20220501 Ver 1_ePCN Application_20220328

DWR
Divi.h. M Wm- R�....
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
December 6, 2021 Ver 4.2
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
Yes
No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
Yes No
Ch-g. nly,f n..d.d
BIMS # Assigned*
Version#*
20220501
1
Is a payment required for this project?
No payment required
What amout is owed?*
Fee received
$240.00
Fee needed - send electronic notification
$570.00
Reviewing Office*
Select Project Reviewer*
Raleigh Regional Office - [phone]
Colleen Cohn:eads\cmcohn
Information for Initial Review
1 a. Name of project:
Six Forks Offsite Stormwater Project
la. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Chad Cantrell
I b. Primary Contact Email: 1 c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[e-mail] [phone]
Date Submitted
3/28/2022
Nearest Body of Water
Mine Creek
Basin
Neuse
Water Classification
QNSW
Site Coordinates
Latitude: Longitude:
35.852973 -78.644594
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Wake
Is this a NCDMS Project
Yes No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
Yes No
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)

Has this PCN previously been submitted?*
Yes
No
1 b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
Nationwide Permit (NWP)
Regional General Permit (RGP)
Standard (IP)
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
Yes No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number: 18 - Minor Discharges
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
Yes No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
Yes No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
Yes No
1 h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
Yes No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
Yes No
B. Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
Owner Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?
Yes No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Chad Cantrell
2b. Deed book and page no.:
2c. Contact Person:
Chad Cantrell
2d. Address
Street Address
222 West Hargett Street
Address Line 2
City
Raleigh
Postal / Zip Code
27601
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:
[e-mail]
401 Water Quality Certification - Express
Riparian Buffer Authorization
State / Province I Region
NC
Country
Wake
2f. Fax Number:
Yes No
Yes No
k.:�)

C. Proiect Information and Prior Proiect History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality / town:
Raleigh NC
-2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
Several
2c. Project Address
Street Address
City ROW Adjacent to
Address Line 2
582 Wimbleton Dr
City
Raleigh
Postal / Zip Code
27609
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:
Mine Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
C;NSW
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Neuse
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030202010803
4. Project Description and History
2b. Property size:
0.68
State / Provinee / Region
NC
Country
Wake
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity ofthe project at the time ofthis application:*
This site is a partially developed area, comprised of residential yards, existing utility easements and forested areas.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
Yes No Unknown
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.03
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
248
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project: *
The purpose of the project is to improve stormwater conditions for the properties behind 5241 East Six Forks Road. This project also includes the replacement of a sewer line.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used: *
The project involves reducing the velocity of stormwater entering the properties. The involves the placement of grade control structures, class 11 rip rap and the construction ofa headwall
above the stream. The project also involves the replacement of a existing 8" sewer line adjacent to the existing sewer right of way. The project will use typical construction equipment.
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
Yes No Unknown
Comments:
A delineation took place on January 7th, 2021.
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?
Preliminary Approved Not Verified Unknown N/A
Corps AID Number:
SAW-2021-00543
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?

Name (if known): Matt Martin, Gordon Marsh
Agency/Consultant Company: RK&K
Other:
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made by the Corps or DWR
A PJD request was sent to the USACE and NCDWR on 03/16/2021. A phone conversation took place with Rob Riddings of DWR indicating that he concurred with the delineation and no
field visit would be needed from them. Email communication with Mr. Lyle Phillips on 04/13/2021 indicated that the USACE concurred with the delineation and no field visit would be
required.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
Yes No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
This is not a phased project.
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
Wetlands Streams -tributaries Buffers
Open Waters Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
2al Reason
ct
pe of W.*
ame
2f. Type of Juriscliciti
2g. Imp
F7]
Fill IE
—A
Headwater Forest
WA
Both
I
0.031
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.000
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.031
2i. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.031
11
3a. Reason for imp
Site 2: Stormwater
3c. Type of impact*
Fill
a
SA
FUStream Type*
1 (?)
3f. Type of
Jurisdiction*
Both
3h. Impact
length
Site 2: Stomwater =T�]
Stabilization J
SA
Both
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
31. Total permanent stream impacts: 31. Total temporary stream impacts:
72 12
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
84
3j. Comments:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWR)
6a. Project is in which protect basin(s)?
Check all that apply.
Neuse Tar -Pamlico
Catawba Randleman
Goose Creek Jordan Lake
Other

16b. Impact Type 116c.
Per or Temp 116d.
Stream name
16e. Buffer mitigation required? 116f.
Zone I impact 116g.
Zone 2 impact
iSite 1: Sanitary Sewer Improvements
1P 11SA
No
�2,945 11
1,785
iSite 2: Stormwater Conveyance
IP 11SA
No
1,498 11431
iSite 2: Stormwater Conveyance
IT 11SA
No ��476
1192
6h. Total buffer impacts:
Zone 1 Zone 2
Total Temporary impacts: 476.00 92.00
Zone 1 Zone 2
Total Permanent impacts: 4,443.00 2,216.00
Zone 1 Zone 2
Total combined buffer impacts: 4,919.00 2,308.00
61. Comments:
Sewer Line: 6j)(i) - Deemed allowable: Sewer line is a replacement of existing sewer line adjacent to a existing right of way. Maintenance corridor is 30
feet wide.
Drainage Deemed Allowable: Section VI Realignment of existing drainage conveyances improving the design dimensions. No change to built upon area.
E. ImDact Justification and Mitiqation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Impacts were avoided where possible. The extent of the stormwater conveyance was kept to the minimal size needed to fulfil its purpose of improving
stormwater conditions including reducing flooding on neighboring proprieties. Construction areas in buffer were kept to the minimal needed and the
replacement of the sewer line is occurring adjacent to the original line.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Best construction practices will be adhered to.
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?
Yes No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
This project is under the thresholds for mitigation established in sections 3.2 and general condition 23. All buffer impacts are deemed allowable in the table of uses.
F. Stormwater Manaaement and Diffuse Flow Plan (reauired bv DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
Yes No
What type of SCM are you providing?
Level Spreader
Vegetated Conveyance (lower SHWT)
Wetland Swale (higher SHWT)
Other SCM that removes minimum 30% nitrogen
Proposed project will not create concentrated stormwater flow through the buffer
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
Yes No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
Yes No
2c. Does this project have a stormwater management plan (SMP) reviewed and approved under a state stormwater program or state -approved local government stormwater program?
Yes No
N/A - project disturbs < 1 acre

Comments:
This project disturbs < 1 acre.
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federalistate/local) funds or the use of public (federallstate) land?*
Yes No
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 (North Carolina)
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)? *
Yes No
Comments: *
There are no state or federal funds used in this project. This project is funded locally through the City of Raleigh and has not been required to complete a
SEPA document.
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (1 5A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (1 5A NCAC 2B .0200)? *
Yes No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
Yes No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This project will not result in additional development.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
Yes No N/A
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
Yes No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
Yes No
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
Yes No Unknown
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
Yes No
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
Yes No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
Yes No
5h. Does this project involve the constructionfl nstal lation of a wind turbine(s)?*
Yes No
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
Yes No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
NRTR, USFWS IPaC, Field surveys were performed on June 14, 2021, smooth sumac was the only species of sumac found. No Michaux's sumac is
present on site.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
Yes No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
hftps://www.habitat.noaa.gov/apps/efhmapper/
k-:�)

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 status?*
Yes No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
Yes No
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
No FEMA 100-yearfloodplain boundaries exist on the project per map No. 372017600J (5/2/06)
Miscellaneous
Please use the space below to attach all required documentation or any additional information you feel is helpful for application review. Documents should be combined into one file when
possible, with a Cover Letter, Table of Contents, and a Cover Sheet for each Section preferred.
Click the upload button ordrag and drop files here to attach document
20056 Six Forks—OFFSITE—Permit Drawing"3.14.2022.pdf 1.41VIB
Six—Forks—NRTR—Vl.O—Updated.pdf 7.24MB
SixForks—PreJD—Combined—Package Draft signed_reduce.pdf 15.56MB
File must be PDF or KMZ
Comments
The initial delineation and NRTR were established for the purposes of Six Forks Road. This project is a separate and distinct project from the Road.
Signature
By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
The project proponen hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief'; and
The project proponentt hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Chad Cantrell
Signature
&Aqwaa-�
Date
3/28/2022

>
V
NO
L
z
E
E'
F"q E
E'
A
z— — — — — — — E
-------- NIC77
In dl
F3
7v?lo -do
V
401V
L - — — — — -
00 E
if o
E--------------- — — —
... ... ... . ------
- - - - --- --- --- ---
L
E
LL]
0
T I
LLI
P
x LU
.2
N
0
LU
.0 03
00
LLJ
co
LLJ
co
uj
0
68
�q, z
Z�
t� j
'IlMDIPU
00
Up
u
'0�
L) 0 u
-L) lz z
0 OLU IZ
LIO zm
s t.
9\ C)
P IN gs
-7!)vNiuwa aus-4-4o avow smuol xiv Lra-Voq
66/20/bO � —+
,bp-�!—� �—qs �J�lj is

