The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20121055 Ver 2_401 Application_20150115Kimley » >Horn January 5, 2015 Mr Tom Steffens U S Army Corps of Engineers Washington Regulatory Field Office 2407 West 5th Street Washington, NC 27889 -1000 RECEIVED JAN 06 2133 V� Ms Karen Higgins DENR -LAND OUr,LITY NC Division of Water Resources STORMATER t=tW17 i iNG 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit 512 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, NC 27604 RE: Nationwide Permit 14 Application — City of Greenville Public Works Department South Tar River Greenway Phase 111 Extension Project, Pitt County, North Carolina Dear Mr Steffens and Ms Higgins On behalf of the City of Greenville, Kimley -Horn is submitting the attached application for authorization under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 for the above referenced project The City of Greenville proposes to construct a 10 -foot wide, 1 4 -mile long paved multi -use greenway /bikeway path with 2 -foot gravel shoulders from the western terminus of the existing South Tar River Greenway at Pitt Street (SR 1611) to Moye Boulevard near West 5th Street in Greenville, North Carolina There are eleven jurisdictional wetlands (referenced on Figure 3 as WA, WB, WC, WD, WE, WF, WG, WH, WI, WJ, and WK) and five jurisdictional streams delineated within the project area, one which is intermittent (SB) and four of which are perennial (SA, SC, SD, and SE) A preliminary jurisdictional determination was issued for the project by William Wescott of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on January 10, 2013 and a buffer determination was issued for the project by Roberto Scheller of the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) on January 29, 2013 Documentation of these determinations has been included for your reference Impacts to jurisdictional features have been minimized to the greatest extent practical, and boardwalks and pre- constructed pedestrian bridges will be used to avoid stream impacts Minor buffer and wetland impacts will result from the proposed project, but overall the project will improve protection and public appreciation for these environmentally sensitive areas Kimley » >Horn The following information is included as part of the application • PCN Application Form • Signed Agent Authorization • Stream and Wetland Data Forms • Vicinity Map • USGS Topographic Map • USDA/NRCS Soil Survey Map • Buffer Determination Letter • Signed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination • Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Approval • Permit Drawings • Plan Sheets • NCDWR 401 Application Fee of $240 Page 2 If there is any additional information you need to assist in the processing of this NWP application, please do not hesitate to contact me at 919 - 678 -4155 or Jason Hartshorn @ Kim ley-Horn com Sincerely, Jason Hartshorn Environmental Analyst Cc Mr Lynn Raynor, City of Greenville wAr f,, Q oNii�< Office Use Only Corps action ID no DWQ project no Form Version 1 3 Dec 10 2008 Page 1 of 14 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version Pre - Construction Notification PCN Form A. Applicant Information 1. Processing la Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps ®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit 1b Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number 14 or General Permit (GP) number 1c Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ❑ Yes ® No 1d Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply) ® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit ❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ® Riparian Buffer Authorization 1e Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401 Certification ❑ Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit ❑ Yes ® No 1f Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program ❑ Yes ® No 1 g Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties If yes, answer 1 h below ❑ Yes ® No 1h Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) ❑ Yes ❑ No 2. Project Information 2a Name of project South Tar River Greenway, Phase 3 (EB -5539) 2b County Pitt 2c Nearest municipality / town Greenville 2d Subdivision name n /a�� 2e NCDOT only, T I P or state protect no EB -5539 JAS! n P gnfr, 3. Owner Information 3a Names on Recorded Deed City of Greenville ��,? ^�'nvi� tH�Vt. QUALITY 3b Deed Book and Page No n/a 3c Responsible Party (for LLC if applicable) Mr Lynn Raynor 3d Street address 1500 Beatty Street 3e City, state, zip Greenville, NC 27834 3f Telephone no 252 - 329 -4620 3g Fax no n/a 3h Email address LRaynor @GreenvilleNC gov Page 1 of 14 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version 4 Applicant Information (if different from owner) 4a Applicant is ® Agent ❑ Other, specify 4b Name 4c Business name (if applicable) 4d Street address 4e City, state, zip 4f Telephone no 4g Fax no 4h Email address 5 Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable) 5a Name Mr Jason Hartshorn 5b Business name (if applicable) Kimley -Horn 5c Street address 3001 Weston Parkway 5d City, state, zip Cary, NC 27513 5e Telephone no 919 - 678 -4155 5f Fax no 919 - 677 -2050 5g Email address Jason Hartshorn @Kimley -Horn com Page 2 of 14 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version B. Project Information and Prior Project History 1. Property Identification n/a (linear transportation project, currently within right -of- 1a Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID) way acquisition, and will be fully aquired prior to construction) 1 b Site coordinates (in decimal degrees) Latitude 35 617284 Longitude - 77 390204 (DD DDDDDD) ( -DD DDDDDD) 1 c Property size 39 31 acres 2. Surface Waters 2a Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc) to Tar River proposed project 2b Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water C,NSW 2c River basin Tar - Pamlico 3. Project Description 3a Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application The proposed greenway alignment is located primarily in a currently maintained utility easement along the right bank of the Tar River, spanning from the western terminus of the existing South Tar River Greenway near Pitt Street to Moye Boulevard Land use in the vicinity of project consists primarily of residential neighborhoods, institutional developments (school, community center, and medical center), and forested natural areas adjacent to the Tar River 3b List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property 4 12 acres 3c List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property 916 linear feet 3d Explain the purpose of the proposed project The proposed project will construct a 10 -foot wide multiuse greenway /bikeway path spanning 1 4 miles, connecting an existing greenway (South Tar River Greenway) to Moye Boulevard The greenway will provide a safe, multi- purpose transportation route along a scenic corridor adjacent to the Tar River, connecting multiple residential communities, parks, schools, and community centers while also prividing outdoor recreation options for the residents in the project vicinity 3e Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used The proposed project will consist of 1 4 miles of 10 -foot wide paved greenway /bikeway path with 2 -foot gravel shoulders Elevated boardwalks and pre- constructed pedestrian bridges will be used to span wetlands and stream crossings while minimizing and /or avoiding impacts Typical roadway and bridge construction equipment will be utilized, including cranes, track hoes, back hoes, graders, dump trucks, bulldozers, and pavers Page 3 of 14 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version 4. Jurisdictional Determinations 4a Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / project (including all prior phases) in the past? Comments A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown (Action ID SAW 2013- 00063) was issued on January 10, 2013 A Buffer Determination Letter (DWQ # 12 -1055) was issued by NCDWR on January 29, 2013 4b If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type ® Preliminary ❑ Final of determination was made? 4c If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency /Consultant Company Kimley -Horn Name (if known) Beth Reed, PWS Other 4d If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (Action ID SAW 2013- 00063) was issued by the USACE on January 10, 2013 A Buffer Determination Letter (DWQ # 12 -1055) was issued by NCDWR on January 29, 2013 Documentation of both determinations has been attached to this application 5. Project History 5a Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Unknown this project (including all prior phases) in the past? 5b If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions n/a 6. Future Project Plans 6a Is this a phased project? ® Yes ❑ No 6b If yes, explain The project is Phase 3 of a larger greenway project in the City of Greenville There will likely be future sections of greenway constructed in the City to increase the connectivity of previous greenway paths throughout the city and to community features, however this project will be completed as one single and complete project with independent utility by providing connectivity between Moye Boulevard, multiple residential developments, existing greenway paths, and Third Street Elementry School and Community Center Page 4 of 14 PCN Form —Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version C Proposed Impacts Inventory 1 Impacts Summary 1 a Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply) ® Wetlands ❑ Streams - tributaries ® Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction Page 5 of 14 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version 2 Wetland Impacts If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction number — Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ — non -404, other) (acres) Temporary T Site 1 (WA) El ®T Construction Access RiverineEl ® Yes No ® Corps El Corps 0 03 acres Site 2 (WB) El ®T Construction Access Riverine ® Yes El No ® Corps El DWQ 0 04 acres Site 2 (WB) Greenway Riverine ® Yes ® Corps 0 0004 acres ® P El Construction ❑ No ❑ DWQ Site 3 (WB) El ®T Construction Access Riverine ® Yes El No ® Corps ❑ DWQ 0 004 acres Site 3 (WB) Greenway Riverine ® Yes ® Corps 0 05 acres ® P [:J T Construction El No El DWQ Site 5 (WE) [:1 P ®T Construction Access Riverine ® Yes [:1 No ® Corps E:1 DWQ 0 01 acres Site 5 (WE) Greenway Riverine ® Yes ® Corps 0 08 acres ® P E:1 T Construction El No [:1 DWQ Site 6 (WE) ❑ P ®T Construction Construction Access Rivenne ® Yes [:1 No ® Corps E:1 0 005 acres Site 6 (WE) Greenway Riverine ® Yes ® Corps 0 008 acres ® P [:1 T Construction El No El DWQ Site 7 (WF) E:1 P ®T Construction Access Riverine ® Yes [:1 No ® Corps E:1 DWQ 0 003 acres Site 7 (WF) Greenway Riverine ® Yes ® Corps 0 002 acres ® P E:1 T Construction E:1 No ❑ DWQ Site 8 (WG) [—I P ®T Construction Access Construction Riverine ® Yes [:1 ® Corps E:1 Corps 0 03 acres Site 8 (WG) Greenway Riverine ® Yes ® Corps 0 08 acres ® P E:1 T Construction ❑ No E:1 DWQ Site 9 (WH) ❑ P ®T Construction Construction Access Riverine ® Yes [:1 No ® Corps E:1 0 003 acres Site 9 (WH) Greenway Riverine ® Yes ® Corps 0 005 acres ® P E] T Construction ❑ No ❑ DWQ Site 10 (WI) E:1 P ®T Construction Access Riverine ® Yes E:1 No ® Corps [:1 Corps 0 006 acres Site 10 (WI) Greenway Riverine ® Yes ® Corps 0 01 acres ® P E:1 T Construction El No ❑ DWQ Site 11 (WJ) ❑ P ®T Construction Access Riverine ® Yes ❑ No ® Corps ❑ DWQ 0 004 acres Site 11 (WJ) Greenway Riverine ® Yes ® Corps 0 005 acres ® P El Construction El No ❑ DWQ Site 12 (WK) El ®T Construction Access Riverine ® Yes El No ® Corps El Corps 0 01 acres Site 12 (WK) Greenway Riverine ® Yes ® Corps 0 06 acres ® P [:1 T Construction El No El DWQ 2g. Total wetland impacts 0 15 acres (T) 0 30 acres (P) 2h Comments All of the permanent wetland impacts resulting from construction of the greenway project involve the placement of fill material Temporary impacts will result from necessary construction access corridors, and will be returned to preconstruction contours after completion of the project Page 6 of 14 PCN Form - Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version 3. Stream Impacts If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this question for all stream sites impacted 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e 3f 3g Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ — non -404, width (linear Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet) S1 ❑ P ❑ T ❑ PER ❑ Corps ❑ INT ❑ DWQ S2 ❑ P ❑ T ❑ PER ❑ Corps ❑ INT ❑ DWQ 3h Total stream and tributary impacts 0 31 Comments No stream impacts will result from the proposed project Streams will be crossed with an elevated boardwalk or a prefabricated pedestrian bridge as shown in the attached plans Construction access points have been secured allowing access to both stream banks without the need to cross the stream channel itself 4. Open Water Impacts If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of the U S then individually list all open water impacts below 4a 4b 4c 4d 4e Open water Name of waterbody impact number (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres) — Permanent (P) or Temporary T 01 ❑P ❑T 02 ❑P ❑T 03 ❑P ❑T 04 ❑P ❑T 4L Total open water impacts 0 4g Comments No open water impacts will result from the proposed construction 5. Pond or Lake Construction If pond or lake construction proposed, then com Iete the chart below 5a 5b 5c 5d 5e Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland Pond ID Proposed use or purpose of (acres) number pond Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded P1 P2 K Total 0 5g Comments No ponds or lakes will be constructed as part of the proposed project 5h Is a dam high hazard permit required ❑ Yes ®No If yes, permit ID no 51 Expected pond surface area (acres) N/A 5j Size of pond watershed (acres) N/A 5k Method of construction N/A Page 7 of 14 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version 6 Buffer Impacts (for DWQ) If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts below If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form 6a. ❑ Neuse ® Tar - Pamlico ❑ Other Project is in which protected basin? ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman 6b 6c 6d 6e 6f 6g Buffer impact number — Reason for Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact Permanent (P) impact Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet) or Temporary required? T Site 4 Construction ❑ Yes ®P E:1 T of UT to Tar River (Stream SE) [I No 1,790 1,833 Greenway Site 11 Construction ❑ Yes ®P ❑ T of Tar River No 0 5 Greenway Site 12 Construction ❑ Yes ® P ❑ T of Tar River ® No 2,444 13,060 Greenway Site 13 Construction ❑ Yes ®P ❑ T of Tar River No 479 3,944 Greenway Site 14 Construction ❑ Yes ®P [:1 T of Tar River ®No 5,918 5,209 Greenway Site 15 Construction ❑ Yes ®P El T of Tar River No 147 3,895 Greenway Site 16 Construction ❑ Yes ®P ❑ T of Tar River ®No 223 797 Greenway Site 17 Construction ❑ Yes ®P El T of Tar River ®No 0 167 Greenway 6h Total buffer impacts 4,234 14,898 61 Comments Portions of the protected riparian buffer of the Tar River and a UT to the Tar River will be impacted due to the construction of the greenway path and shoulder, as well as for the installation of a prefabricated pedestrian bridge that will be used to span the UT to the Tar River D Impact Justification and Mitigation 1. Avoidance and Minimization 1a Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project Impacts to streams in the project corridor were entirely avoided by intentionally locating the alignment outside of riparian zones throughout the majority of the corridor, and allowing for construction access on both banks of the streams within the project corridor, allowing elevated boardwalks and /or prefabricated bridges to be constructed /placed without impacting the stream itself The greenway alignment has been located along existing sewer easement as much as possible To minimize impacts to riparian areas, stream crossing locations were intentionally located where perpendicular crossings were feasible and where prefabricated pedestrian bridges or constructed boardwalks could be used to span the entire stream Where boardwalks will be used for stream crossings, all support pilings will be located outside of the top of bank benches to avoid stream impacts Impacts to wetlands within the corridor were avoided the the extent practical, and impacts will be minmized by using 2 1 fill slopes and /or boardwalks where practical 1 b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques Impacts to streams and wetlands within the corridor will be minimized to the extent practical throughout the construction process by avoiding stream and wetland features wherever possible Where feasible, staging and construction access routes will be located in upland areas throughout the corridor Tree protection fencing, silt fencing, and other standard Best Page 8 of 14 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version Management Practices (BMPs) and measures will be used throughout the construction process to minimize impacts to downstream receiving waters and minimize runoff from the construction sites 2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State 2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State? ❑ Yes ® No 2b If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply) ❑ DWQ ❑ Corps 2c If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project? ❑ Mitigation bank ❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program ❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation 3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank 3a Name of Mitigation Bank n/a 3b Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type n/a Quantity n/a 3c Comments n/a 4 Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program 4a Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached ❑ Yes 4b Stream mitigation requested n/a linear feet 4c If using stream mitigation, stream temperature ❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold 4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only) n/a square feet 4e Riparian wetland mitigation requested n/a acres 4f Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested n/a acres 4g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested n/a acres 4h Comments n/a 5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan 5a If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan n/a Page 9 of 14 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version 6 Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ 6a Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires ❑ Yes ® No buffer mitigation? 6b If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation Calculate the amount of mitigation required 6c 6d 6e Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation (square feet) (square feet) Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba) Zone 2 1 5 6f Total buffer mitigation required: 0 6g If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e g , payment to private mitigation bank, permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund) Buffer mitigation is not required for the unavoidable impacts resulting from the proposed project 6h Comments Per the Tar - Pamlico River Basin riparian buffer rules, impacts to protected riparian buffers resulting from greenway construction are "allowable" As such, no mitigation is required for the proposed riparian buffer impacts Page 10 of 14 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ) 1. Diffuse Flow Plan 1a Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ® Yes ❑ No within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules? lb If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why Comments For the most part, stormwater will not be collected, but allowed to sheet - flow off the path Typically, where it is being collected, it will be conveyed in grass swales Most collected stormwater will be on the upslope side to bypass offsite ® Yes ❑ No runoff around the trail Additionally, there are many locations where offsite runoff will be bypassed beneath the path into existing conveyances without modifying those conveyances within the buffers NOTE Please see the attached Erosion Control Drawings to see the most detailed information of measures to handle stormwater 2 Stormwater Management Plan 2a What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 29% 2b Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ Yes ® No 2c If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why All stormwater will be allowed to sheet flow off the proposed path or it will be collected in existing conveyances There will be no new conveyances through the buffer 2d If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan The SMP is currently under review by the City of Greenville, but the the plan will ensure that stormwater is not concentrated or stored by the proposed construction Diffuse flow will be achieved through the buffer ® Certified Local Government 2e Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ DWQ Stormwater Program ❑ DWQ 401 Unit 3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review 3a In which local government's Jurisdiction is this project? Greenville ® Phase II 3b Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs ® NSW ❑ USMP apply (check all that apply) ❑ Water Supply Watershed ® Other 401 WQC 3c Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ❑ Yes ® No attached? 4 DWQ Stormwater Program Review ❑ Coastal counties ❑ HQW 4a Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply ❑ ORW (check all that apply) ❑ Session Law 2006 -246 ❑ Other 4b Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been attached? ❑ Yes ® No 5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review Page II of 14 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version 5a Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ® Yes ❑ No 5b Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ® Yes ❑ No F. Supplementary Information 1 Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement) la Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the ® Yes ❑ No use of public (federal /state) land? lb If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ® Yes ❑ No (North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA /SEPA)? 