 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
C2
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
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.p Qther = 0
- Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional Holes.) Sketch:
C� _� �� l�

Photo 25. Stream Crossing No. 13, Little Sugar Creek, looking upstream
'ri
S. r
�. yr
Photo 26. Stream Crossing No. 13, Little Sugar Creek, looking downstream

USACE AID#
13
G905 1� r 0 6 k /t
DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:16rOWrl � eai4Wet( 4n/'11 eerioq 2. Evaluator's name: -� e-> � _ 1- S¢uie
3. Date of evaluation: ' Ar'd 266 4. Time of evaluation: -a d
5. Name of stream: u 1 to 41Ti IE 5 067AP- CffE< 6. River basin: L6WE eATAW EA, f u c_ ', 36 5 d l D �S
7. Approximate drainage area:
3- r' 5 8. Stream order: / S f
9. Length of reach evaluated: 300/ 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in /'decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any)-.—.' l
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. - 77.556611): `y 80, g1SZ T zl J_
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other I�ECis;L r<n1�u.e6 �'�• pCx�fl S
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attac ma identifying streams) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): 5AA1ITA kk rOR CE MAW
15. Recent weather conditions: CIOdj � &Jar "; �! �1 CIO a 1I
16. Site conditions at time of visit: L /ed 1-
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YE ONO yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (E) NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: =% Residential 166 % Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
— % Forested % Cleared / Logged — % Other
22. Bankfull width: 4 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: 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. J ) J
Total Score (from reverse). Comments: �A ttl S TOAI'a� 0 W6 L',nq_ Tl Qee' Ma a
P �a lnlC�S�n tJo C_ -oNt�%c,Tl 70 EL66DP44+ A8b� 1 V 3 STRAP
Evaluator's Signaturfv °�0 0't'• /�T 1101-1 Date e- a r,�rt ( r: ­ r- �
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.

r' f
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGI T
RANGE
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
t
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
no flow, or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0— 6
0— 5
0— 5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0— 6
0— 4
0— 5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer ° max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0—,5
0 — 4
0-4
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max oints
.a
5
Groundwater discharge `
0-3
0-4
0-4
'
Uno
discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints
�..,
rn
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 -4
0 -4
0 -2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints
Entrenchment / floodplain access
a
deep 1 entrenched.= 0; frequent flooding = max points)
0- 5
0— 4
0= 2
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0— 4
O-2
no wetlands = 0; large ad'acent wetlands = max p oints
9
Channel sinuosity
0 -5
0 -4
0 -3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0 — 4
0-4
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
i l
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA
0 — 4
0-5
Z
'
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0 -5
0 -4
0 -5
(deeply incised = -0; stable bed &banks =max points)
13
Presence
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - S
0-5
f-a
erosion =0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
. 14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0—.5
L-
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
UD
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max
0-5
points)
0 - 4
0-5
16
Presence of riffle - pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
J
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
e
17
Habitat complexity
_0 -6
0 -6
0 -6
Z
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
= =
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
�f
`T
x
no shading vegetation 0; continuous canopy max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA *
0-4
0 - 4
l
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0 -4
0 -5
0 -5
1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
I
21
Presence of amphibians
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
Q
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max po ints
'
D
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
�-
no evidence =.O; common, numerous es =max points)
HEvidence
23
of wildlife use
0-6
0 — 5
0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
y 7�F_LE -2 '�,T x PIMA
Date: ze Apr,i 2661 Project: T� E PI�NSiOtLi Latitude:�5
� G�dsSll� C -r
Evaluator:, 4)- rsoulp rj�A�" .Site: 117 1 4� L17iG L SGICry Longitude: ,-$D. �� ze)
Total Points: + Other
Stream is at least intermittent � C7 County: Me,-Ugoho
if ? 19 or perennial if > 30 a • �' 9 e.g. Quad Name: 1 PT iM I Lt-
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= )
Absent.
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank
1
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity
C-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
9 a Natural levees
0
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
(0 0
1
2
3
11. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0
0.5 1
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 = L 1
14. Groundwater flow /discharge 0
.--1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
0
1
23
1
16. Leaflitter
1.5
-
0.5
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
(65 )
1
1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
0.5
C10
1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?
No = 0
YeEc= 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal= /7' S 1
20b Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21b. Rooted plants in channel
3
2
1
0
22. Crayfish
70 "
0.5
1
1.5
23. Bivalves
0
1
2
3
24. Fish
0
0.5
Ci
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
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL ; 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
- Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
PP eF 150' ZIP RAP, � O ` �t�m I i&g, pJi6d
A DRoP ©r 3 t el t✓mIfL) by Sj4C-F_][ -PILE-