INHWIldvid(i 371--JOLicl (INV NVII SIN3PV3AONdpvl
SADIAWAS DMW�FIKIDNJ
HDIHIV-d 40 AID (7NV MIV3NIS -g-LIS-4jo Sm'10-4 x/
QNV-11-9M -gE)VNIVN(7
RooNoii:)ndiSN D d3C]Nn
avo�l ��Io X�s
iN]AISV3 iN3N3jvl� (D
�-ININ3SVI 3JO'S,9
E29 9� 6 oz �Icd
snoA��ss�
2
LU
C14
-- — — — — — — Eg
Ln
T
_L7VH,�SV �� -- ------ 'E
---------- L ------------------------------
c 0
z-----------
--(sD :5
o'n
-aL — '11000
0
17V�1�
< <
w 0
< I
2:
Lv�
La,
Dr
Z�
f =*,J
l I�j 15
o
0
0
<
0

INHWIldvid(i
SADIAWAS DMd�F1K1DNJ 3'�IJONd QNV NV�d
SE)NIMVN(7 �j3j-qne 0
HDIHIV-'d JOAID 31IS-4io SY�10-4 x/
-gE)VNIVN(7
BONNNoii:)ndiSN D d3C]Nn
avo�] 0� X01
iNAA]SV3 iN3N3JV1 (D
I Tilb
Ooonao� Ni� m
�-ININ3SVI 3AO'S,9
7 7
2 9 9 6 0 z cd�-
snoA��ss�
N N
<
w I
LU
C14
%
17VH,�Sv
S
Lu
L ------------------------------
c 0 ----
>
E g
z------------ �
<
'11000-�
02 L
17V�1� u
< <
E <
7
-AN A -\A 1. INI III L.1
ED
I
Z� �=
jNO3
d
0
0-
<
0
m I 1i -
x x

DRAFT
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Six Forks Road Improvement Project
Wake County, North Carolina
%0 0
W4 00 0
r",
01
'N 00
Raleigh
CITY OF RALEIGH
Engineering Services Department
Roadway Design & Construction
July 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 1
3.0 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES .......................................................................... 1
4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES ........................................................................................... 1
4.1 Endangered Species Act Protected Species .......................................................... 1
4.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ................................................................. 3
5.0 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 3
6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................... 4
6.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S . ..................................................................... 4
6.2 Construction Moratoria ......................................................................................... 5
6.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules ............................................................................... 5
6.4 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters ....................................... 5
7.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 6
Appendix A Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Study Area Map
Figure 3. Potential Jurisdictional Features Map
Figure 4. Terrestrial Communities Map
Appendix B Qualifications of Contributors
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area .................................. 1
Table 2. ESA federally protected species listed for Wake County . ............................. 2
Table 3. Streams in the study area ................................................................................. 4
Table 4. Surface waters in the study area ...................................................................... 4
Table 5. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional streams in the study area ........... 5
Table 6. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional wetlands in the study area ......... 5

Natural Resources Technical Report Six Forks Road Improvement Project, Wake County, N. C.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Raleigh proposes improvements to Six Forks Road from Lynn road to Rowan
street, for approximately 2 miles in Wake County. The following Natural Resources
Technical Report (NRTR) has been prepared to assist in the preparation of a document
for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
2.0 MIETHODOLOGY
All work was conducted in accordance with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental Coordination and Permitting's Preparing
Natural Resources Technical Reports Procedure and the latest NRTR Template of
November, 2017. Field work was conducted on January 7, 2021, January 11, 2021 and
June, 19 2021. Jurisdictional areas identified in the study area were verified on April 13,
2021 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR). Due to agency workload final documentation of this
jurisdictional determination will be provided at the permitting stage. The principal
personnel contributing to the field work and document is provided in Appendix B.
3.0 TERRESTRIAL COMMIUNITIES
Two terrestrial communities were identified in the study area. Figure 4 shows the
location and extent of these terrestrial communities. Terrestrial community data are
presented in the context of total coverage of each type within the study area (Table 1).
Table 1. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area
Community
Dominant Species (scientific name)
Coverage
(ac.)
lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneala)
Maintained/ Disturbed
red fescue (Festuca rubra)
96
winged sumac (Rhus copallinum)
Mixed Pine/ Hardwood
tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera)
Forest
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
2
sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
Total
98
4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES
4.1 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
As of July 17, 2020, the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) lists a total of six
federally protected species, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for Wake County
(Table 2). For each species, a discussion of the presence or absence of habitat is included
below along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the study
area.
I July 2021

Natural Resources Technical Report Six Forks Road Improvement Project, Wake County, N. C.
Table 2. ESA federally protected species listed for Wake County
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion—
Notropis mekistocholas
Cape Fear shiner
E
No
No Effect
Picoides borealis
red -cockaded
woodpecker
E
No
No Effect
Alasmidonta heterodon
dwarf wedgemussel
E
No
No Effect
Parvas ina steinstansana
P
Tar River spinymussel
E
No
No Effect
Elliptio lanceolata
yellow lance
No
No Effect
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Yes
No Effect
E - Endangered
T- Threatened
Cape Fear shiner
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: April -June (tributaries); year round (large
rivers)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
All streams located within the study area are within the Neuse River Basin and
outside of the known range for the Cape Fear shiner. A review of the NCNHP
database, on January 2021, revealed no occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study
area. Due to the project study area existing outside of the known range for this
species the project will have no effect on the Cape Fear Shiner.
Red -cockaded woodpecker
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year round; November -early March (optimal)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Mixed pine/hardwood stands are present in the project study area. However,
these stands have experienced extensive fragmentation due to residential and
commercial development. No red cockaded woodpeckers or cavity trees were
observed during the field investigations. A review of the NCNHP database, on
January 2021, revealed no occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to
the lack of contiguous pine and pine/ hardwood stands in the project study area
the project will have no effect on this species.
Dwarf wedgemussel
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year round
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Streams in the study area are located within the Neuse River Basin and are in the
known range for the dwarf wedgemussel. A review of the NCNHP database, on
January 2021, revealed no occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to
the extremely small, headwater stream size, flow predominately composed of
2 July 2021

Natural Resources Technical Report Six Forks Road Improvement Project, Wake County, N. C.
stormwater runoff, and lack of freshwater mussels and habitat within the project
study area the project will have no effect on this species.
Tar River spinymussel
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year round
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Streams in the study area are located within the Neuse River Basin. Streams
within the study area are not located within the known range for the Tar River
spinymussel as determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lPaC. A review
of the NCNHP database, on January 2021, revealed no occurrences within 1.0
mile of the study area. This project will have no effect on the Tar River
spinymussel.
Yellow lance
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year round
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Streams in the study area are located within the Neuse River Basin. Streams
within the study area are not located within the known range for the yellow lance
as determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lPaC. A review of the
NCNHP database, on January 2021, revealed no occurrences within 1.0 mile of
the study area. This project will have no effect on yellow lance.
Michaux's sumac
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: May -October
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the form of early successional habitats.
A survey of habitat by RK&K biologists took place on June 14, 2021, smooth
sumac was the only species of sumac found. No Michaux's sumac is present in
the project study area. A review of the NCNHP database, on January 2021,
revealed no occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
4.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and enforced
by the USFWS. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests in
proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized
for nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1.0-mile
radius of the project limits, was performed on January 11, 2021 using 2017 color aerials
and the NHP database on January 11, 2021. Water bodies large enough and sufficiently
open to be considered potential feeding sources were identified. Since there was is
foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the project study area and the area
3 July 2021

Natural Resources Technical Report Six Forks Road Improvement Project, Wake County, N. C.
within 660 feet of the project limits was conducted on January 12, 2021. The survey
identified an active eagle nest. The desktop-GIS assessment revealed one known
occurrence of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area. The known
occurrence is a breeding pair of bald eagles at Shelly Lake.
5.0 WATER RESOURCES
Water resources in the study area are part of the Neuse River basin [U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03020201]. One potential jurisdictional stream was
identified in the study area (Table 3). The location of each stream is shown in Figure 3.
Table 3. Streams in the study area
Stream
Map
NCDWR Index
Best Usage
Bank
Height
Bankfull
Depth
Name
ID
Number
Classification
(ft)
width (ft)
(in)
UT to Mine
SA
27-33-14b
C;NSW
-
2-4
3-5
6
Creek
There are no Outstanding Resource Water (ORW), designated High Quality Waters
(HQW) or water supply watersheds (WS-1 or WS-11) within 1.0 mile downstream of the
study area. The North Carolina 2018 final 303(d) list does not list any streams as
impaired within the project study area. However, Mine Creek is listed on the 303(d) list.
Mine Creek has been identified as an impaired water due to exceeding the criteria for fair
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW). Mine Creek is located approximately 0.97 stream miles
downstream from respective streams within the project study area.
One surface water was identified in the study area (Table 4). The location of each surface
water is shown in Figure 3.
Table 4. Surface waters in the study area
Map ID of
Area (ac) in
Surface Water
Jurisdictional
Connection
Study Area
PA
No
N/A
0.04
6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.
One potential jurisdictional stream was identified in the study area (Table 5). The
location of the stream is shown on Figure 3. North Carolina Stream Assessment Method
(NCSAM) and NCDWR stream identification forms are included in a separate
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) Package. All jurisdictional streams in the
study area have been designated as warm water streams for the purposes of stream
mitigation.
4 July 2021