1c If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter ) ® Yes ❑ No Comments A Programmatic Categorical Exclusion has been approved for the proposed project and final approval is attached 2. Violations (DWQ Requirement) 2a Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ❑ Yes ® No or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0200)? 2b Is this an after - the -fact permit applications ❑ Yes ® No 2c If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s) n/a 3 Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement) 3a Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ❑ Yes ® No additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? 3b If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the most recent DWQ policy If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description The proposed project will not result in additional development The greenway and sidewalk facilities proposed will serve existing communities and connect existing public locations 4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement) 4a Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non - discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility No wastewater will be generated from the proposed project Page 12 of 14 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version 5 Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement) 5a Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ❑ Yes ® No habitat? 5b Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ❑ Yes ® No impacts? E:1 Raleigh 5c If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted ❑ Asheville 5d What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat? According to the NC Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrence Database (updated October 2014), no known occurrences of any federally threatened or endangered species are located within the project area West Indian manatee has been recorded in the Pamlico Sound and the occurrence is mapped up into the Tar River through Greenville, which results in the only federally listed threatened or endangered species occurrence within 1 0 mile of the project area Since the project area does not include the Tar River, and since the tributaries located within the project area are small stream features located at significantly higher elevations than the Tar River (steep gradients with cascades were observed adjacent to the river), suitable habitat for West Indian manatee is not present within the project corridor Additionally, based on field reviews by Kimley -Horn biologists, suitable habitat is not present within the project area for Atlantic sturgeon, bald eagle, red - cockaded woodpecker, or Tar River spinymussel Due to a lack of occurrences and a lack of suitable habitat within the project area, it is anticipated that the proposed project will have no effect on any federally listed threatened or endangered species 6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement) 6a Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ❑ Yes ® No 6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat? The NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper was reviewed on December 5, 2014 No essential fish habitat was found within the project area or within the vicinity of the project 7 Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement) 7a Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ® Yes ❑ No status (e g , National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in North Carolina history and archaeology)? 7b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources? The State Historic Preservation Office database was reviewed on December, 2014 to determine if any historic resources occurred in the vicinity of the study area The project does pass through the Skinnerville- Greenville Heights Historic District (HPO Site ID PT2000) However, there are no historically significant sites or strucures within the project boundary There are fourteen national register individual listings, nine study list individual entries, and multiple natural register /study list historic districts within one mile of the study area The properties range from roughly 0 14 mile to one mile from the project boundary The project will consist of a greenway path along the Tar River within a currently maintained utility easement and will not impact any historic or archaeological resource Page 13 of 14 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version 8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement) 8a Will this project occur in a FEMA - designated 100 -year floodplain? ® Yes ❑ No 8b If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements The FEMA certification is currently under review by the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program, but a no -rise certification is anticipated for the proposed project 8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM Panels 3720467800K and 3720468800K � t i ac CSkecy� 1� 1. 1� 1 � Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Date A Applicant /Agent's Signature (Agent's signs re is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided Page 14 of 14 PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version SIGNED AGENT AUTHORIZATION Letter of Authorization Mr Lynn Raynor of the City of Greenville authorizes Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc to act as our limited agent to coordinate with the U S Army Corps of Engineers and North Carolina Division of Water Quality for the preparation and submittal of jurisdictional determinations and 404/401 permits applications associated with the EB -5539 (South Tar River Greeaway, Phase 3) project located in Pitt County, North Carolina Authorization will terminate on either final agency action or upon written notification from either parties involved Company Name: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Contact Names: Jeff Moore, P.E.Beth Reed, PWS Client Address: 1500 Beatty Street Greenville NC 27834 Client Phone #: 252 - 329 -4620 Client Fax #: Client Email: lraynorAgreenyillenc.com t 4 � (Si ature of Ch ') I 11011 Date FIGURES Legend; Project Boundary -- —'�-- 41P cot OF mill•- �` .�. � �.•. ,1° , .ems^• -- -". j Tai f -r- 8 M fT . C67 8 IV r As 2P - z a 10 750 1,50 0 Feet Title USGS Topographic Map - Greenville SW (2001) Prepared by: Project South Tar River Greenway Project Greenville, Pitt County, Nort h Carolina Kimley) »Horn Date Project Number Figure December 2014 012654005 3 Legend` N - Project Boundary rJ ;5W c,+ LnA ` t Ro PCB Rh Cr6 % W,_ 1 LnA Oc6 ,- LnA LnA - -f�y,�� `-. /• 8 Was /. CrA b GYP t ' ; +'� ` tom, Oe Ro OC Cr82 ,GRE I� U11 AV, CrS f K 4 h 43 Was � 'JA - 43 i Ro �. � o ' CrC. ` Pert' O c WaB B LIN WaB t BYP ni �-, . ' e` 0 750 1, 500 ['I C'i`)IT 'Y 13 . ' f 4 Feet +-u a i' • , Title USDA/NRCS Soil Survey - Pitt County (1974) Prepared by: Project—Fs outh Tar River Greenway Project Greenville, Pitt Count ,North Carolina Kimley> »Horn Date Project Number Figure December 2014 012654005 4 STREAM AND WETLAND DATA FORMS North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11 Date 9/27/2012 Project/Site EB -5539 Stream SA Latitude 35 617901 Evaluator J Hartshorn (KHA) County Pitt Longitude -77396797 B Reed (KHA) 0 1 Total Points: 31 3 3 °° 2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg Stream Determination Other Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermitte t Perennial g Quad Name Greenville SW if? 19 or perennial if? 30 0 1 A Geomorphology Subtotal= 14 'Abse_nt� x �VI%eak Moderate Strong' Score 1a Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 3 °° 2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 tt ,.1 3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple- poolsequence 0 1 2 3 2 4 Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 1 5 Active /relic floodplain 0 1 2 3 2* 6 Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 1 7 Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 2 8 Headcuts 0 1 2 3 1 9 Grade control 0 0.5 1 1 5 0.5 10 Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1 5 0.5, 11 Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3 0 artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual B Hydrology Subtotal = 10 12 Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 1 13 Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 3 14 Leaf litter 1 5 1 05 0 1 15 Sediment on plants or debris 0 05 1 1 5 1 16 Organic debris lines or piles 0 05 1 1 5 1 17 Soil -based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3 3 C Biology Subtotal = 18 Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 3_ 19 Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 3' 20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 0 21 Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 .0 22 Fish 0 05 1 1 5 0 23 Crayfish 0 05 1 1 5 0 24 Amphibians 0 0.5 1 15 0.5',' 25 Algae 0 15 1 1 5 0:5 26 Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1 5 Other = 0 0 'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual Notes Stream SA is a stormwater driven channel with aroundwater interception SA begins approximately 60' northeast of a large 60" CMP and concrete outlet structure A large rip rap dissipater pad seperates the CMP and the origin of SA The outlet structure appears to Coln a 36" RCP heading to a stormwater basin, with high flow events bypassing the RCP and discharging to the dissipater pad The RCP Is blocked by debris however, and all flow from the 60" CMP Is discharging to SA Based on debris piles and wrack lines in the trees, SA reaches very high flood stages on a regular basis USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) [70 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 1. Applicant's name City of Greenville 2. Evaluator's name J Hartshorn (KHA), B Reed (KHA) 3. Date of evaluation 09/27/2012 5. Name of stream EB -5539 - Stream SA 7. Approximate drainage area 30 acres 9. Length of reach evaluated 200' 11. Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees Latitude (ex 34 872312) 35 617901 4. Time of evaluation 10 00 am 6. River basin Tar - Pamlico 8. Stream order First Order 10. County Pitt 12. Subdivision name (if any) n/a Longitude (ex —77 556611) -77396797 Method location determined (circle) ✓❑'TPS❑ropo Sheet❑✓ brtho (Aerial) Photo /GIS[D)ther GIS❑Jther 13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location) Stream SA begins northeast of W 3rd Street, approximately 1,000 feet from the main channel of the Tar River 14. Proposed channel work (if any) Stream SA will be spanned by a boardwalk All construction will be out of the OWHM 15. Recent weather conditions Sunny and dry, no recorded rainfall in the last 7 days according to NOAA/NWS 16. Site conditions at time of visit Sunny and clear, approximately 80 degrees F 17. Identify any special waterway classifications known Election 10 ❑Tidal Waters ❑Essential Fisheries Habitat .