20070434 Ver 1_401 Application_20070307

~ Kimsey-Horn v 0 7 0 4 3 4
~ and Associates, Inc.
March 7, 2007
Mr. Ronnie Smith ~
P.0 Box 33068
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh, North Carolina
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office 2763s-3osa
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 PAYMENT
Ms. Cyndi Karoly RECEIVED
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Suite 250
c~ D
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 ~~'-'-~~ ~~
Re: Stoneridge Subdivision ~~'~'~ ~ Za~l
NWP # 39 Application Submittal DENR-WATERt~UALITY
Harnett County, North Carolina 4NETIANDSANpSTORMWATERg(~CH
Dear Mr. Smith and Ms. Karoly:
On behalf of our client, Harnett 27, LLC (managed by First Capital Investments,
LLC), Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. is submitting the enclosed joint Section
404/401 Pre-Construction Notification for the above reference project for your
review pursuant to Nationwide Permit number 39, and Genera1401 Water
Quality Certification number 3402. The following information is included as
part of the application submittal:
• Project Summary Sheet
• Pre-Construction Notification Form
• Site Location Map (Figure 1)
• USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2)
• NRCS Soils Map (Figure 3)
• Aerial Photo/Delineation of Site (Figure 4)
• Project Plans (Figure 5-10)
• Proposed Mitigation Plan (Exhibit A)
• Email from Applicant (Exhibit B)
• Agent Authorization Letter (Exhibit C)
• Wetland Data Forms (14) (Exhibit D)
• DWQ Stream Identification Forms (4) (Exhibit E)
• USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (4) (Exhibit F)
• On-site Impervious Surface Calculations (Exhibit G)
^
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

~ _ Kim~y-Horn Mr. Smith and Ms. Karoly, March 7, 2007, Pg. 2
~ ~ arul Associates, Inc.
Proposed impacts resulting from the project include 0.10 acre of wetlands and
2571inear feet of perenniaUimportant stream channel. The wetland impacts are
required for the construction of access roads into the site, and the stream impacts
are required for the construction of two road crossings necessary to access high
ground on the site.
In order to mitigate for permanent impacts to 2571inear feet streams resulting
from required road construction, we are proposing the preservation of 3,551
linear feet of stream channel with a minimum 50-foot buffer from top of bank,
and an additiona15,0801inear feet of steam channel with a variable width buffer.
Additionally, extensive efforts have been made to avoid and minimize impacts on
the site, including the establishment of open space on all remaining wetland and
stream corridors on the site.
It is also our understanding that projects applying for authorization before the
expiration of the current nationwide permits on March 18, 2007, must also
demonstrate their intention to initiate construction or have the project under
contract by March 18, 2007. Included in the application is an email from Mr.
Witek with First Capital Investments, Inc. stating that the grading contract for the
project has already been let. The email also demonstrates that a significant
investment has been made in reliance upon the use of the current Nationwide
Permit # 39. We hope that this information is sufficient to allow authorization of
the propose project prior to the expiration of the permits.
If there is any additional information you need or any way we can assist in
expediting the processing of this application, please do not hesitate to contact me
at [phone].
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
~~ ~~ ~~
~~~
Todd J. Tugwe 1
Environmental Scientist
Enclosures
Cc: Mr. Larry Witek, President
First Capital Investments, LLC
1121 Situs Court
Suite 290
Raleigh, NC 27606

~ ~ Kimley-Horn
~~ ________ and Associates, Inc. project Summary Sheet
Project Name: Stoneridge Subdivision
Applicant Name and Address: Harnett 27, LLC (Managed by First Capital Investments, LLC
Attn: Larry Witek
1121 Situs Court, Suite 390
Raleigh, NC 27606
Telephone Number: [phone]
Type of Request: ®Nationwide PCN (NWP # 39) ^ Indivic
^ Jurisdictional Determination ^ Other:
Included Attachments: ®Project Plans ®USGS Map
® Agent Authorization ®Delineation Sketch
® Data Forms (Up & Wet) ®NCDWQ Stream Forms
^ NCEEP Confirmation ®Aerial Photo
^ Agency Correspondence ®Other: Email
lual Permit Application
® NRCS Soil Survey
^ Delineation Survey
® USACE Stream Forms
® Site Photos
® Other: Mitigation Plan
Check if applicable: ^ CAMA County ^ Trout County ^ Isolated Waters
^ Section 7, ESA ^ Section 106, NHPA ^ EFH
® Mitigation Proposed (^ NC EEP ®On-Site ^ Off-Site ^ Other)
County: Harnett County, NC Nearest City/Town: Lillington, NC
Waterway: Hickory Branch, Barbeque Creek
H.U.C.: 03030004
Property Size (acres): 206
Site Coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.3456 °N
River Basin: Cape Fear
USGS Quad Name: Anderson Creek, NC (1956;1981)
Approx. Size of Jurisdiction on Site (acres): +/- 45
78.9857 °W
Project Location: The site is located on the north side of NC Highway 27, approximately 1 mile east of SR 1213
(MacArthur Road), west of Lillington, North Carolina.
Site Description: The site is currently forested with some areas that have been cleared and used as agricultural fields.
Impact Summary (if applicable): Impacts associated with the project include the placement of fill and riprap into 0.10 acre
of wetlands and 2571inear feet of stream channel required for the construction of roads associated with the development of a
single family residential subdivision.
W
t
O W
tl
d Stream Channel
NWP
# pen
a
er
(acres) an
e
(acres) Intermittent and/or Unimportant
A vatic Function Perennial and/or Important
A vatic Function
Tem Perm. Tem Perm.
Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. if ac if ac If ac if Ac
39 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 257 0.04

Total 0.1 257 0.04
Total Permanent Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.14
Kimley-Horn Contact: Todd Tugwell
Direct Number: 919-677-2104
^ ^
P.0 Box 33068 TEL [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina FAX [phone]
276363066

Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
0 7 0 4 3 4
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
2
~~~Yr~~NT
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project: RECE~VE~
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: 39
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), chec ;~ ~ ;~,~~-,
t:_.::,~ ' ' R
r
II. Applicant Information
M~ ~ ~.
~ ~~°
1. Owner/Applicant Information ~Er~n
Name: Harnett 27 LLC (managed by First Capital Ii~$~9l~e~tst~~~a a~,an;cf,
Mailing Address: Attn: Larry Witek
1121 Situs Court
Suite 390
Raleigh NC 27606
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number:~919) 858-9472
E-mail Address: liwitek(a,firstcapinv.com
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Todd Tugiwell
Company Affiliation: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Mailing Address: 3001 Weston Parkway
C ~ NC 27513
Telephone Number: 919-677-2104 Fax Number: 919-677-2104
E-mail Address: todd.tugwell(a)kimley-horn.com
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 1 of 11

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Stoneridge Subdivision
2. T.LP. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): Not a NCDOT project.
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 0508 41 0412000, 0508 41 7271000
4. Location
County: Harnett Nearest Town: Lillington
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Stoneridl;e
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): The site is located on the
north side of NC Highway 27, approximately 1 mile east of SR 1213 (MacArthur Road
west of Lillington, North Carolina. A vicinity map is enclosed as Figure 1.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.3456 °N 78.9857 °W
6. Property size (acres): 206 acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Hickory Branch (Stream Index # 18-20-13-9,
Classification C)
8. River Basin: Cape Fear, 03030004
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The area surrounding the site is generally rural and
agricultural in nature. The project site is currently forested with some areas that have been
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 2 of 11