Natural Resources Technical Report Six Forks Road Improvement Project, Wake County, N. C.
Table 5. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional streams in the study area
Compensatory
Length
Map ID
Classification
Mitigation
River Basin Buffer
Required
SA
166
Intermittent
Yes
Subj ect
SA
82
Perennial
Yes
Subj ect
Total
248
* NCSAM forms are available in the PJD package
One potential jurisdictional wetland was identified within the study area (Table 6). The
location of these wetlands is shown on Figure 3. All wetlands in the study area are
located within the Neuse River basin [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit
03020201]. USACE wetland determination forms and North Carolina Wetland
Assessment Method (NCWAM) forms for each site are included in a separate
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Package.
Table 6. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional wetlands in the study area
NCWAM
NCWAM
Hydrologic
Map ID
Area (ac.)
Classification
Rating
Classification
WA
Headwater Forest
Low
Riparian
0.03
Total ac.
0.03
* NCWAM forms are available in the PJD package
6.2 Construction Moratoria
No construction moratoria will be required for this project.
6.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules
Streamside riparian zones within the study area are protected under provisions of the
Neuse River Buffer Rules administered by NCDWR. Table 4 indicates which streams
are subject to buffer rule protection. Potential impacts to protected stream buffers will be
determined once a final alignment and design have been determined.
6.4 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
No streams are identified as Navigable Waters within the project study area.
5 July 2021

Natural Resources Technical Report Six Forks Road Improvement Project, Wake County, N. C.
7.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Environmental Laboratory. 1992. Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual,
memorandum from Major General Arthur E. Williams.
Harrar, E.S. and J.G. Harrar. 1962. Guide to Southern Trees. New York: Dover
Publications. 2nd ed. 709 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and JR. Harrison 111. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina Press. 264 pp.
National Geographic. 1999. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. 3rd ed.
Washington, D.C. National Geographic Society.
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources. 2009.
Basinwide Water Quality Plan, Neuse River Basin. Raleigh, North Carolina.
https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water�/�20Quality/Planning/BPU/BPU/Neuse/Neuse�/�2
OPlans/2009�/�20PIanNR�/�2OBasinwide�/�20PIan�/�202009�/�20-�/�2OFinal.pdf
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources. Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2018 Final 303(d) list.
https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water�/�20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303d/2018/2018-
NC-303-d--List-Final.pdf
N.C. Department of Transportation. 2008. Invasive Exotic Plants of North Carolina.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Boston: Little, Brown and
Company. 490 pp.
Peterson, R.T., editor. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North
America. 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 384 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1183 pp.
Rhode, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of
the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press. 222 pp.
6 July 2021

Natural Resources Technical Report Six Forks Road Improvement Project, Wake County, N. C.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDERNR. Raleigh, North Carolina. 325 pp.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1970.
Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/lntemet/FSE—MANUSCRIPTS/�orth—carolina/wakeN
C I 970/text.pdf
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4: Southeast Region, North Carolina
Ecological Services. 2020. Threatened and Endangered Species in North
Carolina: Wake County. Updated 17 July 2020.
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/wake.html
United States Geological Survey. 2016. Raleigh West, North Carolina, Topographic
Quadrangle (7.5-minute series). Reston: I sheet.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press. 255 pp.
7 July 2021

Appendix A
Figures

N
ton
S�Irwmlll R(I
Pv
�OUI-1 IL-
J
-Z
V..1 11�vellll
dg'�3
J6
a-
Lymn Ro
'mph 1), Cff
Klillbu�h
F.( ho r.]p F
Ad i�
V-1-11AV'
4b
P�k
0EKA-4i H I 1� 13
L�63�&3 rb3
Roixy F11 rlr
rh rk
�N millJjr Dolt RcI
C;
rj
v-
S'� '�fj' Q Or
13
.jr 6�lf
Millbr.k Rd lzp
iwl I S fzmnarOl Trh
G
"Lit
Project Study
N�Tjh HIlh'; V
No rLb Hdl�
Wfil, 1;i-I,
Llfhiia P�6
F4
DT
Tr
Min 01
V14;k Ave
Z
%
R
--kr k.
0
1
rmap�-INCREMENT'$, NRCan,
rr-F
Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thaila. n-d), NGCC,,..(-E).
Miles
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunity
PREPARED BY:
CITY OF RALEIGH
ENGINEERING SERVICE DEPARTMENT
ROADWAY DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
Raleigh
SIX FORKS ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
RALEIGH, NC
FIGURE 1: VICINIW MAP

I.. ---;, *,A
411 7
irr.
La
S2
ol
0 Lu
— at, 1z' a
>
a 7'j 0
V-15
Ole,. j,
AN
1-0
*12A.
lo op
44
vz
cc
ZD
Lu
41� cD
of
17—
ob-o'o'
CO
dw�l

—w En Z5 10
4'Z M
tWZ
a u
u 76 76 Lu
')
p Z'
RID
DID 0 Lu
F6 L' z u- >
0
CIA
WL
el
47.
Am
:ilo
4k
fb
41.7
A�'
J A
�sk
'06
A
1. 4

Appendix B
Qualifications of Contributors
Investigator: Matt Martin, PWS, RK&K, LLP
Education: B.A. Environmental Studies, UNC Wilmington, 2015
Experience: Environmental Scientist, RK&K, LLP, 2018-Present
Biologist-2, Wood, 2015-2018
Regulatory Intern USACE-SAW, 2014
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream identification, natural community assessments, T/E
species assessment, agency determinations, NRTR document
preparation, and QA/QC
Investigator: Gordon Marsh, RK&K, LLP
Education: Master of Environmental Assessment, NCSU, 2019
B.S. Environmental Science (major), Economics (minor), UNC
Wilmington, 2017
Experience: Environmental Scientist, RK&K, LLP, 2017-Present
Responsibilities: Preparation of forms, wetland and stream delineations, NRTR
document preparation and QA/QC

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
ACTION ID 9: SAW- Begin Date (Date Received):
Prepare file folder F-1 Assign Action ID Number in ORM
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Six Forks Road Improvement Project
2. Work Type: F]Private DInstitutional 7Government 11 Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 133d and B3e]:
Improvements to Six Forks Road
4. Property Owner/ Applicant [PCN Form A3 orA4]: City of Raleigh
5. Agent / Consultant [PNC Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]:
Chad Cantrell, Senior Engineer, City of Raleigh
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form B5b]:
7. Project Location —Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form Blb]:
35.852478, -78.643027 Raleigh NC , Wake County
8. Project Location —Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form Bla]: NA
9. Project Location — County [PCN Form A2b]: Wake
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Raleigh, NC
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: Mine Creek
12. Watershed / 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: 03020201
Authorization: Section 10F] Section 404 Z
Regulatory Action Type:
Standard Permit
Nationwide Permit 9
Regional General Permit 9
L!�J Jurisdictional Determination Request
Section 10 and 404 F-1
Pre -Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
Compliance
No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

% 0
4k 0.
0
or
Raleigh
CITY OF RALEIGH
ENGINEEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MARRY-ANN BALDWIN
MAYOR
March 08, 2021
Mr. Lyle Phillips
USACE
3331 Heritage Trade Dr. Suite 105
Wake Forest, N.C. 27587
[e-mail]
SUBJECT: Six Forks Road hnprovement Project
Wake County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Phillips,
MARCBELL ADAMS-DAVID
CrrYMANAGER
Enclosed is a draft Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) and a selective
Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) package for your review, which includes
the following attachments:
• Figure I
— Vicinity Map
• Figure 2
— Study Area Map
• Figure 3
— Potential Jurisdictional Features Map
• Figure 4
— USDA Soils Map
• USACE Wetland Determination Data Form
• USACE Upland Determination Data Form
m NCWAM Forms
• NCDWR Stream Form (Intermittent Only)
• NCSAM Form
• Preliminary JD Form
• Jurisdictional Determination Request Form
• Rapanos Forms
In reference to page I I of the JD Request Form, the GPS equipment utilized to locate
features on this project was the Trimbleg RITM sub -meter accurate GPS receiver.
The following tables provide a summary of stream and wetland characteristics for
features within the project study area.
Telephone: [phone]
CITY OF RALEIGH 222 WEST HARGETT STREET
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT RALEIGH, NC 27601
ROADWAY DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
Website: raleighnagov