Photo 27. Stream Crossing No. 14, UT #1 to Little Sugar Creek, looking upstream
Photo 28. Stream Crossing No. 14, UT #1 to Little Sugar Creek, looking downstream

USACE AID#
DWQ # Site #
exbfs614( -7 4 Is
(indicate on attached map)
U-11 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: ratan �r 9YM►J9f°r5 2. Evaluator's name: J t� 7 Shut&
3. Date of evaluation: DEC- "2668 4. Time of evaluation: 13"30
5. Name of stream: (47'46 OTU & 5116 qK WEEK6. River basin:
Lo Wr-F, CATAW 15A, 06, 3050 10S
7. Approximate drainage area: a C- 8. Stream order: 1&r
9. Length of reach evaluated: IE�kU / 10. County: �A E-C k LVI�Z U K C7
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer �in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): NA
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): � 5 ° D8 3G15 a g Longitude (ex. - 77.556611): —a n • 8 g
Method location determined (circle): GPS opo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other R F-T M I LL- Q Q Ab
13. Location of reach under evaluation (n e near y roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): S All 1TI42y S 17ir-P, FoRce
15. Recent weather conditions: ©GCQSS '0y" a`"
16. Site conditions at time
�H
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known.' _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -N)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (H )f yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES O 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential 16 b % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged — % Other (
22. Bankfull width: :E1 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): •�
24. Channel slope down center of stream: 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 info smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate fora? used to - vOuate each
reach. The total score ;.assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 rerre- Enti;:g a - i_e - =- � the
//rr j
Total Scoree (.Mir[ reverse ): �.biaie�ae s: C h oYih$l
►T1� PUP ®n 1DWe�r S o r a-�-ei
�� jj�� \ j
bc>Wom c- 451ei�+$
x
jj
are f i o ed
5 /m o u� -1clte 45 ea►ver arld
I V"acl A ISCA
�'
•' ��
S s rya r►� r ro .:a at p/4 e
EvaIuatz='_ Signature.- d�1•C��_
-
'� "_. 2`5 DEG
20018
_-
-ii _.-
- -
- _ - - aUnited
5- the =ng r,y 3 tr r €r <' �; 'l° S „
?t=54
_ °_

�:- r 5
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGI NT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal '
Piedmont
Mountain
I
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points )
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0 — 4
0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
7—
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
Z,
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0 — 4
0-2
p'
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
D
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
q
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
1 I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
Q
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
Z
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
S
*4
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
Z
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
-f
16
Presence of riffle - pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
Z
(no riffles/ripples ples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points
I
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 - 6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
C�
,x
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA
0-4
0 — 4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
(�
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
(�
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
4
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 7,b Dee- Zba$ Project: �T'�eLE erre -, c nlrn)a
�5714Ti6M R _e?LwcJ;Mj fatitude:
Evaluator.J�� D ite: u7 -ID Z­'Ill e 614 P Longitude: _
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent �5 County: �, cklem btu Other
e.g. Quad Name:
MILL-
if ? 19 or perennial if ? 30 %1/I j
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ��'' )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Str n
1a. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
(__L2
1
2
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
2
3
5. Activeirelic 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
9 a Natural levees
0
_
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
11. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1
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 = �' 1
14. Groundwater flow /discharge
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs 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= 91 ) T
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
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)
0.5
1
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
0
1
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria /fungus.
0
0.5
1
1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed
_
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 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.)
1t ge4 wp 4b rs` - re+ { _ s, des 6
lc% �3
Ab btu boa ` a!w►y7j 61 I b � �
U1 106* 4

Photo 29. Stream Crossing No. 15, UT #2 to Little Sugar Creek, looking upstream
Photo 30. Stream Crossing No. 15, UT #2 to Little Sugar Creek, looking downstream