❑Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters F1 Nutrient Sensitive Waters IIWater Supply Watershed (I -IV) 18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation pointy NO If yes, estimate the water surface area n/a 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map9 NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9 NO 21. Estimated watershed land use 60 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural 10 % Forested % Cleared / Logged 30 % Other ( Construction or Roadway 22. Bankfull width 5-8- 23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank) 3' -5' 24. Channel slope down center of stream ,❑Flat (0 to 2 %) _ZGentle (2 to 4 %) _DModerate (4 to 10 %) F]-Steep ( >10 %) 25. Channel sinuosity Straight _00ccasional bends ❑Frequent meander -[:]-Very sinuous Braided channel Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the worksheet Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e g, the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality Total Score (from reverse): 48 Comments: Stream SA is largely stormwater driven (60" CMP and large rip rap dissipater pad upstream of SA origin), and is straight for the first 100' As the energy dissipates in the channel, SA begins to establish a natural meander, but SA quickly dissipates into wetlands WA and WB SA is covered with iron oxidizing bacteria and there is significant trash and foreign debris in the channel and along the banks An aerial sewer crosses SA as well near flag Evaluator's Signature Date 09/27/2012 This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03 To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26 EB -5539 - Stream SA STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET - - 74`' � s• u i °L n '..c -a ° ' �.. —�'� +a} .f� ^r T' a v. z'z,� 4,.5 x �.s>- �e.�- ..- >F"'a`° iECOREGION- vPQINT "RANGE' 4 # � , - 4WHARACTEkRISTICS =a s; . -X - Coastal` - SCORE , Piedmont Mountain ;Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 1 '(6 rio: flow =or saturation = 0, stron flow = max omts , X01' 0 -4: 0, =5 _ A 2 2 r 3 Y -HIr x` ivvldence of,past human alteration =extensive 0 =.6 jK _0, — 5, 0 —^S 1 =- alteration; 0, no alteration.- max oints Riparian zone 0-6 0`— 4 0-5 4 - rib buffer- 0 'conri uous wide,buffer = max oints 4 Evidence,of nutrient or chemical discharges ' 0'= 5,: > 0-4 0 4 4 _ extensive dischar es = 0, no discharges = max points - �4 _ , .`=Groundwater discharge �4 3 d di'schar e =_0, springs, see s; wetlands, etc = max points), -'(no U' 6 Presence of adjacent tloodplain 0_= 4' _ 0=4 0 2 3 no,flood 1`am = 0, extensive flood lam = max points) = �' Entrenchment I flood�plain access -- - � 7 (deeply entrenched =_O, frequent- floodm = max omts 0 =s �z ' -0 -4~ _ 0-2 3 8 ,Presence of adjacent�wetlands _ ,. �0 0 — 2 3 no „wetlands = 0, lar e ad scent wetlands max olilts > _ � , '' ' �_ - Channel sinuosity - SChannel sinuosity � _ extei"t e;6hannelization=0, natural meander = max'-o fits) __- - Sediment input -'-. ": � � `:t 0 10'' extensive "de 6sitibn "tittle � 0--=, 4 0 --= 4 ~ �. 1 -'0 or'no,sediment = max, omts _ x =' ` ' Size &,,diversity of chanudb d siili'strate`} °' t v_ 1.1 �w fine, porno enons 4'O�xlar e diverse sizes = max points , Y.NA*`` 0 — 5" NA* Evidence of channel incision or widening ` 0=51 "0 12 - , _- - "'bed& 0 -4 -5 de' 1 -incised -0, stable banks= max omts = , �PresenceAfmajorbank failures ` �N� a 13 �severeEerosion= 0, no_erosion stable banks— max points 0 = -5, 0 = 5 0 -5 3 and density on banks 14 0 — 3-t =0 — 4 0 — 5 2 no visible roots - 0, dense,roots throu bout— max omts _ Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production�� ` 15 0, 5 0-4 0 — 5 4 substantial nn act =0, no evidence = maxa omts ` Presence of riffle= pool/ripple -pool complexes _ �� 16 0 — 3`" 0 — 5 0 — 6 2 no nfflesln "1e_s_or pools = 0 develo ed = max omts u .well- 17 Habitat complexity 0 -6 A 0 - -6 0 -6 3 little or no habitat =.0, fre went vaned habitats =max points) .' �- - Canopy- coverage over streambed ° ' -~ '18 no_shadm ve etanon = 0; continuous, canopy = max omts 0-5'- -. �� 0 -5 0 -5 3 - Substrate embeddedness 19 -" :� NA* - -' 0-4 0 —`.4 NA* dee 1 embedded= 0, loose structure = max ;`a ; ,„ = Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) _ a 20, 0 -4� 0=5 0—°5 3 _ no evidence,= 0'` common numerous types = max points)_ -J of,amphibians -�° 21 a _Presence , 0 0 4 0-4 1 O _ es= max points) no evidence - -r0, =common numerous_ _ __ O 22 Presence offish - 04 - 0 .. .. =,,common, numerous =,max orris 0�4r, 0 -4 nosevldenc&= es' _ - Evidence,of wildlife use . 23 rio,e�'vsid_ence �0,- abundant evidence = maz oin 0 —y6v -0 A,5-,:' - _ 0 — 5 3 -- � __ — "�' �M1dt tr ?nt *@,r't. `�f�.x. —,•u f � s e _:`i_ _ __ 'n _ ° _ i ” otal,PomWPossible _'Y _v, _'� =,.., ;"t`R"}.i,3s'p, ",�'�`- t^.e—<— 1' °t t tn, 100 _ __ _ _ _ — -- N �n° P� ,TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page), -' ' �` ° 48 * These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11 Date 9/27/2012 Project/Site EB -5539 Stream SB Latitude 35 617802 Evaluator J Hartshorn (KHA) County Pitt Longitude -77396599 B Reed (KHA) 0 11 Total Points: 225 Stream D (circle one Other Stream is at least intermittent Ephem al Intermitten Perennial e g Quad Name Greenville SW if z 19 or perennial if? 30 3 1,r. A Geomorphology Subtotal= 7 `° ' Weak ° °� Modera_te, _Strong" Score_ 1a Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 11 2 3 1 2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 1,r. 3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple- poolsequence 0 1 2 3 1' 4 Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 '1,F 5 Active /relic floodplain 0 1 2 3 "1 6 Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 -0, 7 Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 '01 8 Headcuts 0 1 2 3 0 9 Grade control 0 0 5 1 1 5 1 10 Natural valley 0 0 5 1 1 5 1, 11 Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3 0 artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual B Hydrology Subtotal = 75 12 Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 1„ 13 Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 2° 14 Leaf litter 1 5 1 05 0 1^ 15 Sediment on plants or debris 0 05 1 1 5 0' _ 16 Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1 5 0.5 17 Soil -based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3 S", C Biology Subtotal = 18 Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 2; ;A 19 Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 3 ` 20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 __0 21 Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 1 10 22 Fish 0 0.5 1 15 0.5 23 Crayfish 0 05 1 1 5 0.. ' 24 Amphibians 0 0.5 1 15 0.5 25 Algae 0 0.5 1 1 5 0.5 26 Wetland plants In streambed FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1.5 Other = 0 1.5 'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual Notes Stream SIB is a low - quality Intermittent channel that Is primarily fed by stormwater leaving the adjacent housing development The channel elevation intercepts groundwater, and at time of observation SIB had pooled water In the but no clear evidence of flow In the surface water The channel has wrack Imes and debris piles indicating that this receives flow Intermittently SIB reaches a confluence with SA near wetlands WA and WB Fish and frogs were observed In the channel USAGE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET --AQF Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 1. Applicant's name City of Greenville 2. Evaluator's name J Hartshorn (KHA), B Reed (KHA) 3. Date of evaluation 09/27/2012 4. Time of evaluation 11 15 am 5. Name of stream EB -5539 - Stream SB 6. River basin Tar - Pamlico 7. Approximate drainage area 15 acres 8. Stream order First Order 9. Length of reach evaluated 100' 10. County Pitt 11. Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any) n/a Latitude (ex 34 872312) 35 617802 Longitude (ex -77 556611) -77396599 Method location determined (circle) E� PSQI'opo Sheet ✓ 0rtho (Aenal) Photo /GIS [Dther GISather 13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location) Stream SB is located adjacent to a Greenville Utilities Lift Station access road near the intersection of W Conley St and W 3rd St 14. Proposed channel work (if any) Stream SB will be spanned by a boardwalk All construction will be outside of the OWHM 15. Recent weather conditions Sunny and dry, no recorded rainfall in the last 7 days according to NOAA/NWS 16. Site conditions at time of visit Sunny and clear, approximately 80 degrees F 17. Identify any special waterway classifications known ElSection 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat - _Trout Waters 00utstanding Resource Waters E] Nutnent Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV) 18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area n/a 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9 NO 21. Estimated watershed land use 65 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural 1 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged 34 % Other ( Paved Roadway ) 22. Bankfull width 2'-3' 23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank) V -2' 24. Channel slope down center of stream DFlat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) ]ZIModerate (4 to 10 %) E]_Steep (>I 0%) 25. Channel sinuosity Straight _Occasional bends 1217requent meander -F-].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): 28 Comments: Stream SB is a stormwater driven channel that conveys surface runoff from a large residential development to stream SA A steep concrete flume discharges surface flow to SB, which has low banks and is narrow SB is located in a topographic crenulation that may be a natural feature, or was enhanced during construction of the adjacent lift station SB intercepts groundwater at the foot of the hillslope, and due to recent dry conditions, the stream was not flowing at time of observation Evaluator's Signature Date 09/27/2012 This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03 To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26 EB -5539 - Stream SB STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET * These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams } `CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION-POINT�RANGE, e #` - SCORE Coastal - 4 Pied_mont-, Mountain ~ 1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in- stream 0-5 r 0 — 4 -0- 5, 1 _` _ no flow or saturation = 0, strop f1ow� =.max, omts 2 Evidence of past human`alterAtion '_�_ 0 0 `0 0 extensive alteration_= 0, no alterahon=ma c omfs ' -6 _ -5_ -5,'- Riparfan'zone ; 0 =6 - 0 - -5� 2 buffe='0 conti uous wide buffer -- nax omts _ ,Evidence ofnutrient or chemical discharges _ 3 extensive.dischar es:= 0 no_ discharges npoints) - a Groundwater _discharge � ' d 5 har e =_0, springs, s see s, wetlands „etc - max oints O-3 0 °- 4= _ 0-4 2 presence of adjacent'doodplain '_ vi 6 ; no flood lam = 0, `extensive flood lain = maic omts 0 -4 0-4 A =2 1 j Entrenchment / floodplainrtaccess Y Y' ` 7 = 0 -5 0 =4_� -r ” 0 -2 1 a '(deeply entrenched— 0, frequent flooding =max omts - 'Presence of adjcent wetlands _m_ a 0 -6 0 -4-._ ,- 0 -2 2 no wetlands =,0, large adjacent wetlands .