Table 1. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional streams in the study area
Compensatory
Length
River Basin
Map ID
Classification
Mitigation
(ft.)
Buffer
Required
SA
166
Intermittent
Yes
Subject
SA
82
Perennial
Yes
Subject
Total
248
Table 2. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional wetlands in the study area
NCWAM
NCWAM
Hydrologic
Map ID
Area (ac.)
Classification
Rating
Classification
Headwater
WA
Low
Riparian
0.03
Forest
Total ac.
0.03
Please contact me at [phone] ([e-mail]) or our consultant,
Matt Martin at [phone] (mmartin(�#kkxom) if you have any questions or need
additional information.
Sincerely,
Digitally signed by Chad Cantrell
DIN: C-US,
E=[e-mail], O=City
Chad Cantrell of Raleigh, OU=Roadway Design and
Construction, GN=Ghad Cantrell
Date: 2021.03.15 12:42:39-04'00'
Chad Cantrell, P.E., Senior Engineer
City of Raleigh, Engineering Services Department
Roadway Design & Construction
cc: Rob Ridings, Environmental Specialist, NCDWR

N
ton
S�Irwmlll R(I
pv
IL-
J
-Z
-Z
V..1 11�vellll
dg'�3
J6
a-
Lymn Ro
'mph 1),
cff
Klillbu�h
Ad i�
F.( ho r.]p F
V-1-11AV'
4b
P�k
CEKA-4i H I 1�
13
L�63�&3 rb3
Roixy F11 rIr
rh rk
�N millJjr Dolt Rcl
rj
v-
Q Or
13
.jr 6�lf
Millbr.k Rd
iwl I S fztnn.3rO1 Trh
G
"Lit
Project Study
N�Tjh HIlh'; V
No rLb Hdl�
Wfil, 1;i-I,
Llfhiia P�6
F4
DT
Min 01
V14;k Ave
%
VwA Ito
RoihWb
0
1
Miles
PREPARED BY:
CITY OF RALEIGH
NG
E INEERING SERVICE DEPARTMENT
ROADWAY DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
Raleigh
SIX FORKS ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
RALEIGH, NC
FIGURE 1: VICINIW MAP

z 0
t;
z
low OC
Z
LU
'C' 'Zv 0 Lu
LL >
0 oc
Oi
OC
'wi
rx
"r"42
A2
7 b..
it
4k
41"
V
47
44,
Sal
�­ PT
_YI
ye
vtv"
zg'
4k,_
pr
CREEDMOOR RD

E fu .3
fu - T,
E
f.
v . Z F-
ti -Fu z 0 u
fa
-ia .2 0 z
-E
E t; U U)
b 0
.Ln LT z M z j
0 F-
z 3� UO)
-Fa -Fa -Fa C: z L"
7 0 Lu U)
z >
—V —V —V 0) LL
o o o a- R
0 ww 1 ?5 2
D 0 a (n
m <
0
C:
LL
0
FEE dqA
L-br
0. p ONE
MEN
IN Emil
YLmoll