HABITAT
301 McCullough Drive, 4th Floor
Charlotte, NC 28262
ASSESSMENT AND Office: 704 -841 -2841
Fax: 704 - 841 -2447
RESTORATION _ _ email: info@ habitatassessment.com
PROGRAM, INC. -- - www.habitatassessment.com
Employee Owned
Biological Analysis - Steele Creek Pump Station and Force Main
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
The project includes a 16 acre pump station site and 36,000 if of force main (FM). The
existing pump station at the northwest corner of the junction of Steele Creek and Choate
Circle will be expanded. The force main will extend northeast, east and southeast to tie
into an existing gravity sewer main at Carolina Place Parkway /Carolina Place Mall.
Initial field work was conducted on October 6 -8, 2008, with a follow -up evaluation of an
upland depression swamp forest in May, 2009. Information on the species and
communities of concern was downloaded from the NC Natural Heritage Program
database for the Fort Mill and Weddington USGS quads. The Heritage Program reports
are included in this report. These data provided the basis for the field observations for
communities and species of concern reported below.
Using a projected corridor on aerial photographs and with a GPS unit as a guide, a team
of engineers, surveyors, biologists and wetland delineators traversed the general corridor
to determine the exact right -of -way for the FM. This allowed for adjustments to reflect
field conditions, which in turn reduced impacts to wetlands and allowed a better location
for stream crossings, particularly for the large streams. Parallel existing sewer rights -of-
way were used whenever possible to reduce forest impacts. The vegetation in the
general area of the project has been impacted by a long history of development in the
Charlotte - Pineville area, having been used in an agricultural context prior to the current
use for housing, commercial and industrial activities. Almost all of the forests in this
project occur in bottomland habitats which reflect prior agricultural use and in most
instances subsequent abandonment and secondary succession.
The expansion is located immediately west of the existing pump station. The entire area
has been impacted by the adjacent commercial development, with the site being a cleared
field now undergoing secondary succession. The dominant woody species are Red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana) 12 in. diameter breast height (dbh), Winged elm (Ulmus alata) 12
in. dbh and Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) 4 in. dbh. Other woody species include
Multiflora rose (Rosa multijlora) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
Herbaceous species include: Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), Brazilian vervain
(Verbena brasiliensis), Hyssopleaf eupatorium (Eupatorium hyssopifolium), Rabbit
tobacco (Gnaphalium obtusifolium), Eragrostis (Eragrostis pilosa), Redtop (Tidens
jlavus), Paspalum (Paspalum laeve) and Broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus).
The FM leaves the pump station and parallels, to the north, an existing sewer main. The
ROW will pass along the southern edge of successional, abandoned fields and the edge of
the floodplain. The upland woody species are densely compacted, consisting of
Sweetgum (Liquidambar styrac flua) 30 in. dbh, Red cedar 18 in. dbh, Mockernut
Stream and Wetland Delineation and Restoration • Habitat Analysis Invasive Species Management
Threatened and Endangered Species Studies • Mitigation Monitoring 404/401 Water Quality Permitting