cleared and used as agricultural fields. Hickory Branch flows to the north e~y
following the western property boundary. There is a wetland system, measuring
approximately 14 acres, toward the front of the site which drains to a stream that crosses the
property from east to west before joinin Hickory Branch. A second stream, which crosses
the property about halfway toward the back of the site, also joins Hickory Branch. Hickory
Branch flows throu h~~e wetland system, measuring approximately 30 acres, in the
northwest corner of the site. See the enclosed USGS topographic quadrangl~Fi ug_re 2~,,
Harnett County Soil Surve~Fi ug re 3), and aerial/delineation map (Fi ug re 4). The streams
on the site were reviewed using both the NCDWQ Stream Identification Form and the
USACE Stream Assessment Form (enclosed in Appendix A). Based on these assessments,
and correspondence with Mr. Ronnie Smith with the USACE, the streams have been
determined to be perennial with important aquatic function.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed project includes construction of asingle-family residential subdivision. The
development will be built in three phases and contains approximately 299 lots. The
development will have two entrances along NC 27. Four small wetland impacts are
necessary to construct the access roads into the site. The total for these four wetland impacts
is 0.10 acre. Phase 1 of the project requires the construction of a stream crossing using a
culvert and dissipater pad. The impact, including the dissipater, will be 118 linear feet of
stream channel. A second stream crossing will be required for Phase 2 and 3, with an impact
of 139 linear feet. Both stream crossings will total 257 linear feet, including the dissipater
pads. Construction will be performed usin~w equipment such as bulldozers, dump
trucks, and excavators.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The proposed development will provide single-
family housing in the Harnett County area. The proposed fill is necessary to allow
development of the site. Streams and wetlands have been avoided to the maximum extent
practicable, and unavoidable impacts have been minimized. Only one stream crossing has
been proposed across each stream. The length of the impact is largely due to the steep
topography of the site, which requires sloped fills extending back from the road surface. The
width of the roadway has been minimized and 3:1 slopes have been used to reduce the extent
of fill. Wetland impacts associated with the access roads off NC 27 were also reduced to the
minimum necessary. NCDOT has required that the roads into the site be located directly
across from existing driveways on the opposite side of NC 27. For the three impacts along
Hampton Drive (Impacts 1, 2 and 3), the minimum radius curvature was used from the fixed
entry point on NC 217 to try to avoid wetlands, however it was not possible to completely
avoid impacts. Similarly, the impact along Stoneridge Drive (Impact 4) was also a result of
the access point location mandated ~ NCDOT.
The applicant has also taken extra steps to avoid indirect impacts. The lot lines were set at
the edge of the wetlands in order to prevent any unintended fill with wetlands resulting from
lot construction. The stream channels were also kept out of building lots to reduce stream
impacts during lot construction. For a majority of the streams on the site, a buffer will be
kept along the streams as well, further reducing the likelihood of unintentional impacts.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 3 of 11

IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. The site was delineated on October 18, 2006, and reviewed by Mr.
Ronnie Smith with the Corps and NCDWQ on November 9, 2006, to confirm the delineation of
waters of the U.S. Due to the temporary suspension of jurisdictional decisions by the Corps, an
approved jurisdictional determination has not been received for the project.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
The entire project three phases) is presented in this application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Construction of the project will
require impacts to six areas on the site, with a total impact of 0.10 acres of wetland and 257
linear feet of stream channel.
Impact # 1, Z, and 3 -These impacts will consist of excavation, rg ading, and the placement
fill into a wetland system for the construction of Hampton Drive. The intersection of
Hampton Drive and NC 27 was set by NCDOT, and the road was curved away from the
wetland areas at the sharpest allowable bends. Impacts 2 and 3 are also unavoidable because
the road could not be moved further to the south due to minimum size and dimension
restrictions for the lots backing_up to NC 27. The total impact for these three fill areas is
0.094 acres.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 4 of 11

Impact # 4- This impact will result from the placement of fill into wetlands necessary for the
construction of Stonerid~e Drive. The intersection of Stoneridge and NC 27 is required by
NCDOT to be in alignment with the road on the opposite side of NC 27. As a result impacts
to the wetland in this area cannot be further avoided or minimized.
Impact # 5 and 6- These impacts will result from two stream crossin sg along Trailwood
Drive. The crossings will require the placement of concrete culverts, fill, and riprap. Both
crossings are necessary to access high ground on the property. In both cases there are no
alternatives that would allow the road to be constructed without crossing_iurisdictional
waters. The crossings have been designed using 3:1 fill slopes in an effort to reduce the
overall stream impact. Impact 5 will result in the loss of 118 linear feet of stream, and
impact 6 will result in the loss of 139 linear feet of stream, for a total stream loss of 257
linear feet, includin theme required riprap dissipater pads.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.

Wetland Impact
NWP Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Impact
Site Number Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year Floodplain Nearest Stream (acres)
herbaceous, bog, etc.) (yes/no) (linear feet)
Impact 1, 39 Road Fill Forested, Non-riparian No 1,000 0.034
Figure 6
Impact 2, 39 Road Fill Forested, Non-riparian No 1,000 0.036
Figure 6
Impact 3, 39 Road Fill Forested, Non-riparian No 700 0.024
Figure 6
Impact 4, 39 Road Fill Forested, Riparian No 100 0.006
Figure 7
Total Wetland Impact -All Nationwide Permits (acres) 0.10
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: +/- 45 acres
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,56
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 5 of 11

Stream Impact

NWP

Perennial or Average

Stream Width
Impact
Area of
Number
Number Stream Name Type of Impact
Intermittent?
Before Length Impact
(indicate on map)
Im act (linear feet) (acres)
Impact 5, 39 UT to Hickory Culvert, Riprap Perennial, 6 feet 118 0.016
Figure 8 Branch Important
Impact 6, 39 UT to Hickory Culvert Riprap Perennial, 6 feet 139 0.019
Figure 9 Branch Important
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 257 0.04
Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
NWP
Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number
Number
(if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
indicate on ma ocean, etc. acres

Total Open Water Impact (acres) NA
6. List the cumulative im act to all Waters of the U.S. resultin from the ro~ect:
Stream Im act (acres): 0.04
Permanent Wetland Im act (acres): 0.10
Tem ora Wetland Im act (acres): NA
O en Water Im act (acres): NA
Total Im act to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.14
Total Stream Im act (linear feet): 257
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 6 of 11

8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to
Expected pond surface area:_
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Streams and wetlands have
been avoided to the maximum extent practicable, and unavoidable impacts have been minimized.
Only one stream crossing has been proposed across each stream. The length of the impact is
largely due to the topography of the site, which requires sloped fills extendin>; back from the
road surface. The width of the roadway has been minimized and 3:1 slopes have been used to
reduce the extent of fill. Wetland impacts associated with the access roads off NC 27 were also
reduced to the minimum necessary. NCDOT has required that the roads into the site be located
directly across from existing driveways on the opposite side of NC 27. For the three impacts
along Hampton Drive, the minimum radius curvature was used from the fixed entrypoint on NC
217 to try to avoid wetlands, however it was not possible to completely avoid impacts.
Similarly, the impact along Stoneridge Drive was also a result of the access point location
mandated by NCDOT.
The applicant has also taken extra steps to avoid indirect impacts. The lot lines were set at the
edge of the wetlands in order to prevent any unintended fill with wetlands resulting from lot
construction. The stream channel was also kept out of building lots to reduce stream impact.
For a maiority of the streams on the site, a buffer will be kept along the streams, as well, further
reducing the likelihood of unintentional impacts.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 7 of 11

VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strm~ide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
See Exhibit A for a description of the miti atg ion plan. The proposed stream preservation is
shown on Figure 10.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): None
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): None
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): None
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): None
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): None
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 8 of 11

IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ^ No
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ^ No
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ^ No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
s uare feet Miti ation
Impact Site 4 (Zone 2)
(Figure 5 & 6)
Impact Site 5 (Zone 2)
(Figure 5 & 7)
Impact Site 6 (Zone 2)
(Figure 5 & 7)
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 9 of 11

3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
Stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. The project site is approximately 206 acres in
size, with no measurable amount of impervious surface. Upon completion of all phases of the
project, the total amount of impervious surface will measure approximately 33 acres, or 16%. If
eliminatin t~~e wetland (measuring approximately 32 acres) at the rear of the site from the
calculation, the impervious surface will be approximately 19%. Calculations have been attached
as Exhibit G.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Wastewater will be pumped to a public force main along highway 27 that will take it to a Harnett
County wastewater treatment facility in the western part of the county. The force main on the
project site will be located under the roads, and will not require additional stream or wetland
crossings.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description: The
proposed residential development will not induce further development. The surroundin a~ rea is
subject to some development pressure, but the proposed residential development has only
minimal impacts and will have less than 20% impervious surfaces, which will reduce the effect
of stormwater generated by the project. This project is proposed to meet the existing demand
within the region and is not anticipated to result in more than minimal additional demand for
residential or commercial development.
Updated 11 / 1 /2005
Page 10 of 11

XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
ZDO7
Applicant/A'~Signature Date
(Agent's signature is_va~i only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 11 of 11

15 CH ~ HAM KE ",.
d, 301 _
-$ r:,` F ° ~' ~ J TON 70 ~
... is ' ~
i 1 tARN TT ;,~
.~ ~ w _~ __~ .:,
r 87 ' 401
~fR 421
l ~
OH E
i
OGRE „M„
210 7' az1 -
,~ _. 13
0 50 100 UMB RLA 0 10 20
~IOKE ~
Miles ~ 59 87~~~t `: ___--~
a
E ~ ~ o
v e~o~
v ~,a ~ ~a d/
~~ ___~--2i~~~hG~ MoOo~9a~aR.
: Ra
i t~°Fa~\a~ a~~e~~~ 1/ ~~~ ~~°. P'G~~l~SO1246
5v ~ ~'Po,
a f ~ 1243 ~`y ` S Cha , el_Ftd-
ta ~ u> W A_ Moore _ ,
a~~v ;~ ~ 2 a9e.Ra
a m ~N °' a '~ f Project Area
N ~m N~ ~~ o
o tea, '~~, COd~
~- ,~
a ~ Stancil-R. Gco
v /
j roc L~^
v '~
~ ~ ~ Switt-Rd ~a
27
E
(6
C
I ~
i (~
~ m 1335 Gil ~i Rd
~l
a
o a
~_
3
~. earr• `~ ~/
1 °eh.Rd ~ !
~Y
a ~
c 2160 Rai saw-Ln
2178 0, M`~~ er-Ftd ~ ~.
~ Kramer-Rd~
~ ~~
Alpine ~r m
a
eat ~~ ~ ~ l
~a ~ ~or9~ ~~ ~5 ~ _ f
`~~' 2157 ~ 2'
~o~m ~ 0 0.5 1
>~~v ~ Per Males ----~;;
/0~ D-L-P~MilVipl~d~ ( \
Title Location Map
Project Stoneridge Subdivision v '~ 7 Q 4 ~ ~,
Prepared For: Harnett County, North Carolina
Harnett 27, LLC Date Project Number Figure
3/6/07 012795001 1
T:\pn\012795001_Hamett\Figures\Hamett_Permitting_Figures.doc Prepared by Laura Lang [~~~ „,e„, i„~