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Six Forks Road Improvements City/County: Raleigh /Wake
Applicant/Owner: City of Raleigh State: NC
Investigator(s): Matt Martin/Gordon Marsh Section, Township, Range: Raleigh West
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Headwater Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P — Lat: 35.852869 — Long: -78.643876
Soil MaD Unit Name: Cecil -Urban land complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes NWI classification: NA
Sampling Date: 1/7/2021
— Sampling Point: WA -Wet
- Slope (%): 2-5
Datum: NAD83
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes.57_1 No = (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology.= significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes.m No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology = naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes NoF 1 within a Wetland? Yes F T] No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes NoE___1
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils are present at this location.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two required)
El
El
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Surface Water (Al) El True Aquatic Plants (1314)
High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
El
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
El
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
F-1
Water Marks (131)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
El
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
HSediment
Deposits (132)
Recent iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
El
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
F-1 Thin Muck Surface (C7)
E]
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
r 1
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
F-1 Other (Explain in Remarks)
E]
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
El
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
E]
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
El
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
El
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? YesF71No
Depth (inches): 1-2
Water Table Present? Yes = No
Depth (inches): � 18
-3
Saturation Present? YesFTINo
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology
Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology is present at
this location.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WA -Wet
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1000 sq. ft.
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species 4
1. Acer rubrum (Red Maple)
20
Yes FAC
That Are 013L, FACW, or FAC. (A)
2.-Pinus taeda (Loblolly Pine)
15
Yes FAC
Total Number of Dominant
6
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
66.67%
That Are 013L, FACK or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
35
Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
17.50
20% of total cover: 7.00
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1000 sq. ft.
FACW species 15 x 2 = 30
1. Ligustrum sinense (Chinese Privet)
30
Yes FACU
FAC species 55 x 3 � 165
2. Ligustrumjaponicum (Japanese Privet)
15
Yes UPL
FACU species 38 x 4 � 152
3.
UPL species 15 x 5 = 75
4.
Column Totals: 123 (A) 422
(B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A 3.43
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
Ell - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
0 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
El 3 - Prevalence Index is:53.01
45
Total Cover
El 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
22.50
20% of total cover: 9.00
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 500 sq. ft.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. Carex sp.
10
Yes NI
2. Juncus effusus (Lamp Rush)
10
Yes FACW
3. Scirpus cyperinus (Wool Grass)
5
No FACW
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.- Eupatorium capillifolium (Dog -Fennel)
5
No FACU
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
10.
m) tall.
11.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
30
Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
50% of total cover:
15.00
20% of total cover: 6.00
1000 sq. ft.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
height.
1. Smilax rotundifolia (Horsebrier)
20
Yes FAC
2. Lonicera japonica (Japanese Honeysuckle)
3
No FACU
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5.
Vegetation
23
Total Cover
Present? YesLZ1 No=
50% of total cover:
11.50
20% of total cover: 4.60
Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic vegetation is present at this location.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WA -Wet
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features OC2
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' L Texture Remarks
0-3 5YR 5/6 100 Sandy loam
3-15 1 OYR 3/1 80 5YR 5/8 20 C M Clay loam
15-18 5YR 5/8 Clay loam
Type: C =Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
F-1 Histosol (Al)
F-1 Histic Epipedon (A2)
F-1 Black Histic (A3)
F-1 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
F-1 Stratified Layers (A5)
F-1 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
F-1 Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
F-1 Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
F-1 Sandy Mucky mineral (Sl) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
Sandy Gleyed matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
E] Stripped Matrix (S6)
E] Dark Surface (S7)
2 cm Muck (Al 0) (MLRA 147)
El Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Coast Prairie Redox (Al 6)
Thin Dark surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147,148)
Loamy Gleyed matrix (F2)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F1 9)
F-1 Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136,147)
IZI Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
[:] Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
F-1 Redox Depressions (F8)
iron -manganese Masses (F1 2) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F1 3) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F1 9) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed): FH No
Type:
Depth (inches): ydric Soil Present? Yesz
Remarks: Hydric soils are present at this location.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Six Forks Road Improvements City/County: Raleigh /Wake
Applicant/Owner: City of Raleigh State: NC
Investigator(s): Matt Martin/Gordon Marsh Section, Township, Range: Raleigh West
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P — Lat: 35.852668 Long: -78.643944 —
Soil MaD Unit Name: Cecil -Urban land complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes NWI classification: NA
Sampling Date: 1/7/2021
— Sampling Point: WA-U P
- Slope (%): 5-10
Datum: NAD83
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes.57_1 No = (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology.= significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes.m No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology = naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes NoF71 within a Wetland? Yes F___1 No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes NoE71
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology and hydric soils are not present at this location. Hydrophytic vegetation is
present at this location.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two required)
El
El
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
F-1
Surface Water (Al) El True Aquatic Plants (1314)
High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
11
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
El
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
F-1
Water Marks (131)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
El
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
HSediment
Deposits (132)
Recent iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
El
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
F-1 Thin Muck Surface (C7)
E]
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
r 1
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
F-1 Other (Explain in Remarks)
E]
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
El
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
E]
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
El
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
El
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
= Depth (inches): � 18
Water Table Present? Yes No
=No
L.Li Depth (inches): � 18
>18
I I
Saturation Present? Yes
I/ Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology
Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology is not present at this location.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WA -UP
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
TreeStratum (Plotsize: 1000sq.ft.
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species 2
1. Ulmus rubra (Slippery Elm)
10 Yes FAC
That Are OBL, FACK or FAC. (A)
2. Liriodendron tulipifera (Tuliptree)
10 Yes FACU
3. Prunus serotina (Black Cherry)
-
10 Yes FACU
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
33.33%
That Are OBL, FACK or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
30 Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
15.00 20% of total cover: 6.00
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1000 sq. ft.
FACW species 80 x 2 = 160
1. Ligustrum sinense (Chinese Privet)
25 Yes FACU
FAC species 10 x 3 = 30
2.
FACU species 60 x 4 = 240
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 150 (A) 430
(B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A - 2.87
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
Ell - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
F-1 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
M 3 - Prevalence Index is:53.01
25 Total Cover
El 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
12.50 20% of total cover: 5.00
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 500 sq. ft.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
El Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. Asplenium platyneuron (Ebony Spleenwort)
5 Yes FACU
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
10.
m) tall.
11.
-
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
5 Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
50% of total cover:
2.50 20% of total cover: 1 .00
1000 sq. ft.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
height.
1. Wisteria frutescens (American Wisteria)
80 Yes FACW
2. Lonicera japonica (Japanese Honeysuckle)
10 No FACU
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5.
Vegetation
LZI
90 Total Cover
Present? Yes No
50% of total cover:
45.00 20% of total cover: 18.00
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic vegetation is present at this location.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WA -UP
to the deDth needed to
or
Depth Matrix Redox Features OC2
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' L Texture Remarks
0-4 1 OYR 4/2 100 Sandy loam
4-18 7.5YR 5/6 100
Clay loam
1 Type: C =Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
F-1 Histosol (Al)
Dark Surface (S7)
2 cm Muck (Al 0) (MLRA 147)
F-1 Histic Epipeclon (A2)
El Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Coast Prairie Redox (Al 6)
F-1 Black Histic (A3)
Thin Dark surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
(MLRA 147,148)
F-1 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed matrix (F2)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F1 9)
F-1 Stratified Layers (A5)
F-1 Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136,147)
F-1 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
E] Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
F-1 Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
[:] Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
E] Other (Explain in Remarks)
F-1 Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
F-1 Redox Depressions (F8)
F-1 Sandy Mucky mineral (Sl) (LRR N,
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
MLRA 136)
r_1 sandy Gleyed matrix (S4)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
r_1 Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F1 9) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
F-1 Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth (inches):
Remarks: Hydric soils are not present at this location.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes D No 21
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user manuai version b.0
USACEAID#
NCDWR#
Project Name
Six Forks Road Improvements
Date of Evaluation
1/7/2021
Applicant/Owner Name
City of Raleigh
Wetland Site Name
WA
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Matt Martin/ Gordon Marsh
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Mine Creek
River Basin
Neuse
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03020201
County
Wake
NCDWR Region
Raleigh
F� Yes M No
Precir)itation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
35.852869. -78.643876
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? E] Yes E No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? EYes E]No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Q Anadromous fish
Q Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
E NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Q Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Q Publicly owned property
Q N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Q Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Q Designated NCNHP reference community
E Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Q Blackwater
0 Brownwater
0 Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) El Lunar E] Wind E] Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? E] Yes Z No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? E] Yes E No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? E] Yes E No
1. Ground Surface ConditionlVegetation Condition —assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
NA F�A Not severely altered
EIB EB Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch :5 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
EA EA Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
EIB F�B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
EIC OC Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. E]A E]A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
EIB EIB Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
ZC ZC Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
EID F�D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. F�A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
F�B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
F�C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. F�A Sandy soil
EB Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
QC Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
F�D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
F�E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. F�A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
EB Soil ribbon �! 1 inch
4c. EA No peat or muck presence
F�B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
EJA EA Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
EJ B F�B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
EC DC Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
EA EA EA > 10% impervious surfaces
EJ B EJ B F�B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
El C EIC EIC 20% coverage of pasture
EJ D EJ D EJ D 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
EJ E EJ E F�E 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
EJ F EJ F F�F 20% coverage of clear-cut land
EJ G EJG EJG Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer —assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
E:]Yes ENo If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
EA �! 50 feet
F�B From 30 to < 50 feet
QC From 15 to < 30 feet
F�D From 5 to < 15 feet
F�E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
0:5 15-feet wide E> 15-feet wide El Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
E:]Yes ENo
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
ESheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
EJExposed — adjacent open water with width �! 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottornland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
V\1T WC
EJA F�A 100 feet
EJ B F�13 From 80 to < 100 feet
El C QC From 50 to < 80 feet
EJ D F�D From 40 to < 50 feet
EJ E F�E From 30 to < 40 feet
EJ F F�F From 15 to < 30 feet
EJ G E G From 5 to < 15 feet
EJ H F�H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
F�A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
OB Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
DC Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
F�A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
F�B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
0C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). Seethe User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
EIA EIA F�A �! 500 acres
EIB EIB F�B From 100 to < 500 acres
EIC EIC QC From 50 to < 100 acres
EID EID F�D From 25 to < 50 acres
EIE EIE F�E From 10 to < 25 acres
EIF EIF F�F From 5 to < 10 acres
EIG EIG F�G From 1 to < 5 acres
EIH EIH F�H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
Ell Ell Q1 From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
NJ NJ QJ From 0.01 to< 0.1 acre
EIK EIK EK < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
F�A Pocosin is the full extent (�! 90%) of its natural landscape size.
F�B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
EIA
F�A
�! 500 acres
EIB
F�B
From 100 to < 500 acres
EIC
QC
From 50 to < 100 acres
EID
F�D
From 10 to < 50 acres
EIE
F�E
< 10 acres
EF
EF
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
E]Yes E]No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas �! 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
F�A 0
EB 1 to 4
OC 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
F�A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
F�B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
EC Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), ar exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
F�A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
F�B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
DC Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
EYes F�No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
NA �! 25% coverage of vegetation
F�B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
>1AA WT
0- EJA EJA Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
0
cc ZB ZB Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U
U EIC EIC Canopy sparse or absent
>1
8 EIA
EIA
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
U? EIB
_0
F�B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
EC
EC
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
EIA
F�A
Dense shrub layer
Moderate density layer
EB
EB
shrub
U) EIC
EIC
Shrub layer sparse or absent
-0 EIA
F�A
Dense herb layer
EB
EB
Moderate density herb layer
EIC
EIC
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
F�A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
OB Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
F�A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH)-, many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
OB Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
DC Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
F�A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
OB Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
EIA EIB EIC EID
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/lBrackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
F�A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
F�B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
0C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
F�D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Heavy stormwater imput from new development.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WA
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Date of Assessment 1/7/2021
Matt Martin/ Gordon
Assessor Name/Organization Marsh
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summar
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition MEDIUM
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
—MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

SA
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 1/7/2021
Project/Site: Six Forks Rd
Latitude: 35.852976
Evaluator: Matt Martin, Gordon Marsh
County: Wake
Longitude: -78.644394
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 26.5
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Raleigh West
if �! 19 or perennial if �! 30*
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
1
e.g. Quad Name.
1 1
L_J bL
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal 14.5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a- Continuity of channel bed and bank
0 F-1
1
2 M
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0 F-1
1 [Z]
2 F-1
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 F-1
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1 7/1
2
3 F-1
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1 0
1.5
10. Natural valley
0 F1
0.5
1 El
1.5E]
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0 El
Yes 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 7
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2 E]
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2 F-1
3
14. Leaf litter
1. 5 F-1
1 [Z]
0.5 F-1
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5 [Z]
1 El
1.5[:]
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5 E]
1 [:]
1 1.5[:]
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0 E]
Yes = 3 El
C. Biology (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
071
1
2 F-1
3
22. Fish
0 M
0.5
1 F-1
1.5[-]
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
F-1
1
1. 5 F-1
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
[:]
1
1.5 [:]
25. Algae
0
0.50
1 1:1
1. 5 F-1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
[:]FACW =
0.7EDBL
1.5 Other 0
Verennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: See Figure.

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
ie5 user ivianuai ver5iond.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Six Fork Road Improvements (SA) 2. Date of evaluation: 1/7/2021
3. Applicant/owner name: City of Raleigh 4. Assessor name/organization: Matt Martin/ Gordon Marsh
5. County: Wake 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Neuse on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Mine Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.852976, -78.644394
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SA 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 50
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2 E]Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 3 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? E]Yes E]No
14. Feature type: E]Perennial flow EIntermittent flow Midal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: El Mountains (M) E Piedmont (P) El Inner Coastal Plain (1) El Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic F�A \1 E B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ESize 1 (< 0.1 Mi2) E]Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 Mi2) E]Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 Mi2) E]Size 4 (�! 5 Mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? EYes E]No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
F� Section 10 water ElClassified Trout Waters E]Water Supply Watershed (Ell EIII EIIII EIIV EIV)
F�Essential Fish Habitat E]Primary Nursery Area El High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
F�Publicly owned property ENCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ENutrient Sensitive Waters
F�Anadromous fish E1303(d) List EICAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
F� Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
F� Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? E]Yes ENo
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
NA Water throughout assessment reach.
F�B No flow, water in pools only.
DC No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
F�A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
OB Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
EA A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
F�B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
F�A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
OB Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
F�A < 10% of channel unstable
F�B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
EC > 25% of channel unstable