hickory (Carya alba) 18 in. dbh, Winged elm 14 in. dbh, Green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica) 14 in. dbh, and Red oak (Quercus rubra) 10 in. dbh. In the floodplain,
the dominant species are Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) 23 in. dbh, American elm (U.
americana) 20 in. dbh, Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) 15 in. dbh, and Box elder (Acer
negundo) 12 in. dbh, and Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) 8 in. dbh. This type of
forest extends all the way to Carowinds Blvd., with varying amounts and densities of the
above trees, depending on conditions.
The FM will bore under a small tributary on the west side of the Blvd. at the junction
with Steele Creek, under Steele Creek and under Carowinds Blvd. exiting on the east side
of the Blvd. into the floodplain of Steele Creek along the south side of the creek. The FM
will parallel Steele Creek along the south side through a floodplain forest dominated by
Sycamore 22 in. dbh, Sweetgum 22 in. dbh, Cottonwood 18 in. dbh, Red maple (Acer
rubrum) 16 in. dbh, Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) 14 in. dbh, Green ash 13 in. dbh, and
American elm 10 in. dbh. The primary understory species is Giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), with a small amount of Spring silverberry (Elaeagnus umbellata). Progressing
eastward through the floodplain toward the developed part of Carowinds, the floodplain
supports the same species, with added species including Black walnut (Juglans nigra) 16
in. dbh, Black cherry (Prunus serotina) 16 in. dbh, and extensive patches of Autumn
silverberry (Elaeagnus pungens) intermixed with the Spring silverberry. Grass species
include Bottlebursh (Elymus hystrix) and Japanese -grass (Microstegium vimineum). The
FM crosses two unnamed tributaries (UT) and emerges into the open area of Carowinds,
passing through a disturbed upland woods of Mockemut hickory 14 in. dbh, Shagbark
hickory (C. ovata) 14 in. dbh, American elm 10 in. dbh, Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana)
10 in. dbh, and Red oak 10 in. dbh. The FM parallels the existing road through mowed
grass, staying just inside the North Carolina state line, crosses a berm on the Carowinds
property boundary and into a woods, where it turns southeast toward I -77.
The woodland is an abandoned field undergoing secondary succession. The dominant
tree is Red cedar 18 in. dbh, with an occasional Willow oak (Quercus phellos) 22 in. dbh,
Shortleaf pine (P. echinata) 16 in. dbh, Winged elm 8 in. dbh, Green ash 8 in. dbh,
Sugarberry 7 in. dbh., with virtually no shrub or understory species. At I -77 the FM turns
south, crossing into a grassed field, mixed with Blackberry (Rubus spp.), and Japanese
honeysuckle, and Verbesina ( Verbesina occidentalis).
The FM will bore under I -77 emerging into a Loblolly pine (P. taeda) forest with trees
averaging 16 in. dbh. It will parallel an existing creek which was piped under I -77 and
drains to the southeast toward the Martin Marietta quarry. Mixed with the Loblolly pines
are Sugarberry 12 in dbh, Sweetgum 7 in. dbh, Red maple 6 in. dbh, White ash 6 in. dbh,
Black cherry 5 in. dbh, with Spring silverberry, Japanese honeysuckle, and Poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans). At an existing power line ROW, where the FM will cross the
ROW, a wetland exists. Emerging from the wooded slope to the wetland, the dominant
species is Tag alder (Alnus serrulata), with reduced woody species under the power lines.
The species are a mixture of grasses and sedges, along with Camphorweed (Pluchea
camphorata). After crossing the power line, the FM passes along the east side of an
extensive wetland, the ROW remaining along the lower slope of an upland hardwood
0J.