~ _ _..
..
,. ,
'd
~ 1.. ,
i~
e~~
c*
~~ .1` __.
1 ~ _
'~` ~,
` !/ _
.f )1
1 '~
\ ~
~C\ 1~ _
l~ ~\
~ 'V
^- ~ __ _-_ ~~....JJ
r ~ •' , '
,~ ,
f
~ ~ ~ ! . - '~G ~-.-r-- r ~ ~ ~ ~~ i
ta, ti ~~ :- ~~, ~~ ~ ~'
_,
~~ - C r / -,sue ~ __
_ ~~
,.
,~
V1 ~a. ~ '~~ ,°,.is)~ , ~ ~ ~~, n ~~,
~ ~ --~
T \ ~_ [ 1,
` ,
`._
f
1\~ ~~. _ ~ _ r -- 1 , •; ,~ _... ~ _ ~, ~r~ _ CST' _
r ~ ~ e~
\VI~ --
Q
p ,.
G/"„ t ~ l
~~~' ~ c ~'~ <;i, ~~j (~ .i- .` r~~~-, .1 _ 0 /2,000 4,000
~.~
__ ~' ,.~ ,~61 f s Feet
-_ _ ,
_. ~ ,
Title USGS Topographic Map (Anderson Creek, NC, 1956, photorevised 1981)
Stoneridge Subdivision 7 ~ ~ - ~
Project Harnett County, North Carolina
Prepared For:
Harnett 27, LLC Date Project Number Figure
3/6/07 012795001 2
T:\pn\012795001_Harnett\Figures\Harnett_Permitting_Figures.doc Prepared by Laura Lang [gin ~~

T:\pn\012795001_Hamett\Figures\Hamett_Pennitting_Figures.doc Prepared by Laura Lang [~~ .,e,~ou., m~

* ,~y r , ~ ., ~ ,, c
~

~".~ ~,
z ' "'J~~~~ y , : " i° ~~>~ ~
,~.,. ~.Fn~ ~,~ k f~~z~ ~ ~r :Y ~ '~T.~ 2, ".. ~ k ~.r. y4r,. ~',,, ~c~,
x~~y~t ~F ~~ j~~'~ v - ' ~' ` `~ ,anE`G` ~~~~ Parcel Boundary -, ~~.
~

s
~ ~ ~
I
t
itt
t St
~Y~~
~
~'
y1±> =. ^t
n
erm
en
ream ~,
~~,.> .-
v,_
"t
.
t1
~~
4A
M,.
ys
~.
,,
` '` ~% Wetland 1 `~ ~. ,.. ~- Perennial Stream ~~
a .,
:
~
;
'
n
~t
'
~" -
"
..
~,
~
-- ~ ~
,
b 32.6 ac
~
-
~r
^~ ~ F ~ Delineated Wetlands
~~; ~` ~~
~ ~ ~. ~ `~
~
^ ~~
'
,
~
. ~~ .. ~ ,
~,
._
" ,
,
- . ,
~ ~
~
~
R,.
,r
. ~
d
;'
M 1
>
e
T ,L.
b ,
' ~
~ ~
. ~lR
\
,~y 1..~
\R
y} .
3 ~ f ~C_. ~
~
~ ~ L C
~" r
1 .
~
'1"-, x ~
.
~*~ ~-
'fir
r
~
,
t
tl
~ ~
~ >
r
~~
!
~~
d
`r ~ 3~ a `'"~• ''..' ' r # ~~ ~? " ~~A r,- ~:~~
r" :'1'f~ ~;"?f*' ' i~:
'~
• c r

`~ ~a!' Y ~ ' F
1
~t
1
..,
~~" ,
~
'~'
2 w
~`
`
~ St
~ t
~^ ~~
~
a~., .,~
~ ~ M1
_ ..
>q
ream
w~, - Stream 1
..~

Mj,_ ~3y,,y, e ~r~`~ ~ f ~ + ~ +~~ r ~ S Y' ~, ~ t ,~
~ ~ ~ •~~- ~~ ~« Wetland 2 ~ ~
,.

x . -
~
~ ~
~
~
~~ A~~e v'
`~ '~.~ ~ f ~~. ~+ ~r ~ ~ ~ 'k ~ ~~., ~..
= e ~ `t ~y ~
~
i
~
.b
l,
t
~
.. ,
. t . t ~ ~
,.,,~~ r
'

_ r.
,.~' " °r ~ ! ~~ .rt >,~,,~
` ~- y " Stream 3 {¢- ~
~ ~,

.
i
.~
,, ~ «' ~. S ~ Wetland 3
'
~
„
~~ ~
.
~ _
.~ x ~ tl
~ #~"
'
tr,
~ ac ,

~
y
a ,
~~.
~.N- ~ ~ ~
Y
~
a.
~
~ -" .

«

.
4 . .,
M F~J a ~ 1 r~ ~F
, w .~.• - .. r ~
~,,
T
~
a
$
' 1 1
~ ~
a~ a. ~
..

~, ` ' ,,; ~
Wetland 5 ~
, .~
_
~
~, 0.95 ac ~ ;;} _,~, ,~~>;4 , .,. } ~~ ..,~~
..
s+
' k"T
• ~
~
,.- ~ ,. '
w ~. f _.. Wetla C4 +
tee, tl f ~ ~r.~ 5.35 ,~ ~ ~,'**.
~4
yy +, 3 1 ! }jL .. Y

".'
o soo i,soo "~` u,~'' Stream4 `~
~
~
'
e
' ~
,
~1
F
et

Title Wetland and Stream Delineation Map (2002 Aerial Photography) following USACE onsite review

Project Stoneridge Subdivision ~ ''_ "~ ~~~
~"
Prepared Far: Harnett County, North Carolina

Harnett 27, LLC Date Project Number Figure
3/6/07 012795001 4
T:\pn\012795001_Hamett\Figures\Hamett_Permitting_Figures.doc Prepared by Laura Lang [~~ .,a~.,~

1

AVOIDED WETLANDS
0.81 AC
IMPACTED WETLANDS
SEE FIGURE 6
-- -. ~~., ,^ r_
r- ~
STREAM CROSSING
SEE FIGURE 9
^ • - M O

•
r • M -
N
• o •
- -
•
M
^
- - • • ^
r
A
r
i1
- • Y • • P
- -
A
~ a
r
a ~
a a r ^
-
~ - 3~
M

~
^
s
q -
•
^ ~ '
1
- r tl s
r
ro r * •
r M
O
~ r rl r-
r ^
r it r
~ r r r r ^ r
STREAM CROSSING
SEE FGURE 8
fMPACTED WETLANDS
SEE FGURE 7
V~~'~0434
O
0
0
0
0
J
GRAPHIC SCALE
saa o 250 500
1 Inch = 500 Feet
M ~
~ ~ • ~ ~
s ~
-
- • -~• M M r•^ r- A
I • * 11 f1

FIGURE 5 -- OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
SCALE: 1" = 500'-0"
d
Wi
W
~ '~
~
~ ~ a

~ e
~
~~
Z
;$
t~
~~_
~Y
~~
~~
c~
~~
~~
W~
4z
J~
8
O
W ~~
O ~_
W~
pY
~~
~~
~~
a~
v
~~
a
i
c~kk
05
~~ .
~~
Z
s

~ W
~~
~O
W

N ~~

K
~~
0 ~
~
~, ~~
~
~
4
~4

\ \ ~ .-~.
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~r ~ _ , WETLA~ IMPACTED ~ ~ ~ ~ / 4 1 I
~ _ _ , - ~ ~ , - ~6~ ~,~ X34 AC ~ ~ ~ ~ I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ f/
~ , ~ ~ WETLANDS IMPACTED ~ ~ ~ f ` ' i i f
~ \ ~ ~,.. -- ~ _ ~ 1582 SF = 0.036 AC ~ ( ~ ` ) ~ #
i
..-
~ ~~ ~ ~~ `- ``-_~/ ~ ~ ~ ~ 261 ~ ~ f ~ 1
I I ~ `- -.,. _, , EXISTING WETLANDS ~ ~ Q` ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ / 1 ~
/
t ~ IMPACT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~.
WETLANDS IMPACTED i . ~ ~~ y~ ~ ~ ~ ii ~ .r-- ~ N ~ ~ "„ ,.-~ ~„ ~`
~ 1028 SF \ D.024 AC ~ ~ ~ ~ r / ~ ~ '
~ ~_ i f I
! ~, - ~Q~ t
~ ~ i
\ ,' ~~ // ~ ,, ~t ~, 1121 ~~ / ~, ~~ ~ /
.~ ~ i;, 1 1
.,, i , y; ~~ ~~,. ,~,~~,r. ;~~ ~ 1 ! 1
~- ,, ~ r.1
_ i ,+
_._
5~
.." ~ /
ref ~
1 ! 1 f ~
~,. .- / ; E
~ _„ i
/ r -.~ .-'~ / / f ~ ~

070434
O
0
$i
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 0 5O 100
1 Inch = 100 Feet
FIGURE 6--WETLANDS IMPACTS
SCALE: 1" =100'-0"
WW~
~ KF
~~
Z
;Oz
t
Z ~~
a O ~
~~
o °m ~~
•~ N W
~m
W a~
3O ~
c0 W x d
~z
ZJZ~
Od
l'J
0
~~
~~
$x
~~
~i~
Z~
U ~~
J d~
~~
t ~o
G~
Z
Q N
~~
0
~3
~~
~~
~~
~ ~~
m ~U
~~
11 ~ ~°
Q = ~~
E ~y
N
~O

__ 4 , r- , ~
__ ~
....,`~ >> __ ice/ ~ !~L
t ! f j t
' ~ /
r ;: / f
- - ~
,, --- _____-- ;r
~~ '~
~i
.~~1` ~ ~
~~~
~-
_-
r 1-- `` -----~_
.- -51`ONERIDGE DRI -
,-
_--
,5 i-'_x.74.
~-
,;cZ
~~~. \ ~
~~ \
_~ `\ ~
~\
--~ ..
` `~
\ ~~~
r ~~\~~
~cZ\,
-~~ - --,
~~
`\\\\ 1 ~,
\~~1
~ i IMPACT ~4 ` `~!'
~,, WETLANDS IMPACTED~I
/ ~, 146 SF = 0.006 AC
,, ~~ EXISTING y9E~LANDS ~ ~~ 1~
'' ~ `~ } I
~~ ~~ ~~~

~ > > t
~~ ) ~
~i
I 1~1 t
1(
1/
l,^ ;• ~ i
i
~' / N i
% /
1 ~ !I
i ~ ~l'f
,~ ~`~~~/
1 ' `,
1 ~i~ ~ / ~i
.___~ k ` ` t ~ ~
'~ f ~ ~ ~~ l
' ~ I ~~ I ~
~;' , ~
. ~ , ~ / ~,,
f~`~r
/ /
~~/
l!l
If ~~
/ ,~~ '
/ ~ -~ 'I
'Ei ,
i ;
,t
_~i
;~ ~~
~-
~~
07'0434
a
g
0
n
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
50 0 25 50
1 Inch ~ 50 Feet
FIGURE 7--WETLANDS IMPACTS
SCALE;1" = 34'-0"
W~
W
W
C~

~
_
WO
~~
a
t~
~g
~~
~~
os
~d~
W
~m
W~
~ff
~~
>ia
~~
8
~- ~~
0
~~
N~
~Y
~~
~~
J ~~
~ °~
N ~~
~o
~+
Z at
Q ~^
_ ~#
~~
~s
z~
s~

~ ~~
~~
~~
1~
0 ~g
~~
~
s
~ ~~
N
_
~O

0
0
8
A
~,
~ /
/
- //
//
/
/ /
f
//
1,~3
~~
~,, , ~; ~
'; j
~~i'; Sri ~ ~ , ~
~ ; 1~ 1 I I ~
~ ' I II I I~ I l ~~ ~~
~~ hh~ l I~ I I I
.~ ;} j ,(t I I I I ii XIST~NG STEAM
I 1 l
I' ' ~ ,'I I'•1 I
' ' I I I
,, I~ ;~ ~ II I I I i I I /~
t /
E ' ~ ~ 1 !. I STREA~ 1 PAG~T ' /
Ii i,' ~ `~ '~~~~i 1 j ' ! l l It ~ ~ (
,~
/ _
~ ~~
~~`II.S \ I ~~~
~ ~.-.._
~ ~:, - i ~.
,~;i~`,/ ; I I 1~,/ ~ ~ /~ / I ,
,~ ~ ~. ~ --
-~T==~~ ~ I - ! I i
,,..^ 1 I
..~ / //~ i i l I 1 1
~, ~, I
~ // '( ~ / I/ ~ / /
~~ ~- , l / l r ~ l

/ ~ ~ ~
in, w , ~ ,4
~ ,- I ! 1 / ,, ~ f ~
~ / ~ ~ , ~~
/ / ~ ~~
,.'' I l l/ l ~ ~ , ii
~/ I ~ I / / ~/ ~/ ~y
, ) / / / /
/, / / / / // f ~ ~,' ,
l ~ , I j l ~ /~ ~, ,y n,
~ a
i f I I l/ ~~ ~~ it i f/
,,
~:~~`_~ _, 1 ~ x-81 ,f
-_.
'`~__~ _ ~~. ~ ~ Ivy `~`~''~ i ~
I ~ I
~ l
~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~
~ 1' I ' f
~~~ r~~/
1~ t~ ~ I I ~ 1 I
E I f '
I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
~', I ~ I~ 1~( I
/ I I I I~ I! ! 1 ! I
I ! ~ I ~ ~ I ,
~ ~
~~% ~ (
i ~ '+'~ I
~~ J~
r
! ~ ~ ~~ I
( / ~ ~ (~ I
~ ~ ~,
•, , '~
,,\ ` i ~ ,`\\~ '
~~ ~ I
:
~. ; ~ .~` •.~ t
~ ,, ,, .;
1'~%.
j,/ i
, Ir ~' l
;~ ~ r--~
~ ~r '` - ~r'~ in
, ,\\ ~
GRAPHIC SCALE
50 0 25 50
1 Inch = 50 Feet
FIGURE 8--STREAM IMPACT
SCALE: 1" = 50'•0"
07•p434
W r?w~
Q:~
,F
LL p~
~~
~Z~
3~
~~
~_
~~
~ z ~~
a ~ ~~
~~ U
m ~
~~
~~ ~
~ ~, ~~
oa °-~ ~~
~ z ~~
~ o ~~
~~
0
~~
'~~
~~
~~
~~
2~
~~
J ~~
J ~~
N ~~
t ~o
G~
z
a N
T O#
Z
<~
~~
~~
~~
~ ~€
~ ~~
a .~ ~W
i~ ~ ~~
0
~ ~~
E
~ _~~
N
~O