6. Strearnside Area Interaction — strearnside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
EIA F�A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
EIB OB
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited strearnside area access, disruption of flood flows through strearnside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
EC OC
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through strearnside area] ar too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstrearn divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
F�A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
F�B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
QC Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
F�D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
F�E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F�F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
F�G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
F�H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
El Other: Urban Stream (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
DJ Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought-, for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
F�A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
F�B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
0C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
ElYes ENo Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Strearnside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
1 Oa. ZYes F�No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
1 Ob. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
EIA Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses -F, W EIF 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) 2 E EJG Submerged aquatic vegetation
Co
F�B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent 2 — EJ H Low -tide refugia (pools)
U—) -C
vegetation C QI Sand bottom
EJC Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) EJJ 5% vertical bank along the marsh
ED 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots EJ K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
F�E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ZYes F�No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
1 1b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
F�A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
F�B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11 d)
ZC Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
El El El El Q Bedrock/saprolite
El El El El Q Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
El El El El Q Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
El El El El Q Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
El El El El Q Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
El El El El El Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
El El El El Q Detritus
El El El El El Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
1 1d. ElYes F�No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Eyes FlNo Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. E]No Water F�Otlher:
12b. E]Yes ENo Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
El F�Adult frogs
El E]Aquatic reptiles
El E]Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
El F�Beetles
El E]Caddisfly larvae (T)
El F�Asian clam (Corbicula)
El E]Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
El E]Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
El F�Dipterans
F-1 E]Mayfly larvae (E)
F-1 E]Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
F-1 E]Midges/mosquito larvae
F-1 ElMosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
F-1 F�Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
F-1 F�Otlher fish
F-1 F� Sal amanders/tadpoles
F-1 F�Snails
F-1 E]Stonefly larvae (P)
F-1 Mipulid larvae
F-1 F�Worms/leeclhes
13. Strearnside Area Ground Surface Condition — strearnside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
FIA F�A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the strearnside area
FIB EB Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the strearnside area
EC OC Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the strearnside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Strearnside Area Water Storage — strearnside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the strearnside area.
LB RB
FIA FIA Majority of strearnside area with depressions able to pond water �! 6 inches deep
FIB FIB Majority of strearnside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
FIC FIC Majority of strearnside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — strearnside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the strearnside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Fly QY Are wetlands present in the strearnside area?
EN EN
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
NA Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
F�B Ponds (include wet detention basins- do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
QC Obstruction passing flow during low-ilow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
ED Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
F�E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F�F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
F�A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
F�B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
0C Urban stream (> 24% impervious surface for watershed)
F�D Evidence that the strearnside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
F�E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F�F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
NA Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
F�B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
DC Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — strearnside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
EIA EA EIA EA 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
E B EIB EB RB From 50 to < 100 feet wide
EIC EIC EIC RC From 30 to < 50 feet wide
EID EID EID RD From 10 to < 30 feet wide
Ej E Ej E Ej E R E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — strearnside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
EJA EA Mature forest
EB RB Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
EIC RC Herbaceous vegetation with or W�ithout a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
Ej D R D Maintained shrubs
Ej E R E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — strearnside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: 0
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
EIA EIA EIA EIA EIA F�A Row crops
EIB EIB OB EIB OB F�B Maintained turf
EIC EIC EIC EIC EIC QC Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
EID EID EID EID EID F�D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — strearnside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
EA EA Medium to high stem density
EIB F�B Low stem density
EIC OC No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — strearnside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
EIA EA The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
EB F�B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
EIC OC The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — strearnside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
EIA F�A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
EB EB Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing ar
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
EIC OC Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. E]Yes ZNo Was conductivity measurement recorded? No Meter
If No, select one of the following reasons. E]No Water ZOther:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
E]A < 46 E]B 46 to < 67 E]C 67 to < 79 E]D 79 to < 230 Ej E �! 230
Notes/Sketch

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Six Fork Road
Stream Site Name Date of Assessment
Improvements (SA)
1/7/2021
Stream Category Pbl Assessor Name/Organization
Matt Martin/ Gordon Marsh
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACEI
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streannside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Strearnside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
ie5 user ivianuai ver5iond.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Six Fork Road Improvements (SA) 2. Date of evaluation: 1/7/2021
3. Applicant/owner name: City of Raleigh 4. Assessor name/organization: Matt Martin/ Gordon Marsh
5. County: Wake 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Neuse on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Mine Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.852948, -78.645117
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SA 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 50
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4 E]Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 5 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? E]Yes E]No
14. Feature type: EPerennial flow E]Intermittent flow Midal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: El Mountains (M) E Piedmont (P) El Inner Coastal Plain (1) El Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic F�A \1 E B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ESize 1 (< 0.1 Mi2) E]Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 Mi2) E]Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 Mi2) E]Size 4 (�! 5 Mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? EYes E]No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
F� Section 10 water ElClassified Trout Waters E]Water Supply Watershed (Ell EIII EIIII EIIV EIV)
F�Essential Fish Habitat E]Primary Nursery Area El High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
F�Publicly owned property ENCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ENutrient Sensitive Waters
F�Anadromous fish E1303(d) List EICAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
F� Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
F� Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? E]Yes ENo
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
NA Water throughout assessment reach.
F�B No flow, water in pools only.
DC No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
F�A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
OB Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
EA A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
F�B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
F�A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
OB Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
F�A < 10% of channel unstable
EB 10 to 25% of channel unstable
DC > 25% of channel unstable

6. Strearnside Area Interaction — strearnside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
EIA F�A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
OB OB
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited strearnside area access, disruption of flood flows through strearnside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
FIC OC
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through strearnside area] ar too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstrearn divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
F�A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
F�B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
QC Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
F�D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
F�E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F�F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
F�G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
F�H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
El Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
DJ Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought-, for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
F�A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
F�B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
0C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
ElYes ENo Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Strearnside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
1 Oa. ZYes F�No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
1 Ob. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
EIA Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses -F, W EIF 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) 2 E EIG Submerged aquatic vegetation
F�B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent EIH Low -tide refugia (pools)
U—) -C
vegetation C QI Sand bottom
EIC Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) ED 5% vertical bank along the marsh
ED 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots EIK Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
F�E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ZYes F�No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
1 1b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
ZA Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
ZB Pool -glide section (evaluate 11 d)
DC Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
El Z El El F1 Bedrock/saprolite
Z El El El F1 Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
El Z El El F1 Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
El El El Z F1 Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
El Z El El F1 Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
El Z El El El Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
El Z El El F1 Detritus
Z El El El El Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
1 1d. ElYes ZNo Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Eyes FlNo Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. E]No Water F�Otlher:
12b. Eyes E]No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
El F�Adult frogs
El E]Aquatic reptiles
El E]Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
El F�Beetles
El E]Caddisfly larvae (T)
El EAsian clam (Corbicula)
El E]Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
El E]Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
El F�Dipterans
F-1 E]Mayfly larvae (E)
F-1 E]Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
F-1 E]Midges/mosquito larvae
F-1 ElMosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
F-1 F�Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
F-1 F�Otlher fish
F-1 F� Sal amanders/tadpoles
F-1 F�Snails
F-1 E]Stonefly larvae (P)
F-1 Mipulid larvae
F-1 F�Worms/leeclhes
13. Strearnside Area Ground Surface Condition — strearnside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
FIA F�A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the strearnside area
EB EB Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the strearnside area
FIC OC Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the strearnside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Strearnside Area Water Storage — strearnside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the strearnside area.
LB RB
FIA FIA Majority of strearnside area with depressions able to pond water �! 6 inches deep
FIB FIB Majority of strearnside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
FIC FIC Majority of strearnside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — strearnside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the strearnside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Fly QY Are wetlands present in the strearnside area?
EN EN
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
NA Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
F�B Ponds (include wet detention basins- do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
QC Obstruction passing flow during low-ilow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
ED Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
F�E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F�F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
F�A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
F�B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
0C Urban stream (> 24% impervious surface for watershed)
F�D Evidence that the strearnside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
F�E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F�F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
NA Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
F�B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
DC Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — strearnside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
EIA EA EIA EA 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
E B EIB EB RB From 50 to < 100 feet wide
EIC EIC EIC RC From 30 to < 50 feet wide
EID EID EID RD From 10 to < 30 feet wide
Ej E Ej E Ej E R E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — strearnside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
EJA EA Mature forest
Ej B R B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
EC RC Herbaceous vegetation with or W�ithout a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
Ej D R D Maintained shrubs
Ej E R E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — strearnside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: 0
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
EIA EIA EIA EIA EIA F�A Row crops
EIB EIB OB EIB OB F�B Maintained turf
EIC EIC EIC EIC EIC QC Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
EID EID EID EID EID F�D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — strearnside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
EIA EA Medium to high stem density
OB F�B Low stem density
EIC OC No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — strearnside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
EIA EA The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
EB F�B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
EIC OC The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — strearnside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
EIA F�A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
EB EB Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing ar
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
EIC OC Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. E]Yes ZNo Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. E]No Water ZOther: No Meter
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
E]A < 46 E]B 46 to < 67 E]C 67 to < 79 E]D 79 to < 230 Ej E �! 230
Notes/Sketch