forest. The dominant species are Southern red oak (Q. falcata) 16 in. dbh, Shagbark
hickory 14 in. dbh, Mockemut hickory 13 in. dbh, Sweet pignut hickory (C. ovata) 13 in.
dbh, American elm 10 in. dbh, Red mulberry (Morus rubra) 9 in. dbh, with a well
developed understory of Buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica).
The FM then crosses a low, wide drainage area dominated by Sweetgum and Red maple,
then proceeds uphill into a highly disturbed upland forest dominated by White oak (Q.
alba) 8 in. dbh, Shortleaf pine 4 in. dbh, Black cherry 4 in. dbh, Red cedar 3 in. dbh,
Mockernut hickory 3 in. dbh, Winged elm 2 in. dbh, and Pignut hickory 2 in. dbh.
Staying just inside the North Carolina State line, the FM follows an open area along the
state line, with a disturbed forest to the northeast. Martin Marietta has cleared almost to
the buffer along the state line. The forest remnant is Red cedar 14 in. dbh, Virginia pine
9 in. dbh, Sweetgum 9 in. dbh, and Dogwood (Cornus florida) 6 in. dbh. A small
wetland is crossed at the tip of the existing sediment pond for the quarry. The dominant
species are Black willow (Salix nigra) and Tag alder. Continuing southeast, the FM
passes through disturbed vegetation of Black willow, Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis),
Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), and Goldenrod (Solidago spp.). The FM next passes
through a mid - successional forest dominated by Water oak (Quercus nigra) 18 in. dbh,
Sweetgum 16 in. dbh, Red cedar 15 in. dbh, Loblolly pine 14 in. dbh, Winged elm 14 in.
dbh, Willow oak 13 in. dbh, and Black Cherry 8 in. dbh. This forest type extends almost
to the junction with Nations Ford Rd. A loblolly pine (20 in. dbh) forest, with Water oak
15 in. dbh, American elm 9 in. dbh, Red cedar 8 in. dbh, and Hackberry 6 in. dbh occurs
at this corner. A headwater UT to McCullough Branch is crossed here.
The FM crosses Nations Ford Rd., turning northeast along the south side of the UT to
McCullough Branch, passing through active pasture, and then along McCullough Branch,
remaining in the open pasture. The FM crosses McCullough Branch into an active
agriculture field to an industrial area next to Downs Rd., where it passes through the
parking lots to Downs Rd. It then crosses Downs Rd. and parallels an existing sewer
main, along the north side, through a floodplain forest. The dominant species include
Sugarberry 32 in. dbh, Sycamore 29 in. dbh, Cottonwood 21 in. dbh, Green ash 18 in.
dbh, Sweetgum 13 in. dbh, American elm 9 in. dbh, and Box elder 7 in. dbh.
Just before Sugar Creek, the FM turns southeast, crosses the existing sewer main and
parallels an existing sewer main with a wide maintained ROW, along Sugar Creek. The
FM will be placed in this maintained ROW. The FM then crosses Sugar Creek (to the
east side) into a floodplain forest dominated by Sycamore 32 in. dbh, Sugarberry 27 in.
dbh, American elm 16 in. dbh, Green ash 14 in. dbh, and Willow oak 13 in. dbh. Shrubs
include dense stands of Giant cane and Privet (Ligustrum sinense). After crossing a
power line ROW, the FM continues about 200 ft. through the floodplain forest and turns
east along a UT to Sugar Creek passing up into an upland forest containing Sweetgum 21
in. dbh, Red oak 20 in. dbh, White oak 18 in. dbh, with Dogwood and Deciduous holly
(Ilex decidua) in the understory. The FM emerges into an open field, crosses an existing
sewer main and turns southeast through the field, paralleling the existing ROW. Initially
the forest along the ROW is an overgrown, mid- successional forest containing Red maple
13 in. dbh, Sweetgum 12 in. dbh, Cottonwood 12 in. dbh, and Winged elm 8 in. dbh. The

FM continues southeast, paralleling the ROW toward an eventual crossing under the
railroad tracks. About 650 ft. northwest of the railroad crossing, the FM encroaches into
the western edge of an upland depression swamp forest. The swamp forest extends east
from the FM, so the impact is along the edge. The vegetation of the swamp forest has an
average canopy dbh of 10 in., with Willow oak 24 in. dbh, Post oak 20 in. dbh, Green ash
8 in. dbh., Water oak 8 in. dbh, Red cedar 8 -10 in. dbh, White oak 8 in. dbh, American
elm 8 in. dbh, and Honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos) 6 in dhb. Shrubs include
Deciduous holly, Black haw (Viburnum prunifolium) and Chinese privet. Vines include
Carolina jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), Trumpet vine (Campsis radicans) and
Japanese honeysuckle. Herbs include Blue star (Amsonia tabernaemontana var.
tabernaemontana), Spring - beauty (Claytonia virginica), Atamasco lily (Zephyranthes
atamasco), Small buttercup (Ranunculus pusillus), Buttercup (Ranunculus bulbosus),
Violet wood sorrel (Oxalis violacea), and several sedges (Carex spp.). The FM then
turns east, paralleling the existing sewer ROW, passes through a disturbed, narrow
treeline and bores under a railroad track. On the east side of the track, a disturbed forest
occurs containing Red cedar, Black willow, Winged elm, Black gum, all 5 -8 in. dbh, with
Multiflora rose and Sericea lespedeza. It then passes into a disturbed open field used as a
holding lot for trucks and crosses South Blvd. into a driving range.
The FM passes along a paved access to a driving range, crosses the existing sewer main,
crosses a wetland/linear drainage, and the driving range. The wetland species include
Sedge (Cyperus strigosus.), Arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia), Ludwigia ( Ludwigia
alternifolia), two species of Polygonum ( Polygonum spp.) and Rice cut grass (Leersia
oryzoides). It then crosses the existing sewer main, to the south side of the main, still in
the driving range and passes into the disturbed riparian vegetation along Little Sugar
Creek. Box elder and Sweetgum are the primary trees, but there is a dense ground cover
and climbing vegetation comprised of Japanese hops (Humulus japonicus) and Bur
cucumber (Sicyos angulatus).
The FM crosses Little Sugar Creek just north of a UT feeding into the west side of the
creek from the driving range. On the east side of Little Sugar Creek, the FM passes
through the floodplain forest south of the ponded, constructed wetland and turns
southeast to bore under NC 51 just northeast of the end of the bridge over Little Sugar
Creek. The floodplain vegetation on the berm has a few trees and is mostly herbaceous.
The trees are Box elder 9 in. dbh, Bradford pear 5 in. dbh, and Green ash 4 in. dbh. The
herbs consist of Japanese hops, Johnson grass, Ragweed (Ambrosia artimesiifolia), and
Verbesina. The ROW crosses a drainage swale next to NC 51. The swale has a stand of
Box elder 6 in. dbh, and a Black willow 11 in. dbh. On the bank of NC 51 is a Black
willow 17 in. dbh, covered with Porcelainberry (Ampelopsis brevipedunculata).
The FM drops into the floodplain on the terrace along the north bank of the creek. The
area north of the terrace toward Carolina Place Parkway is a wetland, but the terrace is
very wide. The vegetation on the berm is disturbed, with a few woody species, including
Box elder 22 in. dhb, Sugarberry 19 in. dbh, and Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) 15
in. dbh. The FM follows the terrace, crossing a drainage from the wetland. The
vegetation on the berm near the drainage is represented by Box elder 27 in. dbh,
4