-max omts Channel sinuosity -' - ' ,- 9' �' ° 3 extensive channehzatron = 0 , natural, meander = -fnax omts 0 -5 0 =4:,' _ 0 =3 Q r 10, = ' Sediment�input� "' 2 Joints �, 0' =5 ° ' 0 -4'�=E 4 0 —4 3 exxtensive de osrtron= 0, little or'no sedunent,= max y; - T x ize &,diversity, ,of`channel bed suhs'`trate NA* 0 — 4£0'- 5 NA* ° fine, homo 'erious = 0,,jar e diverse sizes, =`ma) points)_ - _ ' � .. Evidence of channel- incision or , widening - 12. ","(deeply mcised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0 - 4 0-5 1 �' % z " , Presence of major bank failures 13 y' severe_erosron = 0, no erosion, stable banks 7 max4 omts 0-5 0 — 5` _ 0-5 2 14 bans° Root depth and density on k 0=3 0-4 _ 0 5 Q - no visible roots ='0, dense roots throughout-=, max points)- - Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production _ 15 0-5 0 - 4 0-5 4 substantial impact =0 no evidence = max points) Presence of riffle- pool/ripple- pooLcomplexes 16• 0 -3 0 -5' ` 0 -6 0 no riffles/npples or pools = 0 well-developed= max points) -Habitat 17 - complexity Y(little 0 -6 0 =6 0 -6 1 or no habitat 0, frequent, ,varied habitats -.max oints w ° W Canopy coverage`over streambedZ r ` `'a 18 �_ _ noxshadrn Kve etatron = 0, coritmuous cano max> omt`s " 0 -5 - - 0` -5"' a .� -0 -5- 1 1�9��'� iSub`strate embeddedness '` _ °f n ' ,' 0, = NA * 0 — 4 - ; 0 — 4 NA* dee 1 ;embedded = loose structure max , Presence of stream invertebrates (seepage 4) 20 0-4 0 — 5 0 = 5 0 - no evidence = 0 common numerous es = maxi omts - Presence of amphibians 21. _ - - 0 =4 0 =4` 0 =4 1 O _ _ h no, evidencer= 0, common, numerous_ es =`max ornts O 22 Presence -of fish 0 -4 0 -4 0 -4 1 - no,evrdence = 0, common, numerous es_-- max ofn_ts _ _ 23 Evidence of wildlife use _ 0-6 0 - 5 0 — 5 2 no evidence = 0, abundant evidence - max points) ` Total Points Possible _ `, 100 `100' = �too- - ` TOTAL SCORE .(also.en "teronfirst page) �a� �y =, `° ,3 <t, >_t. -, �u tea_ °`� * These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11 Date 9/27/2012 Project/Site EB -5539 Stream SC Latitude 35 617802 Evaluator J Hartshorn (KHA) County Pitt Longitude -77396202 B Reed (KHA) 0 1 Total Points: 345 3 3 2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg Stream Determination Other Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermitte t Perennial g Quad Name Greenville SW f >_ 19 or perennial if? 30 0 1 A Geomorphology Subtotal= 155 „� Absent _ f p�Weak� ;Moderate' Strong, ,Score 1a Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 3 2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 ;;<x, (2_ ; 3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple- pool sequence 0 1 2 3 1 4 Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 1.9 _ 5 Active /relic floodplain 0 1 2 3 , "31 6 Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 1 7 Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 2` 8 Headcuts 0 1 2 3 1 9 Grade control 0 0.5 1 1 5 0.5 10 Natural valley 0 0 5 1 1 5 1 11 Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3 0 artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual B Hydrology Subtotal = 10 12 Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 1 13 Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 3 14 Leaf litter 1 5 1 05 0 1 15 Sediment on plants or debris 0 05 1 1 5 1 16 Organic debris lines or piles 0 05 1 1 5 1" 17 Sod -based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3 3 C Biology Subtotal = 18 Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 2F=,' 19 Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 3�" 20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 '0 21 Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 0 22 Fish 0 05 1 1 5 0 23 Crayfish 0 05 1 1 5 1 24 Amphibians 0 05 1 1 5 -1 25 Algae 0 0.5 1 15 0.5 26 Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1.5 Other = 0 'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual Notes Stream SC is a channel that branches off of stream SA and flows east through wetland WB SC dissipates into WB after flowing approximately 200' The banks and alluvial benches within SC have crayfish burrows, and fish were observed throughout the channel The water is slow - moving, and OBL wetland vegetation is encroaching on the channel at low points and riffles USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 1. Applicant's name City of Greenville 2. Evaluator's name J Hartshorn (KHA), B Reed (KHA) 3. Date of evaluation 09/27/2012 5. Name of stream EB -5539 - Stream SC 7. Approximate drainage area 4 acres 9. Length of reach evaluated 200' 11. Site coordinates (if known) Latitude (ex 34 872312) prefer in decimal degrees 35 617802 4. Time of evaluation 10 45 am 6. River basm Tar - Pamlico 8. Stream order First Order 10. County Pitt 12. Subdivision name (if any) n/a Longitude (ex —77 556611) -77396202 Method location determined (circle) �PSOropo Sheet✓ Drtho (Aerial) Photo /GIS[:]Dther GISEJDther 13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location) Stream SC is located at the foot of a hillslope, behind residential housing along the north side of W Conley Street in a sewer easement 14. Proposed channel work (if any) Stream SC will be spanned by a boardwalk All construction will be outside of the OWHM 15. Recent weather conditions Sunny and dry, no recorded rainfall in the last 7 days according to NOAA/NWS 16. Site conditions at time of visit Sunny and clear, approximately 80 degrees F 17. Identify any special waterway classifications known Section 10 FITidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat .aTrout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters t Nutnent Sensitive Waters Dwater Supply Watershed (I -IV) 18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area n/a 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 21. Estimated watershed land use 75 % Residential 25 % Forested 22. Bankfull width 2'4 24. Channel slope down center of stream 017lat (0 to 2 %) 25. Channel sinuosity Straight Occasional bends 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural _% Cleared / Logged % Other 23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank) 1' -2' Gentle (2 to 4 %) OModerate (4 to 10 %) OSteep ( >10 %) 017requent meander -[:]-Very sinuous Braided channel Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the worksheet Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e g, the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality Total Score (from reverse): 40 Comments: Stream SC is branch channel off of SA that flows through a sewer easement along the foot of a large hillslope SC dissipates into wetland WB SC has crayfish burrows and wetland vegetation in exposed areas of the stream bed SC is also fed by groundwater seepage from the adjacent hillslope Evaluator's Signature Date 09/27/2012 This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03 To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26 EB -5539 - Stream SC STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET * These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams CHARACTERISTICS'_ °` - POINtT AANGE §= = SCOPW . <_. ;a ` 'Coastal <1?iedinont �y ,.- Mountain r .Presence of flow % petsistent- pools.in stteain - � 1 _ no flow,or saturation = 0, strong flower max points) 0 -5 �0 -4 0 -5-,- 1 2 7 Evidence of past human alteration �- 0 -6 �0 -5 .0 -5 = == 0 extensive alteration - 0, no alteration ,max pom ts - - _ _ - -- --" - -- - _--- Riparian zone - - - - , - - _ 2 - _no buffer = 0' C` onti ous; wide buffer-= �inax�, points) 4- -` EEvid'ence of not ient,or chemical�dischacges n 0 0 -4 0� 41 1 extensive,dischar "es = 0 no dis charges '= max points) -5 oundwater discharge d 5 ',(no dischar a -t0, s inn s, see s, wetlands, etc = max 0 -3 points) 0 -4 `0 -4 3 HPresence 6 of adjacent floodplain 0 -4 - - �� 0 -4 0 2 55 no flood lain = 0, extensive flood lam =, max omts -2 _ v Entrencfiment %•floodplm n access �0 7 `1 0 —�5 " 0 = 4 " — 2 3 a 1_ dee entrenched ��0, fre `went floodni — max points) 8 Presence_ of adjacent wetlands 0 0 0 - 3 ai a adjacent wetad= no wetlands =0, l max points) _ -6 -4 -2 9 Channel sinuosity ` 0 -5 > °0 =4 0 =3 2 extensive channelization = 0, natural, meander =max omts 10, Sedimeiit inut p 4 _ ve, deposition nosednnent = max points). _ exten , r �: 11 ",Size &_diversiiv,of channel bed�substrate °O, ice= NA* -s4 0 =`5 "= NA* " fine, homogenous _ = large, diverse sizes, = max p points _,0� Evidence of channel incision or widening 12 "stable ` 0-5 0 = 4 0-5 3 � (deeply incised = -0, bed & banks = max points) En* Presence - major bank failares f - - ^ - ` - - - ;- '0 13 severe erosion = 0,, -no-erosion, stable banks = max points) 0 -5 --0--5 -5 3 � Root depth and denstyon.banks �,� r� �°4, ' - 14 � _ no�visibl'e roots = 0;,deh' e,root's throw bout =;max, omts > 0_ -3 _ _ 0, -, 0 -5 _ 0 linpact by agriculture; livestock, or timber production 13 substantial iin act =0, no evidence'- max points)- 0-5 0 — 4 0-5 4 16 Presence of riffle- pool/ripple- pooi'complexes 0-3 0_5 0-6 1 no riffles /ri pools ools = 0 well-developed= max points) 17 - "Habitat complexity -' 0 -6 0 =6 0 -6` 1 little,or no, habitat = _0,,frequent, varied habitats = max points), _ W �`� Canopy coverage over streanibed '�5 18 ; no shading ve etatiori _ 0; continuous canopy =max- omts -0-5 t = 0 0 — 5 1 Substrate embeddedness` � 19 NA* 0-4 0 - 4 NA* (deeply embedded = 0, loose structure - rriax Presence ofstreain invertebrates (see page 4) 20 0_4 0 = 5 0 — 5 " 2 no evidence= 0 common numerous es -max omts Presence 21 of amphibians, 0 4 0 = 4� 0 — 4 ` 2 O no,evidencew =,0, common, numerous es =_fnax oints _ 22 .. , Presence of fish,, _ '� ° - -0"=4 0 - 0 0 1O � _ �;. _ °`' no,evidence_= 0, common; numerous_ es_z -max points)= =4'' -4 Evidence of wildlife use _ 23 = '(no evidence = 0, abundant evidence ='max points), 0 — 6 0-5 0 — 5 2 - h ` Total Po nts Possible F .p 100 10'0x' 100 � `x . r ;° SCORES {al'so #enter on.`first gage) 40 A,TOTAL r.ss -at ems^ 3a .b .v*m`'�.i" * These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4 11 Date 9/27/2012 Project/Site EB -5539 Stream SD Latitude 35 617599 Evaluator J Hartshorn (KHA) County Pitt Longitude -77392403 B Reed (KHA) 0 1 Total Points: 38 3 2 2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg Stream Determination Other Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermitt t Perennial a Quad Name Greenville SW f ? 