Draft NIC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Six Fork Road Date of Assessment
1/7/2021
Improvements (SA)
Stream Category Pbl Assessor Name/Organization
Matt Martin/ Gordon Marsh
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACEI NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent—
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
MEDIUM
(3) Streannside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Strearnside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
MEDIUM

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 02/05/2021
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Chad Cantrell, Senior Engineer. 127 West Hargett Street, Raleigh N.C., 27601
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Wake City: Raleigh
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.: 35.852957 Long.: -78.64272
Universal Transverse Mercator: N/A
Name of nearest waterbody: Mine Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
F-1 Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
RE-1 Field Determination. Date(s): 01/07/2021
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non -wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource "may be"
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
WA
35.852869
-78.643876
0.03 Acres
Wetland
Section 404
SA (intermittent)
35.852976
-78.644394
166 Linear Feet
Non -Wetland
Section 404
SA (Perennial)
35.852948
-78.645117
82 Linear Feet
Non -Wetland
Section 404

1 ) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJID is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JID (AJID) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre -
construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJID for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJID, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJID before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJID could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJID constitutes the applicant's acceptance
of the use of the PJID; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJID constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJID or a PJID, the JID will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJID, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJID to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJID finds
that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:Potential Jurisdictional Features Map
F—] Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
F-1 office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
F-1 Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
F—] Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
F—] Corps navigable waters' study:
F-1 U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
F-1 USGS NHD data.
F—] USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
FE—] U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
Raleigh West, NC 1:24000
FEW Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Web Soil Survey, Wake County, NC
F—] National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
F-1 State/local wetland inventory map(s):
F-] FEMA/FIRM maps:
F-] 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: .(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
F-] Photographs: F-] Aerial (Name & Date):
or F-] Other (Name & Date):
F-] Previous determination (s). File no. and date of response letter:
F-1 Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member
completing PJD
Signature and date of
person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
I Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.

jurisdictional Determination Request
M
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
This forrn is intended for use by anyone requesting a Jurisdictional deterrnination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
to the appropriate Corps Field Office (or project manager, if known) via mail, electronic mail, or
facsimile. A current list of county assignments by Field Office and project manager can be
found on-line at: http://www.saw.usace.anily.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPenilitProuaiii.aspx, by
telephoning: 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below:
ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
General Number: (910) 251-46 10
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
General Number: 910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
Version: December 2013 Page 1

jurisdictional Determination Request
INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E and F.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES- If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part G.
NOTE ON PART D — PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that all JD
requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to proceed with the
determination, which may include inspection of the property when necessary. This form must be
signed by the current property owner to be considered a con'lplete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for JD
requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) projects will be
conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD may not
be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or
your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you
should also request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Version: December 2013 Page 2

jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: Six Forks Road, from Lynn Road to southern intersection with Rowan Street
City, State: Raleigh, North Carolina
County: Wake County, NC
Directions: Please see attached Figures
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): City of Raliegh ROW
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address'
Chad Cantrell, PE, CFM
127 West Hargett Street, Raleigh N.0 , 27601
919-996-4173
[e-mail]
Select one:
WI am the current property owner.
F-1 I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant2
1:1 Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
F-1 Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: City of Raleigh
Mailing Address: 127 West Hargett Street, Raleigh N.C., 27601
Telephone Number: 919-996-4173
3
Electronic Mail Address chad.cantrell@raleighnc gov
F]Proof of Ownership Attached (e.g. a copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record data)
If available
2 Must attach completed Agent Authorization Form
3 If available
Version: December 2013 Page 3

jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION 4
1, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein,
do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on -site investigations
C,
and issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899.
Chad Cantrell
Property Owner (please print)
Property Owner Signature
E. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION TYPE
Select One:
Date
I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminar JD for the property identified herein.
This request does include a delineation.
F-1 I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminar JD for the property identified herein.
This request does NOT include a delineation.
I am requesting that the Corps investigate the property/project area for the presence or
absence of WoUS 5 and provide an oproved JD for the property identified herein. This
request does NOT include a request for a verified delineation.
F-1 I am requesting that the Corps delineate the boundaries of all WoUS on a property/project
area and provide an oproved JD (this may or may not include a survey plat).
F-1 I am requesting that the Corps evaluate and approve a delineation of WoUS (conducted
by others) on a property/project area and provide an qpproved JD (may or may not
include a survey plat).
4 For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
5 Waters of the United States
Version: December 2013 Page 4

jurisdictional Determination Request
F. ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area (attached). This Map must clearly depict the boundaries
of the area of evaluation.
Size of Property or Project Area 98
acres
_F-] I verify that the property (or project) boundaries have recently been surveyed and marked
by a licensed land surveyor OR are otherwise clearly marked or distinguishable.
G. JD REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS OR AGENCIES
(1) Preliminary JD Requests:
P]
6
Completed and signed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form .
Project Coordinates: 35.852478
Latitude -78.643027
Maps (no larger than I I x 17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
Longitude
WLarge and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
WAerial Photography of the project area
PI USGS Topographic Map
W Soi I Survey Map
F-1 Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
6 See Appendix A of this Form. From Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 08-02, dated June 26, 2008
Version: December 2013 Page 5

jurisdictional Determination Request
Delineation Information (when applicabl e)7:
Wetlands:
W Wetland Data Sheets8
Tributaries:
F-1 USACE Assessment Forrns
Upland Data Sheets Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
F-1 Landscape Photos, if taken
F-1 Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
• All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
• Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
• Locations of photo stations
• Approximate acreage/linear footage of aquatic resources
(2) Approved JDs including Verification of a Delineation:
Project Coordinates: 35.853343 Latitude -78.644329 Longitude
Maps (no larger than I I x 17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
WLarge and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
P] Aerial Photography of the project area
W USGS Topographic Map
PI Soil Survey Map
F-1 Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site Plan,
previous delineation maps)
7 1987 Manual Regional Supplements and Data forms can be found at:
http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits/reg supp.aspx
Wetland and Stream Assessment Methodologies can be found at:
httip://i3ortal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?uuid=76f3c58b-dab8-4960-ba43-45b7fafO6f4c&groupld=38364 and,
http://www.saw.usace.army.miI/PortaIs/S9/docs/reguIatory/publicnotices/2013/NCSAM Draft User Manual 130318.pd
8 Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland/community type.
Version: December 2013 Page 6

jurisdictional Determination Request
Delineation Information (when applicable):
Wetlands:
RI Wetland Data Sheets 9
Tributaries:
n USACE Assessment Forms
Upland Data Sheets RI Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
F—I Landscape Photos, if taken
F—I Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
• All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
• Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
• Locations of photo stations
• Approximate acreage/linear footage of aquatic resources
Supporting Jurisdictional Infortriation (for Approved JDs only)
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Forrri(s) (also known as "Rapanos
Form(s)")
F—I Map(s) depicting the potential (or lack of potential) hydrologic connection(s),
adjacency, etc. to navigable waters.
9 Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland/community type.
Version: December 2013 Page 7

jurisdictional Determination Request
1. REQUESTS FOR CORPS APPROVAL OF SURVEY PLAT
Prior to final production of a Plat, the Wilmington District recommends that the Land
Surveyor electronically submit a draft of a Survey Plat to the Corps project manager for
review.
Due to storage limitations of our administrative records, the Corps requires that all hard -
copy submittals include at least one original Plat (to scale) that is no larger than I I "x 17"
(the use of match lines for larger tracts acceptable). Additional copies of a plat, including
those larger than I I "x 17", may also be submitted for Corps signature as needed. The
Corps also accepts electronic submittals of plats, such as those transmitted as a Portable
Document Format (PDF) file. Upon verification, the Corps can electronically sign these
plats and return them via e-mail to the requestor.
(1) PLATS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
F-1 Must be sealed and signed by a licensed professional land surveyor
F-1 Must be to scale (all maps must include both a graphic scale and a verbal scale)
F-1 Must be legible
F-1 Must include a North Arrow, Scale(s), Title, Property Inforniation
F-1 Must include a legible WoUS Delineation Table of distances and bearings/metes
and bounds/GPS coordinates of all surveyed delineation points
F-1 Must clearly depict surveyed property or project boundaries
F-1 Must clearly identify the known surveyed point(s) used as reference (e.g. property
comer, USGS monument)
F-1 When wetlands are depleted:
• Must include acreage (or square footage) of wetland polygons
• Must identify each wetland polygon using an alphanumeric system
Version: December 2013 Page 8