Cottonwood 19 in. dbh, Sugarberry 16 in. dbh, Red maple 9 in. dbh, Black walnut 8 in.
dbh, Sycamore 7 in. dbh, and Pecan (Carya illinoensis) 5 in. dbh. There is no subcanopy.
The FM then crosses to the northeast of the existing sewer main to miss a large outside
curve erosion area in the creek. It stays in the floodplain, paralleling a floodplain forest
dominated by Sugarberry 18 in. dbh, Pecan 15 in. dbh, Black walnut 14 in. dbh, Bitternut
hickory (Carya cordiformis) 12 in. dbh, and Honey locust 6 in. dbh. Crossing a sewer
main from the shopping center (to the south side) the FM follows the existing open ROW
to the junction box. The open area of the existing sewer main is dominated by Bermuda
grass (Cynodon dactylon), Johnson grass, Sericea lespedeza, Goldenrod and Rough
marsh -elder (Iva annua var. annua).
Combining the two data lists from the NC Natural Heritage program, the following
communities and species are of note.
Basic oak - hickory forest — Almost all of the ROW follows floodplains and as such no
Basic oak - hickory forest was noted.
Upland depression swamp forest — One swamp forest was detected and detailed, being
located about 650 ft. northwest of the railroad crossing. It is described in the first
paragraph on p. 4. It will be impacted only along the westernmost edge.
Xeric hardpan forest — No forest of this type was noted during the field work.
Colonial wading bird colony — No rookeries were noted during the field work.
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) — This species has a historic record, but
there have been recent surveys looking for this species and any other mollusks.
Eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis) — Currently reported from the Weddington USGS
quad.
Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana) — Currently reported from the Weddington
USGS quad.
Contact with the NC Natural Heritage Program and with NC Wildlife Resources did not
reveal any collections of these three mollusks from Little Sugar Creek and Sugar Creek in
the Pineville area. In a discussion with Ron Linville, NC Wildlife Resources on Oct. 27,
2008, it was concluded that the unstable, urban nature of both creeks in the area of the
crossings would not require a mussel survey prior to construction.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) is currently reported from the
Weddington USGS quad. No Schweinitz's sunflower were seen during the
field work.
Carolina birdfoot - trefoil (Lotus helleri) is currently reported from the Ft. Mill and
Weddington USGS quads. Although there was some disturbed ground, the usual
habitat for this species, none was detected.
Southeastern bold goldenrod (Oligoneuron rigidum var. glabratum) is currently listed
from the Weddington USGS quad. There was no prairie -like habitat in the
project area, and no bold goldenrod specimens were noted.
Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) is listed from the Weddington USGS quad.
No specimens were noted during the field work.
k,