__.
_Y :_T-_~~__._ I ~ l I I
---_-_--~____ ---I l I 11' l I I I
~'~/- `----.~~~~.,~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ / l ~ li I
//, ~~ /i l 1 ,~~r ii/l lif , I
/ %~ ~ l /~ l ~ I ~ ~ 1
8
s
~~..._ -'~ /~~i //// /~l l1ll ~~ I i// l ~~ 1 / `~ ~ ~~ A
~ , i / / ~I iI II fI~ ~' ~ \ ~
~I ~
/ / / ~. ~ /
/ / ~ / / ~ ~
/ !
~,`` ~ ' / / / / ~~r~rlr~c ~/ / ~, ~ it i /l ~/ ~/ i~, ~ ~ a~1 ,~ \,
r.j!~ -'~~ ~/ ~/ / ~ / // / / /~/ ~~ ////// ! f it i ~~\`~ ~~ ~ \~
~, ~ j ~ ~ / ~ / // / / / / / ~ // // /~ / ~/ } I ~~~
/ ~' ~~
~~~~ I 1a2\ ~~,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~.
1 I ~ / r' ~ ~ ~.' J ~
/ ~1 I i 11 l r /~.' _ _ -- - _ ~- ~" ~ ~' ~.
.-
/ ~ ~ / I SiTRF/AM IMpA£~'"
;'!~ I ; ~ / / / / ~ '~"` i ~ ~\ I iii ~ 3~9 ~~ ~ ,r - - ~ _._.. ~ ._._..! _..._
/ ~-
~~ ~ II / / / ~ l ~ r ~_ h ~ ~~ ~ it i l / ,~ r __- ---_
%~~ Bill / / / / i J / '~ l~li I l ~/// r' ,/, -,~
~I ` , / / J
ii'jy/ / J / l i ~ ~ l ~~ l ill /// l __._..._ --
' ~~~ !
~ / / fl /l ii l / ~-~~ l / 1 / / / /l / / / ~
i / '' % ~~
~ f ~~ ~
~ /~ ,
~ ~ /~; ~' d

\~ /r ~~ I ' f';;
,~ ~ ~ ~~
~ '~,'`~,
:` ~., ~
~~.~.
\~~ ~ \
~ ,\~\
\ \\
~ ~, ~

GRAPHIC SCALE
50 0 25 50
1 Inch = 50 Feet
FIGURE 9--STREAM IMPACT
SCAl.E:1° = 50'•0"
07.0434
~~1WI (W~j
W CF
I~
v
LL
~Q
a~
t~
s~
~ Z ~~
QO
~~ ~~
~m ~~
~ ~
~~
~w ~~
~~ ~
~ p~~
z 4Z
~ o ~~'
~_~
~ ~
~~
u ~~
w
W
~_
OY
~~
Z
U ~o
J
'~ Zo
¢F
N =rc
~~
z
Q N
= Z
~5
o~
~~
~~
ZpUZ~
U~
w S2
~~
Z
;o
m g~
~ ~
a
~ ~ ~&
0
~~
~ ~_~
Ny
~O

s~

S1
S2
~ ~~
p
~~

8
s
$i
/,,
EXISTING
STREAM (TYP.)
® STREAM BUFFER -VARIABLE WIDTH
® STREAM BUFFER - 50' FROM TOP OF BANK
4 S5 n S6
STREAM SECTION
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
LENGTH OF PRESERVATION
205 LF
1,235 LF
432 LF
818 LF
194 LF
321 LF
346 LF
TOTAL = 3,551 LF
r~~
(~?
s
GRAPHIC SCALE
500 0 250 500
1 Inch = 500 Feet
FIGURE 10 --STREAM PRESERVATION EXHIBIT
SCALE: 1" = 500'-0"
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
o
s~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
_~
~~
z~
~~
o
~i
~~
~~
C~
~~ ~
. E
a ,
E
~~
Y 4
~4

Exhibit A -Proposed Mitigation Plan

Section VIII, Part 1-Mitigation (Continued)
As part of the effort to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional areas, the
subdivision was designed so that no streams and wetlands will be located within
residential lots. Additionally, all the proposed impacts on the site are associated
with required access roads, and only one road crossing is proposed to access the
back portions of the site.
Mitigation for impacts to the streams on the site is proposed to be provided
through preservation of streams on-site. Figure 10 depicts to stream corridors to
be preserved. At least 3,551 linear feet of stream channel and its associated 50-
foot buffer will be preserved using restrictive covenants. With impacts measuring
2571inear feet of stream channel, this represents a preservation ratio of more than
13:1. Additionally, the remaining stream channels on the site, measuring
approximately 5,080 linear feet, will also be preserved. However, in these areas,
the buffer will be variable in width, so these areas were not included in the
calculation of the preservation ratio, though they will be included in the areas
protected with the restrictive covenants.
The following language, taken from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
model restrictive covenant, will be used when recording the restrictive covenant
for the subdivision. Additionally, the covenant will be amended to require
express written consent from the USAGE and N.C. Division of Water Quality for
any proposed modifications or amendments to the restrictive covenants.
"The areas shown on the recorded plat (ident~ the plat by title, date, and
recording data) as conservation areas shall be maintained in perpetuity in their
natural or mitigated condition. No person or entity shall perform any of the
following activities on such conservation area:
a. fill, grade, excavate or perform any other land disturbing activities
b. cut, mow, burn, remove, or harm any vegetation
c. construct or place any roads, trails, walkways, buildings, mobile homes,
signs, utility poles or towers, or any other permanent or temporary
structures
d. drain or otherwise disrupt or alter the hydrology or drainage ways of the
conservation area
e. dump or store soil, trash, or other waste
f. graze or water animals, or use for any agricultural or horticultural
purpose
This covenant is intended to ensure continued compliance with the mitigation
condition of a Clean Water Act authorization issued by the United States of
America, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Action ID insert
AID #, and therefore may be enforced by the United States of America. This
covenant is to run with the land, and shall be binding on the Owner, and all parties
claiming under it."

All of the streams on the site were determined to be perennial and have important
aquatic function. NCDWQ and USACE stream data forms have been included in
the application. (Please note that the NCDWQ stream forms were conducted
during a period of low flow, leading to an initial assessment that some of the
streams may be intermittent, however during subsequent reviews it was
determined that the channels are perennial.) Because of the rural nature of the
project site, and because the site accounts for a significant portion of the drainage
area, all of the streams on the site appear to be high quality, stable systems.
Additionally, there is currently no buffer protection on any of the streams on the
site. As such, it is our opinion that there is potentially great benefit to be gained
by preserving the stream and riparian area on the site.
Below are several representative photos of the streams on the site for your
reference.

~~' .:
b ,~ :.
~, ~~
A ,-~ Y~y~y f~rX
-,i `
~ ~ ~• 1
R *~ a.';4'~j
+ r~
~~~ `^`,^ ; .,4
,~~
~+~; t
1*~I~".
~~~. ~~
'fir t~: r~
1~
y
F
f ~ t y."•
~~
~y
% Q ,d~t
~~
y~
f
p
'(F~ +7 `
dddyyy~~-
a ~
~ ~ ,'~a
+~ V
f fry`
9 4 ~ ~
~
t
$ '~«~~ : tf ~.

~, '~ . Syr +~. _ ~. .Y1i ~ ~ M, ,mot "'f Pf~k #~ `%a +., l
~~~, er'r: Y' .4. S Wr}~ ~ Aft Y,
999"' 9 ~ "Y-.; §
r r/~
y~.~.~ ~ rnr,';±fly~~i~+
;>,~ ~ ."
Y~ `~ °