jurisdictional Determination Request
F—I When tributaries are depicted:
• Must include either a surveyed, approximate centerline of tributary with
approximate width of tributary OR surveyed Ordinary High Water Marks
(OHWM) of tributary
• Must identify each tributary using an alphanumeric system
• Must include linear footage of tributaries and calculated area (using approximate
widths or surveyed OHWM)
• Must include name of tributary (based on the most recent USGS topographic
map) or, when no USGS name exists, identify as "unnamed tributary"
F—I all depicted WoUS (wetland polygons and tributary lines) must intersect or tie -to
surveyed project/property boundaries
F—I Must include the location of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment
reaches
F—I Must include, label accordingly, and depict acreage of all waters not currently
subject to the requirements of the CWA (e.g. "isolated wetlands", "non -
jurisdictional waters"). NOTE: An approved JD must be conducted in order to
make an official Corps determination that a particular waterbody or wetland is not
jurisdictional.
F—I Must include and survey all existing conveyances (pipes, culverts, etc.) that
transport WoUS
Version: December 2013 Page 9

jurisdictional Determination Request
(2) CERTIFICATION LANGUAGE
F-1 When the entire actual Jurisdictional Boundary is depicted:
include the following Corps Certification language:
"This certifies that this copy of this plot accurately depicts the boundary of the jurisdiction
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the undersigned on this date.
Unless there is a change in the low or our published regulations, the determination of
Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a period not to exceedfive (5) years from
this date. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the appropriate Regional
Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual."
Regulatory Official:
Title:
Date:
USA CE Action ID No.:
F-1 When Liplands mqy be present within a depicted Jurisdictional Boundg�L
include the following Corps Certification language:
"This certifies that this copy of this plot identifies a// areas of waters of the United States
regulated pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the
undersigned on this dote. Unless there is change in the low or our published regulations,
this determination of Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years from this dote. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the
appropriate Regional Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual."
Regulatory Official:
Title:
Date:
USA CE Action ID No.:
Version: December 2013 Page 10

jurisdictional Determination Request
(3) GPS SURVEYS
For Surveys prepared using a Global Positioning System (GPS), the Survey must include
all of the above, as well as:
Wbe at sub -meter accuracy at each survey point.
F—I include an accuracy verification:
One or more known points (property comer, monument) shall be located with the
GPS and cross-referenced with the existing traditional property survey (metes and
bounds).
include a brief description of the GPS equipment utilized.
Version: December 2013 Page 11

AJD Area 1
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
'Ibis form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): 08/7/2019
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:NC County/parish/borough: Wake City: Raleigh
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal formal): Lat. 35.85338' 1, Long. -78.644218' W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: N/A
Name of nearest waterbody: Mine Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Neuse
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020201
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offisite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc ... ) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CBECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s): 0 1/07/2021
SECTION 11: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RRA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There &edW "navigable waters ofthe U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RIIA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or maybe susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
'Mere M "waters ofthe U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
F-1 Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
HNon-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
F-1 Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
d Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
,F� Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 7987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHW`M (if known): .
2. Non -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: Area is a engineered stormwater area .
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section In below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section 111.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNW`s and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section HLA.1 and Section HLDA. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections HLAA and 2
and Section HLDA.; otherwise, see Section HLB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adj acenf
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (17HAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (R_PWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section HLD.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section HLDA.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody' is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW`, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section HLB.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section HLB.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section HLC below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNW's that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size:
Drainage area: M
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
F-1 Tributary flows directly into TNW.
E Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are P77—List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
'Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
' Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

Tributary stream order, if known: SB upstream of its confluence with SC is a first order tributary. SC is a first order
tributary. SA upstream of its confluence with SB is a first order tributary. SB downstream of its confluence with SC is a second order
tributary. SA downstream of its confluence with SB is a second order triburary.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: F-1 Natural
El Artificial (man-made). Explain:
El Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
Silts Sands Concrete
Cobbles Gravel Muck
E] Bedrock El Vegetation. Type/% cover:
R Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/n'fl1ei/iooii1cicmpIexes. Explain:
Tributary geom(
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: lick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: EidLList. Explain findings:
[_1 Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
F-1 Bed and banks
OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
F� clear, natural line impressed on the bank
F-1
the presence of litter and debris
F-1 changes in the character of soil
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
R shelving
the presence of wrack line
E] vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
sediment sorting
leaf litter disturbed or washed away
scour
sediment deposition
El
multiple observed or predicted flow events
water staining
El
abrupt change in plant community
other (list):
Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: 0 Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
E] oil or scum line along shore objects F-1 survey to available datum;
E] fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) El physical markings;
El physical markings/characteristics El vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
F-1 tidal gauges
F-1 other (list):
(iii) Chendcal Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: water is clear. .
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHVTM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
F-1 Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
F-1 Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
Habitat for:
El Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
El Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: SA and SB support fish.
R Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
El Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetla,nd size: acres
Wetla,nd type. Explain:
Wetla,nd quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: �. Explain findings:
El Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
F-1 Directly abutting
F-1 Not directly abuttmg
F-1 Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
E] Ecological connection. Explain:
El Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximi1y (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are FWrM river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Mck List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the � floodplain.
(ii) Chernical Characteristics:
Characterize welland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
F-1 Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
El Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
Habitat for:
El Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
El Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
R Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
El Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All welland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Direcfly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Direcfly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
fmdings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section 111.1):
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain fmdings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section 111.1):
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain fmdings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section 111.1):
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CBECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section 111.13. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWs1 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters?
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1 -6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
F-1 which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
F-1 Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
F-1 Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
'See Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section 111.13.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
" Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction FoHowing Rapanos.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft)-
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
[J Wetlands:
acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CIIECKAILL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
F-1 Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based �i� on the
"Migrator, Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a fmding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other- (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MI3R
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
dgment (check all that apply):
Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a fmding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTINGDATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: .
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date):
or Other (Name & Date):Field Photos, 07/30/2019.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
El Applicable/supporting case law:
El Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
R Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: The "AJD Area" is a engineereed stormwater area. .

AJD Area 2
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
'Ibis form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): 02/05/2021
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:NC County/parish/borough: Wake City: Raleigh
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal formal): Lat. 35.8532605'N' N, Long. -78.6413149" W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: N/A
Name of nearest waterbody: Mine Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Neuse
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020201
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offisite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc ... ) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CBECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s): 0 1/07/2021
SECTION 11: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RRA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
ThereAreno "navigable waters ofthe U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RIIA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "waters ofthe U.S. " within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):
F� TNWs, including territorial seas
F� Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
F-1 Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
F-1 Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
F-1 Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
F-1 Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
F� Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
n Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
F� Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHW`M (if known): .
2. Non -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: Area is a engineered stormwater area.
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section In below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section HIT.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNW`s and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section HLA.1 and Section HLDA. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections HLAA and 2
and Section HLDA.; otherwise, see Section HLB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adj acenf
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (17HAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (R_PWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section HLD.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section HLDA.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody' is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW`, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section HLB.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section HLB.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section HLC below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNW's that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: acres
Drainage area: acres
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
F-1 Tributary flows directly into TNW.
E Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
'Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
' Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

Tributary stream order, if known: SB upstream of its confluence with SC is a first order tributary. SC is a first order
tributary. SA upstream of its confluence with SB is a first order tributary. SB downstream of its confluence with SC is a second order
tributary. SA downstream of its confluence with SB is a second order triburary.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: F-1 Natural
El Artificial (man-made). Explain:
El Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: �
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
Silts Sands Concrete
Cobbles Gravel Muck
E] Bedrock El Vegetation. Type/% cover:
R Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick Lis�. Explain findings:
[_1 Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
F-1 Bed and banks
E] OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
F� clear, natural line impressed on the bank
F-1
the presence of litter and debris
F-1 changes in the character of soil
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
R shelving
the presence of wrack line
E] vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
sediment sorting
leaf litter disturbed or washed away
scour
sediment deposition
El
multiple observed or predicted flow events
water staining
El
abrupt change in plant community
other (list):
Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: F-1 Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
E] oil or scum line along shore objects F-1 survey to available datum;
E] fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) El physical markings;
El physical markings/characteristics El vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
F-1 tidal gauges
F-1 other (list):
(iii) Chendcal Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: water is clear. .
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHVTM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
F-1 Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
F-1 Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
Habitat for:
El Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
El Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: SA and S13 support fish.
R Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
El Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetla,nd size: acres
Wetla,nd type. Explain:
Wetla,nd quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
El Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
F-1 Directly abutting
F-1 Not directly abuttmg
F-1 Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
E] Ecological connection. Explain:
El Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximily (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chernical Characteristics:
Characterize welland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
F-1 Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
El Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
Habitat for:
El Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
El Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
R Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
El Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All welland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Direcfly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Direcfly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
fmdings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section 111.1):
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain fmdings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section 111.1):
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain fmdings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section 111.1):
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CBECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
F-1 TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
F-1 Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section 111.13. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
F-1 Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
F-1 Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWs1 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
F-1 Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
F-1 Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters?
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
'See Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section 111.13.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
" Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction FoHowing Rapanos.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
r_1 Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft)-
F-1 Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CIIECKAILL THAT APPLY):
F-1 If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
F-1 Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
F-1 Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based �i� on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
F1 Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a fmding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
El Other- (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MI3R
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
F-1 Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
F-1 Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
F-1 Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
El Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: .
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date):
or Other (Name & Date):Field Photos, 07/30/2019.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter -
El Applicable/supporting case law:
El Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
R Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: The "AJD Area" is a engineereed stormwater area. .