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is listed from the Weddington USGS quad. The
open field with scattered tree habitat is generally not present. Pastures yes, but
not a lot of fields with trees.
The four vascular plants, noted above, are all fall - bloomers and would have been readily
visible during the field work, if present.
There are no recommendations regarding communities or species of concern.
Addendum:
Fish and wildlife surveys were not included in the description of the habitats within the
corridor of the project. The following data provide some insight into the typical species
of fish, and of wildlife species found in the scrub and forested habitats of the Piedmont,
without comment on their being observed or documented.
Typical Piedmont region warmwater stream fishes include bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), rosyside dace (Clinostomus
funduloides), white shiner (Luxilus albeolus), sandbar shiner (Notropis scepticus), satinfm
shiner (Cyprinella analostana), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), creek
chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus), silver redhorse (Moxostoma collapsum), brown bullhead
(Ameiurus nebulosus), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), eastern mosquitofish
(Gambusia holbrooki), speckled killifish (Fundulus rathbuni), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis
auritus), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed
(Lepomis gibbosus), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), piedmont darter (Percina crassa), and tesselated darter
(Etheostoma olmstedi). Some of these species were noted in DWQ's fish monitoring
station data for Sugar Creek and Little Sugar Creek in the most recent Basinwide
Assessment Report for Catawba River Basin.
Scrub habitats may harbor diverse wildlife, including Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei),
black racer (Coluber constrictor), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestiva), copperhead
(Agkistrodon contortrix), fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), bobwhite (Colinus
virginianus), towhee (Pipilio erythrophthalmus), junco (Junco hyemalis), white throated
sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), short- tailed
shrew (Blarina carolinensis), white - footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), cotton rat
(Sigmodon hispidus), woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum), and red fox ( Vulpes vulpes).
Forest habitats within the project area may support diverse animal communities. Typical
amphibians and reptiles include the spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), slimy
salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis), American toad (Bufo
americanus), box turtle (Terrapene carolina), five -lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), fence
lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), black racer (Coluber
constrictor), garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), and
kingsnakes (Lampropeltis spp.). Birds of upland Piedmont forests include sharp - shinned
hawk (Accipiter striatus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), sapsucker
(Sphyrapicus varius), ruby - crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), many warblers
(Parulidae), and many finch and sparrow species (Fringillidae). Upland forest mammals
r�

likely to occur in the project area include the raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white- footed mouse (Peromyscus
leucopus), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis), short- tailed
shrew (Blarina carolinensis), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), woodchuck
(Marmota monax), and white - tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
ies F. Matthews, Ph.D.
h

1--
Ecosystem
PROGRAM
December 16, 2013 (replaces December 9, 20.13 letter)
Amy Vershel, PE
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department
5100 Brookshire Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28216 Expiration of Acceptance: June 16, 2014
Project: Steele Creek Pumping Station Expansion Project County: Mecklenburg
This is a conditional acceptance. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP) is willing to accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the NCEEP will be approved by the
permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to determine
if payment to the NCEEP will be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits,
regulations or authorizations associated with the proposed activity including SL 2009 -337: An Act to Promote the Use of
Compensatory Mitigation Banks as amended by
S.L. 2011 -343.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit /401 Certification /CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the In-
Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the NCEEP, the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are
summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation required and assigned to NCEEP for this impact is determined by
permitting agencies and may exceed the impact amounts shown below.
Impact
*The Catawba 03 Expanded Service Area will be utilized for this impact. Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility
for providing the compensatory mitigation. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010.
River
Basin
CU
Location
Stream (feet)
Wetlands (acres)
Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.)
Buffer 1I
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold
Cool
Warm
Riparian
Non - Riparian
Coastal Marsh
Catawba
03050103*
0
0
0
0.375
0
0
0
0
Thank you for your interest in the NCEEP. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at
(919) 707 -8915.
Sincerely, , J
James. B Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
cc: Karen Higgins, NCDWR Wetlands /401 Unit
William Elliot, USAGE - Asheville
Alan Johnson, NCDWR- Mooresville
Karri Blackmon, agent
File
�Z"t7oIrl.K9... 'E ... Prat" our Stag NC ENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919- 707 -8976 / www.nceep.net