Exhibit B -Email from Applicant

Tugwell, Todd
From: Larry Witek [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 1:00 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd
Subject: Stoneridge
Todd
Per our meeting yesterday concerning the environmental permitting for Stoneridge Subdivision, I wanted to let you know that, as
of the date above, my company has spent $160,097.53 for surveying, site planning, engineering, Iegal, and professional fees.
Also, the contract for the grading work has been let to Belco Excavating, Inc. out of Angier, NC (phone: [phone]} and ! am still
negotiating for the final contract cost for the utility work on the site {should have that number when the design for the pump
station is completed}. If you need anything else, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Larry Witek
Harnett 27, LLC
c/o First Capital Investments, LLC
(O) 858-9468 (F} 858-9472 (M} 337-5558
I jw ite k(a~ fi rstca p i n v. cam
3/7!2007

Exhibit C -Agent Authorization Letter

MAR-7-2007 10:42A FRAM:
70:6772074 P:2~2

0 7. 0 4 3 4
Letter Of Authorixatioi-
Mr. Larry witek, manag~K of First Capital Investments,1.1.C. u+hich is
the manager of Harnett 27, LLC:, authorizes K.imley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to
act as our limited agent to prepare and caordina.tc in the application to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers for 4041401 pE:rmits and jurisdictional determinations
associated with the Stoneridge developmc~t located in Harnett (;outity, North
Carolina. Adthorization wlll tctminaie on either fine! agency action or upon
written notification from either parties involved.
Client Address:
Mr. Lary Witek
First Capital investments. [.[.C
7 l2l Situs Court, Suite 390
Raleigh, NC 2760G
. VV
(Sigpaturc of Client)
Ma c
Date

v
0 7 0 4 3 4
DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: HarnetUHwy 27 Date: 10/18/2006
Applicant/Owner: County: Harnett
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Anna
Investigator: Reusche, Laura Lang) State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: W 1-29
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: Wetland 1-1
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Acer rubrum T FAC 9. Osmunda regalis H OBL
2. Carpinus caroliniana T FAC 10.
3. Quercus phellos T FACW- 11.
4. Clethra alnifolia S FACW- 12.
5. Polystichum acrostichoides H FAC 13.
6. Symplocus tinctoria H FAC 14.
7. Saururus cernuus H OBL 15.
8. Arundinaria gigantea H FACW 16.
Percent of Dominant Speci es that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (e xcluding FACU): 100%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 1 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
x Water Marks
x Drift Lines
x Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Louisa fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Somewhat exessively drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ruptic-Ultic Dystrochrepts
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N)
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist) Mottle
Abundance/Cont Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-6 A 2.5Y 3/1 sand clay loam
6-12 B 2.5Y 4/1 2.5 Y 6/6 25% sand clay loam

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol x Reducing Conditions Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Histic Epipedon x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Sulfidic Odor Concretions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Aquic Moisture Regime High Organic Streaking in Other (Explain in remarks)
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Y
Remarks:
Oxidized root channels from 6-12"
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Y
Wetland Hydrology Present? Y
Hydric Soils Present? Y
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Y
Remarks•

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: HarnetUHwy 27 Date: 10/18/2006
Applicant/Owner: County: Harnett
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Anna
Investigator: Reusche, Laura Lang) State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) Transect ID: W1-29
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: Upland 1-1
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Polystichum acrostichoides H FAC 9.
2. Ilexopaca T FAC- 1~•
3. Cornus Florida T FACU 11.
4. Kalmia latifolia S FACU 12.
5. Liquidambar styraciJlua T FAC+ 13.
6. Quercus alba T FACU 14.
7. Oxydendron arboreum T NL 15.
g• 16.
Percent of Dominant Speci es that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 42%
Remarks'
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in)
-~
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Louisa fine sandy loam Drainage Class: somewhat exessively drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ruptic-Ultic Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth
(inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Con Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-12 A 10YR 5/6 cla

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) N
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Remarks'
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
N
N
N
Is this sampling point a Wetland? N
Remarks:

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Harnett/Hwy 27 Date: 10/18/2006
Applicant/Owner:
No Plot ID
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Anna
Investigator: Reusche, Laura Lang) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Acer rubrum T FAC
2. Quercus phellos T FACW-
3. Quercus nigra T FAC
4. Ilex opaca T FAC-
5. Clethra alnifolia S FACW-
6. Arundinaria gigantea H FACW
7. Osmunda regalis H OBL
8. Smilax laurifolia V FACW+
County: Harnett
Dominant Plant Species
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 86%
Remarks:
NC
Forested
W 1-45
Wetland 1-2
Stratum Indicator
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water:
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Soil:
N/A
>12
>12
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
Butressina on trees in some areas.
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
x Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
(in) x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
(in) x Water Stained Leaves
(in) Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Lousa fine sandy loam Drainage Class: somewhat exessively drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ruptic-Ultic Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N)
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Co Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10YR 4/2 10YR 4/6 <25% cla loam
4-12 B 2.5Y 6/1 10YR 4/6 40% loam cla

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol x Reducing Conditions Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Histic Epipedon x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Sulfidic Odor Concretions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Aquic Moisture Regime High Organic Streaking in Other (Explain in remarks)
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Y
Remarks:
ized root channels
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Y
Wetland Hydrology Present? Y
Hydric Soils Present? Y
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Y
Remarks:

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: FiarnetUHwy 27 Date: 10/18/2006
Applicant/Owner:
County: Harnett
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Anna
Investigator: Reusche, Laura Lang) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Vegetation
No Plot ID
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species
1. Acer rubrum T FAC 9.
2. Ilex opaca T FAC- 10.
3. Quercus alba T FACU 11.
4. Oxydendron arboreum T NL 12.
5. Liquidambar sryraci~lua T FAC+ 13.
6. Arundinariagigantea H FACW 14.
7. Vaccinium corymbosum S FACW 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 57%
Remarks:
NC
Forested
W 1-45
Upland 1-2
Stratum Indicator
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Louisa fine sandy loam Drainage Class: somewhat exessively drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ruptic-Ultic Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N)
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Co Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-3 A 10YR 4/4 10YR 5/6 10% silt cla loam
4-12+ B 10YR 6/6 10YR 4/3 10% cla

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol Reducing Conditions Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Histic Epipedon Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Sulfidic Odor Concretions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Aquic Moisture Regime High Organic Streaking in Other (Explain in remarks)
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) N
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Y
Wetland Hydrology Present? N
Hydric Soils Present? N
Is this sampling point a Wetland? N
Remarks:

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Harnett/Hwy 27 Date: 10/25/2006
Applicant/Owner: County:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Anna
Investigator: Reusche, Laura Lang) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Acer rubrum T FAC
2. Ilex opaca T FAC-
3. Quercus alba T FACU
4. Vaccinium corymbosum S FACW
5. Quercus nigra T FAC
6. Kalmia latifolia S FACU
7. Athyrium aspleniodes H FAC
8. Arundinaria gigantea H FACW
No Plot ID:
Harnett
NC
Forested
W2-3
Wetland 2
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9. Oxydendron arboreum T NI
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 66%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >16 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 10 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
CONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Pacolet fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-5 A 10YR 4/3 sand loam
5-16 B 10YR 5/1 10YR 4/6 15% sandy cla

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
x Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Y
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Is this sampling point a Wetland?
Remarks:
Y
Y
Y
Y

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: HarnetUHwy 27 Date: 10/18/2006
Applicant/Owner: County: Harnett
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Anna
Investigator: Reusche, Laura Lang) State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: W2-3
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: Upland 2
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Mitchella repens H FACU+ 9.
2. /lex opaca H FAC- 10.
3. Poysdchum acrostichoides S/T FAC 11.
4. Oxydendron arboreum S/T NL 12.
5. Acer rubrum S/T FAC 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 40%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY 1NDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
:CONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Pacolet fine sandy loam
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Drainage Class: Well drained
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N)
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-8 A 10YR 4/4 clay loam
8-12+ B 10YR 5/6 7.5 Y 4/6 10% loamy cla