Steele Creek Pump Station Expansion . Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. § 113A) requires that the Division of Water Resources
determine whether a proposed major agency action will significantly affect the environment. The Charlotte -
Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD) Steele Creek Pump Station Expansion project is such a major action.
The project consists of upsizing the existing Steele Creels Pumping Station to 30 million gallons per day and
constructing approximately 35,500 linear feet of 36 -inch diameter force main to deliver sanitary sewer flow to an
existing 78 -inch gravity sewer upstream of the CMUD's McAlpine Wastewater Treatment Plant. The project is to be
located in southwestern Mecklenburg County, with a small portion located in York County, South Carolina.
Detailed figures illustrating the location can be found in Section l of the Environmental Assessment.
In order to determine whether Steele Creels Pump Station Expansion will cause significant environmental impacts,
an environmental assessment has been prepared. The environmental assessment is attached. It contains detailed
information on the key issues, including a detailed description of the proposed project, and probable environmental
impacts with proposed mitigations. The following is a summary of the probable environmental impacts and
associated mitigation activities:
Although the force main was located adjacent to existing utility easements wherever practicable in order to
minimize impacts, approximately 29 acres of forested land will be permanently cleared for the construction of the
pumping station and force main. Installation of the approximately 35,500 l.f. of force main will require a 60 -foot
wide construction corridor, which will impact a total of approximately 49 acres of land. Approximately 4.5 acres at
the pump station site will be permanently altered by clearing, grading, and compacting the area to provide adequate
area for the pumping station and its associated access road. While roughly 1.75 acres of wetlands will be temporarily
impacted by installation of the force mains, approximately 0.25 acres of wetlands will be permanently impacted by
maintenance of the 10 -foot wide sewer line corridor. Open cut installation of the proposed force main will require
fifteen stream crossings, which will temporarily impact approximately 1,156 If of stream channel. Sedimentation
and erosion control measures, including the introduction of temporary and permanent vegetation, will limit siltation
of local waterways and appropriate seed mixtures will be sown to stabilize any disturbed soils. Construction along
streams and wetlands will comply with conditions of the Nationwide Permit No. 12 and DWQ 401 Water Quality
Certification, and mitigation for impacts will likely require compensatory efforts. Emissions from construction
vehicles and stirred dust may result in temporary and minor localized air quality impacts. If open burning of debris
is necessary, it will be conducted in accordance to local regulations. Operation of the emergency generator for the
pump station will require an air permit from Mecklenburg County Air Quality. Nuisance noise from machinery and
tool operation will occur during project construction. The emergency generator will be enclosed and there will be
silencers on the air intakes and exhaust to attenuate noise impacts.
The proposed project will not have significant negative direct impacts on land use; prime or unique agricultural
lands; any public, scenic, recreational, or state park areas; areas of archaeological or historical value; shellfish or fish
and their habitats; wildlife and their habitat; or threatened or endangered species protected under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act.
Public Water Supply Section - Jessica C. Godreau, Chief
1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1634
Phone: 919 - 707 -91001 FAX: [phone] Lab Form FAX: [phone] Internet: www.ncwater.org /pws/

Secondary and cumulative environmental impacts (SCI) may result from this project and are outlined in the EA.
State and local programs to mitigate impacts in the project area, including buffer regulations, storm water
regulations, and land use plans, are described in detail within the EA and include policies that promote orderly
growth through proficient use of land and cost - effective provision of sewer service. Therefore, the proposed project
should not result in significant SCI.
Based on the findings of the EA, the impact avoidance /mitigation measures contained therein, and reviewed by
governmental agencies, the Division of Water Resources has concluded that the proposed project will not result in
significant impacts to the environment. Since a portion of the project is located in South Carolina, the South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control's Bureau of Water was also invited to comment, and
stated no concerns. This EA and Finding of No Significant Impact ( FONSI) are prerequisites for the issuance of
Division of Water Resources permits necessary for the project's construction. No environmental impact statement
(EIS) will be prepared and this FONSI completes the environmental review record. The FONSI and Environmental
Assessment shall be available for inspection and comment for 30 days at the State Clearinghouse.
Summary of FONSI for publication in the Environmental Bulletin: After completion of an environmental
assessment under G.S. 113A, a FONSI has been made in the case of Steele Creek Pump Station Expansion.
Information supporting the need for the proposed project was reviewed, along with relative impacts, other
alternative approaches and mitigating measures.
Thoma A. Reeder (late/
Direc or, Division of Wafer Resources