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) N
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Is this sampling point a Wetland?
Remarks:
N
N
N
N

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Harnett/Hwy 27 Date: 10/25/2006
Applicant/Owner: County: Harnett
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Anna
Investigator: Reusche, Laura Lang) State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: W3-1
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: Wetland 3
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Liriodendron tulipifera T FAC 9.
2. Liguidambar styraci~lua T FAC+ 10.
3. Acer rubrum T FAC 11.
4. Fagus grandifolia S FACU 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
S. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (e xcluding FACU): 75%
Remarks:
steram
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 4 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
x Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Bibb loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Fluvaquent
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-2 A 10YR 3/2 10YR 4/6 50% cla
2-12 Bg 10YR 3/1 10YR 4/4 10% sandy cla

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
x Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Y
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Y
Wetland Hydrology Present? Y
Hydric Soils Present? Y
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Y
Remarks:

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
ProjeCUSite: Harnett/Hwy 27 Date: 10/27/2006
Applicant/Owner:
County: Harnett
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Anna
Investigator: Reusche, Laura Lang) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
No Plot ID
Vegetation
NC
Forested
W3-1
Upland 3
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Pinus taeda T FAC 9.
2. Liquidambar styracilua T FAC+ 10.
3. Vaccinium corymbosum S FACW 11.
4. Clethra alnifolia S FACW 12.
5. Kalmia laurifolia S FACU 13.
6. Fagus grandifolia T FACU 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 66%
Remarks:
ng sample
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >14 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: >14 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other
per 12 inches

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Bibb loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Fluvaquent Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N)
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-6 A 2.5Y 4/3 sandy loam
6-14 B 2.5Y 5/6 sand cla loam

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) N
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Y
Wetland Hydrology Present? N
Hydric Soils Present? N
Is this sampling point a Wetland? N
Remarks:

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: HarnetUHwy 27 Date: 10/27/2006
Applicant/Owner: County: Harnett
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Anna
Investigator: Reusche, Laura Lang) State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: W4-13
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: Wetland 4-1
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Liriodendron tulipifera T FAC 9. Vitis rotundifolia V FAC
2. Liquidambar styraci~lua T FAC+ 10.
3. Acer rubrum T FAC 11.
4. Fagus grandifolia S FACU 12.
5. Arundinaria gigantea H FACW 13.
6. Polystichum acrostichoides H FAC 14.
7. Woodwardia aereolata H OBL 15.
8. Rebus argutus V FACU+ 16.
Percent of Dominant Speci es that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (e xcluding FACU): 77%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
x Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Bibb loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Fluvaquent
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10YR 2/2 sand cla
4-12 B 10YR 5/1 10YR 4/6 35% sand cla

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
x Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Y
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Y
Wetland Hydrology Present? Y
Hydric Soils Present? Y
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Y
Remarks:

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Harnett/Hwy 27 Date: 10/27/2006
Applicant/Owner: County: Harnett
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Anna
Investigator: Reusche, Laura Lang) State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: W4-13
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: Upland 4-1
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Liriodendron tulipifera T FAC 9•
2. LiquidambarstyraciJlua T FAC+ 10.
3. Ilex opaca S FAC- 11.
4. Fagus grandifolia T FACU 12.
5. Acer rubrum FAC 13.
6. Ligustrum sinense FAC 14.
7. Polystichum acrostichoides FAC 15.
g. 16.
Percent of Dominant Speci es that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 86%
RPmarks~
g during sample
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Bibb loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Fluvaquent Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N)
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-6 A 10YR 3/2 sandy loam
6-14 B 10YR 5/2 10 YR 5/4 sand loam

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) N
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Is this sampling point a Wetland?
Y
N
N
N
Remarks:

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual

Project/Site: HarnetUHwy 27 Date: 10/27/2006
Applicant/Owner: County: Harnett
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Anna
Investigator: Reusche, Laura Lang) State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: W4-40
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: Wetland 4-2
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Acer ruburm T FAC 9.
2. LiquidambarstyraciJlua T FAC+ 10.
3. Microstegium vimineum H FAC+ 11.
4. Scirpus spp. H 12.
5. Salix nigra T OBL 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excludin g FACU): 100%
Remarks:
along steram
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 8 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
x Water Marks
x Drift Lines
x Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
x Oxidized Root Channels in Uppei
x Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other
12 inches

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Gilead loamy sand Drainage Class: Moderately well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aquic hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N)
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10YR 6/2 10YR 4/6 40% cla
4-12 B 10YR 7/1 10YR 5/8 40% sand

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
x Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Y
Remarks:
Oxidized root channels to the surface
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Y
Wetland Hydrology Present? Y
Hydric Soils Present? Y
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Y
Remarks:

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Fiarnett/Fiwy 27 Date:
Applicant/Owner: County:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Anna
Investigator: Reusche, Laura Lang) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID:
Vegetation
10/27/2006
Harnett
NC
Forested
W4-40
Upland 4-2
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species
1. Juniperus virginiana T FACU- 9. Gelsemium sempervirens
2. Liquidambar styraciflua T FAC+ 10.
3. /lex opaca S FAC- 11.
4. Quercus phellos T FACW- 12.
5. Acer rubrum T FAC 13.
6. Quercus nigra T FAC 14.
7. Pinus taeda T FAC 15.
8. Sassafras T FACU 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (e xcluding FACU): 78%
Remarks:
Stratum Indicator
V FAC
g during sam
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >14 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: >14 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Gilead loamy sand
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aquic Hapludults
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Drainage Class: Moderately well drained
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N)
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-12 A 2.5Y 7/4 sandy loam

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) N
Remarks:
aro
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Y
Wetland Hydrology Present? N
Hydric Soils Present? N
Is this sampling point a Wetland? N
Remarks:

DATA FORM
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Harnett/Hwy 27 Date: 10/25/2006
County: Harnett
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Anna
Investigator: Reusche, Laura Lang) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID:
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species
1. Liquidambar styraciJlua T FAC+ 9.
2. Liriodendron tulipifera T FAC 10.
3. Acer rubrum T FAC 11.
4. Arundinaria gigantea H FACW 12.
5. Rubus argutus H FAC 13.
6. Smilax rotundifolia V FAC 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 100%
Remarks:
NC
Forested
w1-3
Wetland 5
Stratum Indicator
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
:CONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Bibb loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Fluvaquent
DDnCII ~ nGC!_RIPTIAN
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
.` Depth r
(inches
Horizon Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10YR 4/2 10 YR 4/6 25% Cla
4-12 Bg 10 YR 3/2 10 YR 4/6 45% Sand clay loam

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
X Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Yes
Rcmarkc•
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Yes
Remarks•

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Harnett/Hwy 27 Date: 10/25/2006
Applicant/Owner:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Anna
Investigator: Reusche, Laura Lang)
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Vegetation
County: Harnett
State:
Community ID
Transect ID:
NC
Forested
w1-3
No Plot ID:
Upland 5
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Pines taeda T FAC 9.
2. Ilex opaca T FAC- 10.
3. Acer rubrum T FAC 11.
4. LiguidambarsryraciJlua T FAC+ 12.
5. Rubes argutus H FAC 13.
6. Smilax rotundifolia V FAC 14.
7. Mitchella repens H FACU+ 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 86%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: N/A (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
:CONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Bibb loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Fluvaquent Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N)
DRf1F11 F r1FSC`RIPTInN
.` Depth r
(inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist) Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-12 A 2.5 Y 5/6 Sand cla loam

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) No
RPmarkc•
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? No
Hydric Soils Present? No
Is this sampling point a Wetland? No
Ramarkc•

Exhibit E - DWQ Stream Identification Forms

v
0 7 4 3 4
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 10/18/2006 Project: Harnett/Hwy 27 Latitude: 35°21'2.25"N
Evaluator: KHA (AKR, LAL) Site: Stream 1-1 Longitude: 78°59'16.19"W
Total Points: 44
Stream is at least intermittent
Harnett
County:
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
if ? 19 or perennial if ? 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 25 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3 ` `3.
2. Sinuosit 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool se uence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 ~ '3 ,
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3 0
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3 2
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3 1
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 0
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5 ~l.5
12. Natural valle or drains a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 10.5
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or rowin season
0
1
2
3 ~~~~,,
~
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0 1.5
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
18. Or anic debris lines or files Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = 8.5
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0 2
21b. Rooted lants in channel 3 2 1 0 ~ 3
22. Cra fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 L5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3 0
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 ~ °0
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
26. Macrobenthos note diversit and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5 , ~1
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h on 0 1 2 3 / 0
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.Q; Other = 0
n Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
At the time this form was comaleted, it had rained w/in 48 hours.
however, there was flowing water in this stream during previous
site visits not immediately following rainfall events.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 10/25/2006 Project: Harnett/Hwy 27 Latitude: 35°20'56.29"N
Evaluator: KHA (AKR, LAL) Site: Stream 2-1 Longitude: 78°59'14.05"W
Total Points: 27.5
Stream is at least intermittent County: Harnett Other
e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if ? 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 13.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosit 0 1 2 3 /~
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool se uence 0 1 2 3 2~0
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3 ~"~'
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3 ~ ~/'
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3 'y't1""""
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3 0~~~~~~'
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 , -
12. Natural valle or draina a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence.
No = 0 %%%%%%
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 8.5
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3 ~~~~
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel --dry or rowin season
0
1
2
3
~ 3 ,r
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 r~
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
18. Or anic debris lines or files Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5 ~1
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = 5.5
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21b. Rooted lants in channel 3 2 1 0 °'~~ 2
22. Cra Ish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
26. Macrobenthos note diversit and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5";
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h on 0 1 2 3 0
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other = o
n Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch: Flag 2-3
no water in August; October-3 inches in depth
3 feet bankfull width, 4 feet Top of Bank
8 feet bankfull height

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 10/25/2006 Project: Harnett/Hwy 27 Latitude: 35°20'41.46"N
Evaluator: KHA (AKR, LAL) Site: Stream 3-1 Longitude: 78°59'13.63"W
Total Points: 27
Stream is at least intermittent County: Harnett Other
e.g. Quad Name:
if ? 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 13 Absent Weak Moderate Strong .Score
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosit 0 1 2 3 2
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool se uence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3 2'
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 0 ~°
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3 %~"
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3
/
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3 1
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 0,
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5 ` 0.~-~
12. Natural valle or draina a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5 1.5,
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hydrology subtotal = 7.5
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or rowin season
0
1
2
3 ~~~
„ 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0 ~~~
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 ~u~?.5
18. Or anic debris lines or files Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5 1.5;
C. Biology Subtotal = 6.5
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0 3.
21b. Rooted lants in channel 3 2 1 0 3
22. Cra Ish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3 0
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversit and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h on 0 1 2 3 0
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
no water in channel in August. In October around 8 inches in stream.
3 feet wetted width. Bank height 5 feet. Depth 1-3 feet.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 10/27/2006 Project: Harnett/Hwy 27 Latitude: 35°20'19.57"N
Evaluator: KHA (AKR, LAL) Site: Stream 4-1 Longitude: 78°59'2.16"W
Total Points: 23

Stream is at least intermittent Harnett
COUnty: Other
e.g. Quad Name:
if ? 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 9 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosit 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool se uence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valle or draina a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes - 3 ///,
e Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 6
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or rowing season 0 1 2 3 ''
2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 ~ ~,~
18. Or anic debris lines or files Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5 ~~~?;
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloov Subtotal =
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21°. Rooted lants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Cra fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversit and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

Exhibit F - USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: First Capitallnvestments
3. Date of evaluation: 2/14/2007
5. Name of stream: UT to Hickory Branch (Stream 2)
7. Approximate drainage area: 0.25 miz
9. Length of reach evaluated: SO feet
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.34865
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other Aerial Photo
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Site is
located across Highway 27 from Western Harnett High School and Barbeque Creek Park. Stream 2 is the southernmost stream that
runs east-west across the property.
14. Proposed channel work (if any)
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
Stream
Approximately 0.5 "rain in past 72 hours
Sunny, clear, SO degrees F
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters
2. Evaluator's name: -Laura Lang, Todd St. John.
4. Time of evaluation: 3:00 pm
6. River basin: Cape Fear
8. Stream order: 1'S`
10. County: Harnett
12. Subdivision name (if any): n/a
Longitude (ex. -77.5566 ~ ~ ): 78.986341
Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial _I S_% Agricultural
_85_% Forested % Cleared /Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 30"
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 12 "
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) X_Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends X_Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream
may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score
assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 86 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
#
Ch
t
i
ti Eco-re ion Point Ran e
S
arac
er
s
cs
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain core
I Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max oints
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints)
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 4
(no buffer = 0; Conti ous, wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
(extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 4
U no dischar e = 0; s rip s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints
~..,
~
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 2
4
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints)
~; ~ Entrenchment /floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 4
Q+ dee 1 entrenched = 0; fr uent floodin = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 4
(no wetlands = 0; lar a ad
acent wetlands = max oints)
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 4
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 3
(extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
(fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
H (dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints)
,.,,,
13 Presence of major bank failures
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
4
~ (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints)
d
l4 Root depth and density on banks
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 5
4
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu hout = max oints)
~ 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
(substantial im act =0; no evidence = max oints)
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 5
F (no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints)
Q
1 ~ Habitat complexity
0 - 6
0 - 6
0 - 6
6
~ (little or no habitat = 0; fr uent, varied habitats = max oints)
d
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
5
~ (no shadin ve elation = 0; continuous canopy = max oints)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 - 4 0 - 4 3
(dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 5
~„~ (no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points)
(y
21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
~ (no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points)

22 Presence of fish
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints)
Total Points Possible 100 loo loo 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 86
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: First Capital investments
3. Date of evaluation: 2/14/2007
5. Name of stream: UT to Hickory Branch (Stream 3)
7. Approximate drainage area: 0.13 mil
9. Length of reach evaluated:
50 feet
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.344397
2. Evaluator's name: Laura Lang, Todd St. John
4. Time of evaluation: 3: 00 pm
6. River basin: Cape Fear
8. Stream order: IS`
10. County: Harnett
12. Subdivision name (if any): n/a
Longitude (ex.-77.556611): 78.985794
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other Aerial Photo
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):Site is
located across Highway 27 from Western Harnett High School and Barbeque Creek Park. Stream 3 is located just north of Stream 2,
and runs east-west across the property.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
Stream
Approximately 0. S "rain in past 72 hours
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny, clear, SO degrees F
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:- ~3 acres_
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial _I S_% Agricultural
85_% Forested % Cleared /Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 36"
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 18 "
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) X_Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends X_Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream
may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score
assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 72 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
#
i
ti
Ch
t Eco-re ion Point Ran e
score
arac
er
s
cs Coastal Piedmont Mountain

I Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
4
no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max oints
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 0
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints)
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 4
no buffer = 0; Conti ous, wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 0
extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints
,.a 5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 4
U no dischar e = 0; s rip s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints
,~
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 2
3
~
~ (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints)
,
-j+, ~ Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 4
a+ dee 1 entrenched = 0; fr uent floodin = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 2
(no wetlands = 0; lar a ad
acent wetlands = max oints)
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 4
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
(extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
fine, homo enous = O; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
~ (dee l incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints)
,..,
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
a
~r (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
~ 14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
F (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throw hout = max points)
v~ 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
(substantial im act =0; no evidence = max oints)
16 Presence of riffle-pool ripple-pool complexes 0 - 3 0 - 5 0 - 6 5
F (no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max points)
Q
1 ~ Habitat complexity
0 - 6
0 - 6
0 - 6
6
~ (little or no habitat = 0; fr went, varied habitats = max oints)
~
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
5
r (no shadin ve elation = 0; continuous cano = max oints)
"
" 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 - 4 0 - 4 3
(deep) embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 3
',,, (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t es = max oints)
CJ" 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
~ (no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points)
"'~
22 Presence of Tish
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous t es = max oints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints)
Total Points Possible loo loo 100 loo
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) n
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

Exhibit G - On-site Impervious Surface Calculations

^~^ Kim[ey-Horn
~ and Associates, Inc. stleetNo { ~ ~
Designedby Date ~ -1M1IV ~~! Chedredby Date