19 or perennial if a 30 0 1 A Geomorphology Subtotal = 17 °Ab`sent' `Wea Moderate °S>trongt Score' ,a Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 2 2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 1 3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple - poolsequence 0 1 2 3 3, 4 Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 2 5 Active /relic floodplain 0 1 2 3 1 6 Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 1 7 Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 0.5 8 Headcuts 0 1 2 3 S 9 Grade control 0 05 1 1.5 1:5 10 Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1 5 0.5 11 Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3 0 artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual B Hydrology Subtotal = 105 12 Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 2.,' 13 Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 2 14 Leaf litter 1.5 1 05 0 `1.5 15 Sediment on plants or debris 0 05 1 1 5 1 16 Organic debris lines or piles 0 05 1 1 5 1° 17 Soil -based evidence of high water table'? No = 0 Yes = 3 1 C Biology Subtotal = 105 18 Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 3,e; 19 Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 3 20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 0 21 Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 0 22 Fish 0 05 1 15 1.5 23 Crayfish 0 05 1 1 5 0.5° 24 Amphibians 0 05 1 1 5 `.0.5 25 Algae 0 1 0.5 1 1 5 0.5 26 Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0 75, OBL = 1.5, Other = 0 1.5 *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual Notes Stream SD is a short perennial channel beginning at the 36" RCP and dissipater outlet of a stormwater pond SD crosses the sewer easement, and drops approximately 15' from the pipe outlet to the confluence with SE before dropping another few feet to meet the Tar River elevation The reach of SD in the sewer easement has wide banks armored with rip rap and smartweed is growing well within the channel bed Downstream of the easement, SD has multiple riffles complexes and step pools USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 1. Applicant's name City of Greenville 2. Evaluator's name J Hartshorn (KHA), B Reed (KHA) 3. Date of evaluation 09/27/2012 5. Name of stream EB -5539 - Stream SD 7. Approximate drainage area 10 acres 9. Length of reach evaluated 80' 11. Site coordinates (if known) Latitude (ex 34 872312) prefer in decimal degrees 35 617599 4. Time of evaluation 1 45 pm 6. River basin Tar - Pamlico 8. Stream order First Order 10. County Pitt 12. Subdivision name (if any) n/a Longitude (ex -77 556611) -77392403 Method location determined (circle) ✓`rPS ❑ropo Sheet❑✓ brtho (Aerial) Photo /GIS❑)ther GISE:]Dther 13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location) Stream SD is located east of W Conley Street and north of W 3rd Street in a sewer easement at the outlet of a stormwater basin 14. Proposed channel work (if any) Stream SD will be spanned by a pedestrian bridge All construction will be outside of the OWHM 15. Recent weather conditions Sunny and dry, no recorded rainfall in the last 7 days according to NOAA/NWS 16. Site conditions at tune of visit Sunny and clear, approximately 80 degrees F 17. Identify any special waterway classifications known Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat _aTrout Waters ,❑Outstanding Resource Waters El Nutrient Sensitive Waters Dwater Supply Watershed (1 -IV) 18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation pomt9 YES If yes, estimate the water surface area 1 acre 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map9 NO 21. Estimated watershed land use 80 % Residential 10 % Forested 22. Bankfull width 8' -10' 24. Channel slope down center of stream ✓❑Flat (0 to 2 %) 25. Channel sinuosity Straight 00ccasional bends 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9 NO • Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural • Cleared / Logged 110 % Other ( Stormwater Basin ) 23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank) 5' -8' QGentle (2 to 4 %) ,❑Moderate (4 to 10 %) ,❑Steep (>10%) Frequent meander - ❑Very sinuous ❑Braided channel Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the worksheet Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e g, the stieam 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): 62 Comments: Stream SD is a short perennial channel that is the main outlet of a 1 -acre stormwater basin collecting runoff from area developments A 36" RCP outlet at the foot of the basin's berm maintains SD, which loins SE before flowing into the Tar River SD crosses the sewer easement, where its banks are armored with rip rap and wetland vegetation is present in the channel The slope is high for a coastal stream, but step pools over roots and headcuts with scour pools control energy in the stream Evaluator's Signature Date 09/27/2012 This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03 To Comment, please call 919 - 876 -8441 x 26 EB -5539 - Stream SD STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET #- * These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams ECQRE_ GION POINT RANGE CHARACTERISTICS' SCORE Coastal Piedmont °Mountain - Presence.of flow / persistent pools in stream - - 1 0 � 5 0 - 4' 0 5 3 _ : no flow or saturation = 0, strop flow = max omts • 2- e Evidence of past human alteration 0=6, 0 0 eXtensive.alteration =0, no alteration =_maxi omts _ -5 - T °Ripariau-zone 'buffer r t m no =. 0 :conk oas wide,buffer = =max ps _ ,point 4' ry ,Evidence of nutrkidor.cW iii a discharges' } "0Y- -0 = 4 ' ='Or� 4 4 =,max `omts _ e'x_tensive_ dischar es =,0 no discharges- 5 _ Groundwater discharge U_ 5 no discharge- = 0, springs, see s, wetlands, etc = max, omts -O =4 3 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain' 0 -_4 0 -4 =0-2- 2 Ln no °flood lam= 0, extensive flood' lam =max points) T - Entrenchinent % floodplain,access 7 0. _ 5 0-4 '� 0=2 2 deeply entrenched = 0, fre uent floodm °max omts g m Presence of adjacent wetlands _ , 0 -6' 0' -4 �0�2 3 rio` wetlands = a0,,lar e °ad acent wetlands -,max points), 9 _r <; Cbandel =siiiaosi _ 0� =�5 0 -4., `0` =3.� 3 extensive ehanhehzation = O,.natural meander ='max, ,points) _ _Sediment input- 10 - eXterisive de osrtion= 0, tittle or�no sediment =max points) 0 =5 0 -_4 0 4 3 o -Size &diversity f channehbed substrate - * _ 11 - = N 0 -4 - -0 =5 NA fine; homo" enous = O; lar e diverse sizes = max oints - - a . Evidence of channel incision or widening v J } 12 - 0 =5 0 -_4 0 =5 4 _ de 1 incised = 0, stable bed & banks = max points) , `_ Presence of major bank failures r � -_'- - - severeerosion = 0, no erosion'_stable3bank's =max points) x r ,� A, w � 1,4 - E` - `Root,depth'and.density oncbanks ` .. _ , . ' . ` '� 0 �� 3�sx. -` 0 - 4 � _ '` ;0 ` ,` 5 1` 3 no!visible roots _- 0 dense iootsxtliroughout =max omts -_ „ - �° - _ Impact byragiiculture, livestock, or�timber production 15 _=`(substantial impact =0 no evidence _= max oints __ 0 -5 0 -4 0 -5 4 - - Presence of riffle- pool/ripple' poot com0lexes 16 0 Y 3- 05 0�_ ,6 3 no nffles /n _ les or pools = 0 well- de`velo ed - max points) Habitat complexity 17 little or no habitat = 0, fre uen varied�habitats = max points) 0,=6 -0 -6 0 - -6_. - 5 Canopy coverage over streambed M 18 (ho shading ve eiation = 0- contmuous cario = max points)- 0` 5 0-5 0 -5a 3 19 r 9u6stratc,cmbcddcdness �NA � 0-4 It NA* -_ dee' 1 embedded =`0, loose,situcture = max), , -- - � Presence of stream invertebrates_(see page 4) 0, 0 -�4� 0 - 5 '0 = 5 0 no evidence= 0 'common numerous es ° max points 21 - Presence of amphibians 0 0 2 O no evidence = 0, common,,numerous, ° _es = max of s -4 -4 _ 0. -4 Presence of flsW . O 22 N 0 =4 0 -4 0 =4 3 00 _ _ no evidence - 0, common, numerous es = max omts Pq_ 23 , Evidence of wildli fe use 0 = 6 0 - 5 0 5 4 no;evidence = 0, abundant evidence = max points)- - Points Po "ssible,� 100 °, 100 r ,Total ' a fir- �'- -100 ,,.r7 � M �_& T OTA L SCORE ('also °enter on first page. =° '_� = 62 �H.�..� . * These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11 Date 9/27/2012 Project/Site EB -5539 Stream SE Latitude 35 617199 Evaluator J Hartshorn (KHA) County Pitt Longitude -77392097 B Reed (KHA) 0 1 Total Points: 365 Stream Determination Other Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermitt t Perennial 'D9 Quad Name Greenville SW if z 19 or perennial if ? 30 3 _ , 3, A Geomorphology Subtotal= 18 'Absent �` WeakModerate s g° Strong y ° Score ,a Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 3 2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 _ , 3, 3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple- poolsequence 0 1 2 3 3 3 . 4 Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 2„_" , 5 Active /relic floodplain 0 1 2 3 w 1 6 Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 ;,= 05 K 7 Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 1 8 Headcuts 0 1 2 3 -2 ° 9 Grade control 0 0 5 1 1.5 a 1:5' 10 Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1 5 0.5 11 Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3 0 artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual B Hydrology Subtotal = 105 12 Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 3—, 13 Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 3, 14 Leaf litter 1.5 1 05 0 1:5 15 Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1 5 0.5 16 Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1 5 0.5. . 17 Soil -based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3 3 C Biology Subtotal = 18 Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 3—, 19 Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 3 20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 =0 21 Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 '0 22 Fish 0 0.5 1 15 0.5.' 23 Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1 5 0.5`_ 24 Amphibians 0 05 1 1 5 ;,= 05 K 25 Algae 0 95 1 1 5 0:5 26 Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0 75, OBL = 1 5, Other = 0 0' 'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual Notes Stream SE is a large perennial channel that is deeply encised The channel crosses the sewer easement, and within the easement the banks are approximately 8 -10' higher than the water surface After the easement, SE drops approximately 10' through a series of step pools to meet the Tar River elevation Stream SD loins SE north of the easement before SE traverses more step pools and ultimately flows into the Tar River Upstream of the easement bank depths are 15 -20' deep and 30' wide USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 1. Applicant's name City of Greenville 2. Evaluator's name 3. Date of evaluation 09/27/2012 5. Name of stream EB -5539 - Stream SE 7. Approximate drainage area 20 acres 9. Length of reach evaluated 500' 11. Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees Latitude (ex 34 872312) 35 617199 J Hartshorn (KHA), B Reed (KHA) 4. Time of evaluation 2 50 pm 6. River basin Tar - Pamlico 8. Stream order First Order 10. County Pitt 12. Subdivision name (if any) n/a Longitude (ex —77 556611) -77392097 Method location determined (circle) E�PSE]fopo Sheet✓ brtho (Aenal) Photo /GIS [Dther GISather 13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location) Stream SE is located north of W Conley Street and approximately 500' west of the US- 13/Memorial Drive Bridge 14. Proposed channel work (if any) Stream SE will be spanned by a pedestrian bridge All construction will be outside of the OWHM 15. Recent weather conditions Sunny and dry, no recorded rainfall in the last 7 days according to NOAA/NWS 16. Site conditions at time of visit Sunny and clear, approximately 80 degrees F 17. Identify any special waterway classifications known ElSection 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat _aTrout Waters 0Outstanding Resource Waters FI Nutnent Sensitive Waters nWater Supply Watershed (I -IV) 18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES If yes, estimate the water surface area 1 acre 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES 21. Estimated watershed land use 70 % Residential 15 ova Forested 22. Bankfull width 10' -30' % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural 10 % Cleared / Logged 5 % Other (Stormwater Basin ) 23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank) 6-15' 24. Channel slope down center of stream 0171at (0 to 2 %) QGentle (2 to 4 %) DModerate (4 to 10 %) DSteep (>10%) 25. Channel sinuosity Straight 00ccasional bends , ✓Frequent meander -L:] 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): 50 Comments: Stream SE is a perennial channel that is sustained by groundwater, but SE is also an emergency conveyance for the 1 -acre stormwater basin A 50' wide spillway and 40' rip rap dissipater pad discharge to the head of SE The high energy flood flows that SE carries have eroded the channel and banks are very deep, wide, and steep SE is rip rap armored in the easement Downstream of the easement, SE flows through a series of riffles and step pools to meet the elevation of the Tar River Evaluator's Signature Date 09/27/2012 This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03 To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26 EB -5539 - Stream SE STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET * These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams E'COREGION POINT #' ' CHARACTERIS�ICS� ° - - SCORE Co_ astal Piedmont _ Mountain - Piesence,of- w /-Persistent pools,in stream _ 1 � - no flow or_saturatron = 0, stron "flow =`mak " points) 0 -5 - 0 =4 b0� =5 ', 3 2 `Evidence of past�bu!nan =alteration - 4 0 -,6 0 -5, 0' 5 2 extensive alter °afion, ='0 no alteration =_max omts n �r .Riparian zone ` _ 4 3 ax omts - no buffer =A c6miguous,,wide buffer' m ' 0-6 0 -4 0-5 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges T 4 0 - 5 �� 0 - 4 0 = 4 4 n exte_ sive discharges = 0 no discharges = max, omts r4 5 _ r_ Groundwater discharge 0 = 3 , y 0 - 4 0 - 4� 3 _ n6:dischar e' =t0, s nn�s'see s wetlands, etc ° h4x oints , �6 Presence -of adjacent , . _ � 4 �' -`0- ` _floodplain noflood lam= O,�extensrveflood "lam =max points) 0 - ,0-4 2 Entrenchment / floodplain access 7. 0 -5 0 -4 t0 -2 0 a (deeply entrenched = 0, frequent flooding = max_ points) 8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0 -6 �0 0 1 no wetlands = O, lar` e ad acent wetlands = max points)- -4 -2 9.: ¢rte- Channelxsrnaosity �� ` 0 -Sy �:k.� y0- -4E :Oa3 4 oints . extensive eharin6l&4ion = 0, natuial meander = rnax points).' 10 Sediment input _ 0-5 0 - 4 0-114 3 extensive deposition 0,_httle or no sediment = max points)- 11 Size &rdiver'sity of channel bed substrate -° n ` NA * 0 =4 0 �5 NA ,fine,,homo enous_= 6, large, diverse sizes =max points _ _ 12 'Evidence of channel incisionor,widening � 0 =5` ;� `0-4' 0 5, ' 0 y� � ---(deeply,, incised =10 ,s_tab16 bed „& banks.= max points), v - s f Presence ofTmajor bank failures y 0-5 0'- 5 0 5 0 ts _ severe_eroston = 0, no erosion stable banks = max om� = ' Root depth and density on banks 14 14 _ 0-3 0 - 4 0 - 5 E-+ no'visible roots = 0, dense roots _throii hout = max points) Impact by,agricuiture, livestock, or timber production, 15 substantial nn` act -0, no' evidence = max oints 0 = 5 0=4 0`= 5 4 x ” Presence,of riffle -poo- ripple -poW complexes �no 16 riffles /n les or ools�- 0 well= d'evelo -ed max points) �0 - 3 � 0 - 5 0`- 6 3 17 Habitat complexity - _ - 0 -6 0=6 - 0 '_6 5 .little or no habitat = 0, frequent, varied habitats = max po mts 18 no;shadm ve eta "tionwF`0; continuous cario' = maxa omts 0 -`5 0 -5 Oroa 5 _ _- 19 -�,4 ` Substrate erribeddednessty NA* _.y,0 - 4 �0 - 4� NA* _ (deeply embedded = 0, loose struc6e = max) Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) _ 20 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 = °5 0 _ no evidence = 0 .common numerous es = max points)- 21 - Presence of amphibians - 0-'4 -0 -4 2 O no_ evidence = 0, common, numerous es =,rnax oints 22 _ - _ _ .Presence of fish ; , ,f r' ` 0 -, 4 ',-0- `4 _ . 6 .=r4 2 _,O no: evidence = 0, common, numerous es:= max omts _ _ _ °Evidence of wildlife use'- ` - -_e 23 M °,no 0-6 -0 -5 0 -5° 4 " evidence = 0,_abundant evidence--max point .�_ _ Total Po nts Possible �� - 100 - 100 ,102_ TOTAL SC(jRE (aI enter oi%',& t page) 50 * These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Project/Site EB -5539 - South Tar River Greenway City/County Greenville, Pitt County Applicant/Owner _City of Greenville State NC Investigator(s) B Reed (KHA), J Hartshorn (KHA) Section, Township, Range Greenville Landform (hillsiope, terrace, etc) HIIISIope Local relief (concave, convex, none) none Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR T Lat 35 618000 N Long 77.397102 W Sampling Date 9/27/2012 Sampling Point WA/WB -UP Slope ( %) 2% Datum NAD 1983 Sod Map Unit Name Bb - Bibb complex NWI classification Are climatic / hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No= (If no, explain in Remarks ) Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No= Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present) Yes ✓ _ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Sod Present? Yes _ No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes= No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks WA -UP is approximately 10' northwest of wetland flag WA8, and 2' higher in elevation than WA8. This area is adjacent to a maintained berm that creates a large stormwater basin. Conditions have been sunny and dry, with no rain recorded in the last 96 hours. This form is also representative of W13-UP. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Sod Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply) Surface Water (At) Aquatic Fauna (613) High Water Table (A2) Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) Drainage Patterns (810) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Moss Tnm Lines (816) Water Marks (61) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry- Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Iron Deposits (65) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (03) BInundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) FAC- Neutral Test (D5) Water - Stained Leaves (139) Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U) Field Observations Surface Water Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches) Water Table Present? Yes - No- ✓ Depth (inches) > 24" Saturation Present? Yes _ No _ ✓ Depth (inches) > 24" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No IZI includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge monitoring well aerial photos previous inspections), if available Remarks There were no Indicators of wetland hydrology observed at the data point location. The water table was not observed within the upper 24 ", and the soil was not saturated within the upper 24 ". The majority of the uplands surrounding wetlands WA and WB are comprised of maintained /disturbed areas, residential developments, and roadway corridors. Due to the similarity of conditions, as well as the close proximity of the wetlands to one another, this data point was collected as representative of both WA -UP and W13-UP. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point WA/WB -UP 12 87% =Total Cover 50% of total cover 43.5g/o 20% of total cover 17.4% Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 1 Vitas rotundifolaa 5% Y FAC 2 Sanalax rotundafolaa 5% Y FAC 3 4 5 Hydrophytic 10% =Total Cover Vegetation 50% of total cover 5% 20% of total cover 2% Present? Yes No The upland area at WA -UP appears to be Infrequently mowed, but has not been mowed /maintained recently. There are no canopy species present In the upland area at WA -UP, and sapling and shrub species are sparse. The upland area is dominated by herbaceous vegetation. The uplands adjacent to WB are maintained /disturbed residential yards. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 none 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 4 (A) 2 40% Y Total Number of Dominant 6 be present, unless disturbed or problematic 3 Festuca sp 40% Species Across All Strata (B) 4 Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata 3 Percent of Dominant Species 66.7% 5% 5 FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A/B) 6 2% N FAC Prevalence Index worksheet 7 8 Total % Cover of Multiply by more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of Op /p = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = 50% of total cover 0% 20% of total cover 0% FACW species x 2 = Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 30' ) FAC species x 3 = 1 Laquadambar styractflua 5% Y FAC FACU species x 4 = 2 Robanaa pseudoacacaa 5% Y NI UPL species x 5 = 3 Column Totals (A) (B) 4 Herb —All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless Prevalence Index = B/A = 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 6 10 _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7 Woody vine —All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in Y 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 8 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3 0' 10% = Total Cover _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 12 87% =Total Cover 50% of total cover 43.5g/o 20% of total cover 17.4% Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 1 Vitas rotundifolaa 5% Y FAC 2 Sanalax rotundafolaa 5% Y FAC 3 4 5 Hydrophytic 10% =Total Cover Vegetation 50% of total cover 5% 20% of total cover 2% Present? Yes No The upland area at WA -UP appears to be Infrequently mowed, but has not been mowed /maintained recently. There are no canopy species present In the upland area at WA -UP, and sapling and shrub species are sparse. The upland area is dominated by herbaceous vegetation. The uplands adjacent to WB are maintained /disturbed residential yards. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 50% of total cover 5% 20% of total cover %p /n Herb Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1 Eupatonum capallafolaum 40% Y FACU be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2 Festuca sp 40% Y FAC Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata 3 Arundanaraa gagantea 5% N FACW Rubus argutus 2% N FAC Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or 4 more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 5 height 6 Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less 7 than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall 8 Herb —All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless 9 of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall 10 Woody vine —All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in 11 height 12 87% =Total Cover 50% of total cover 43.5g/o 20% of total cover 17.4% Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 1 Vitas rotundifolaa 5% Y FAC 2 Sanalax rotundafolaa 5% Y FAC 3 4 5 Hydrophytic 10% =Total Cover Vegetation 50% of total cover 5% 20% of total cover 2% Present? Yes No The upland area at WA -UP appears to be Infrequently mowed, but has not been mowed /maintained recently. There are no canopy species present In the upland area at WA -UP, and sapling and shrub species are sparse. The upland area is dominated by herbaceous vegetation. The uplands adjacent to WB are maintained /disturbed residential yards. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 SOIL Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence Depth Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 0 -4" 10YR 4/3 100 4 -24" 10YR 5/3 100 Redox Features Color (moist) % Type Loc 'Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains Hydnc Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted ) Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U) tractive Layer (if observed) Type Depth (inches) Remarks Sampling Point WA/W13-UP Texture Remarks Fine sandy loam Sandy loam 2Location PL =Pore Lining, M =Matrix Indicators for Problematic Hydnc Soils3 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19) (LRR P, S, T) Depleted Matrix (F3) HAnomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151) Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present, Delta Ochnc (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A) Anomalous Bright Loamy Sods (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D) Hydric Soil Present? Yes F-1 No 27 The soils at WA -UP may have been historically disturbed, and is located near the transition from buried sewer line to aerial sewer line to cross SA and WA. The disturbance within the soil profile appears to increases with depth. No saturation was found in the upper 24 ", and the water table was also not observed within the upper 24 ". US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Project/Site EB -5539 - South Tar River Greenway City /County Greenville, Pitt County Sampling Date 9/27/2012 Applicant/Owner City of Greenville State NC Sampling Point WA /WB -WET Investigator(s) B Reed (KHA), J Hartshorn (KHA) Section, Township, Range Greenville Landform (hillsiope, terrace, etc) Floodplaln Local relief (concave, convex, none) Concave Slope (%) <1% Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR T Lat 35.617901 N Long 77.397102 W Datum NAD 1983 Sod Map Unit Name Bb - Bibb complex NWI classification Are climatic / hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No = (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present) Yes � No❑ Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Presents Yes ✓ _ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Sod Present? Yes ✓ _ No 571 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks WA -WET is approximately 15' southeast of wetland flag WA8, and 2' lower in elevation than wetland flag WA8. This area is adjacent to an above ground sewer crossing of stream SA. Recent conditions have been sunny and dry, with no rain recorded in the last 96 hours. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Sod Cracks (66) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply) ✓ Surface Water (Al) Aquatic Fauna (B13) ✓ High Water Table (A2) Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U) ✓ Drainage Patterns (1310) ✓ Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Moss Trim Lines (616) Water Marks (61) Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ✓ Dry- Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (134) Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Geomorphic Position (02) ❑ Iron Deposits (65) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) FAC- Neutral Test (135) Water - Stained Leaves (69) Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U) Field Observations Surface Water Present? Yes _ ✓ No Depth (inches) 0 -12" Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No - Depth (inches) 2" Saturation Presents Yes _ ✓ No Depth inches " _ p (inches) 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well aerial photos previous inspections) if available Remarks Wetlands WA and WB are low -lying floodplain wetlands associated with streams SA, SB, SC, and the Tar River. Surface water was observed throughout the interior reaches of the wetland, reaching depths of 12 ". Soils in WA and WB show signs of alluvial deposition as distances to the stream channels decrease. The water table was observed initially at 10 ", but while completing the observation point documentation, the water table recharged to a depth of 2" below the surface. Soils were saturated to the surface throughout wetlands WA and WB. Wetland WB is bounded on the southern side by a steep topographic break. The similarity of conditions found in wetlands WA and WB, as well as the close proximity of the wetlands to one another, make this data point reflective of both wetlands. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point WA /WB -WET Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Smartweed and lizards tall are dominant throughout the floodplaln, and the low -lying areas with surface water are dominated by cattail and lizards tail. The canopy species are along the fringes of the wetland, and black willow Is found throughout WA. The canopy In wetland WB Is dominated by cypress and black gum. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2 0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' ) % Cover Soecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 7 1 Saltx ntgra 25% Y OBL That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A) 2 Taxodium dtsttchum 20% Y OBL 3 Betula ntgra 10% N FACW Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata 7 (B) 4 Acer rubrum 10% N FAC 5 Ltqutdambar styractflua 5% N FAC Percent of Dominant Species 100% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A/B) 6 Prevalence Index worksheet 7 8 Total % Cover of Multiply by 70% = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = 50% of total cover 35% 20% of total cover 14% FACW species x 2 = Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 30' ) FAC species x 3 = 1 Saltx ntgra 20% Y OR FACU species x 4 = 2 Acer rubrutn 15% Y FAC UPL species x 5 = 3 Ltqutdambar styractflua 10% Y FAC Column Totals (A) (B) 4 Prevalence Index = B/A = 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 6 _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7 Y 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 8 3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0' 45% =Total Cover _ _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 50% of total cover 22 5% 20% of total cover 90 /n Herb Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1 Perstcarta amphtbta 40% Y OBL be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2 Saururus cernuus 20% Y OBL Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata 3 Juncus effusus 5% N OBL Sctrpus cypertnus 5% N OBL Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or 4 more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 5 Rubus argutus 5% N FAC height 6 Typha lat folta 2% N OBL Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less 7 than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall Herb —All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless 8 9 of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall 10 Woody vine —AII woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in 11 height 12 77% = Total Cover 50% of total cover 38 5% 20% of total cover 15.4% Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 1 none 2 3 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 0% = Total Cover 50% of total cover 0% 20% of total cover 0% Present? Yes No Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Smartweed and lizards tall are dominant throughout the floodplaln, and the low -lying areas with surface water are dominated by cattail and lizards tail. The canopy species are along the fringes of the wetland, and black willow Is found throughout WA. The canopy In wetland WB Is dominated by cypress and black gum. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2 0 =2 Sampling Point WA/W13-WET Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators ) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc 0 -6" 10YR 4/1 100 6 -18" 10YR 3/1 100 'Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains Hydnc Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless othennnse noted Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (M LRA 150A) Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR O, S) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U) Restrictive Layer (if observed) Type Depth (inches) Texture Remarks Loamy sand Loam 2Location PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix Indicators for Problematic Hydnc Soils3 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) HAnomalous Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T) Depleted Matrix (F3) Bright Loamy Soils (F20) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 15313) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Mari (1`10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Ochnc (F11) (MLRA 151) Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present, Delta Ochnc (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D) Hydric Soil Present? Yes EL Nog The soils in WA are sandier closer to SA in the alluvial zone, but at the data point location (approximately 50' from SA) soils are loamy and the area is a low -lying floodplain. The soil profile in at WA -WET is reflective of soils throughout wetland WB. There is no evidence of oxidation in the soil profile, but soils are dark throughout. Soils are saturated at the surface, and the water table was observed at 2 ". US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Prolecusite EB -5539 - South Tar River Greenway City/County Greenville, Pitt County Sampling Date 9/27/2012 Applicant/Owner City of Greenville state NC Sampling Point WC /WD -UP Investigator(s) B. Reed (KHA), J. Hartshorn (KHA) Section, Township, Range Greenville Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Hlllslope Local relief (concave, convex, none) None Slope ( %,) 3% Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR T Lat 35.617599 N Long 77.392502 W Datum NAD 1983 Soil Map Unit Name Bb - Bibb complex NWI classification _ Are climatic / hydro) is wnditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes V7/ No = (If no, explain in Remarks ) Are Vegetation Soil � or Hydrology significantly disturbed) Are `Normal Circumstances" present? Yes Noy Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present) Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ No ✓ V/ within a Wetland? Yes NoWl Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks WC -UP is located approximately 10' upslope of wetland WC, and is above the groundwater seepage zone that maintains the wetland. Recent conditions have been sunny and dry, with no rain recorded in the last 96 hours. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Sod Cracks (136) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) Aquatic Fauna (1313) High Water Table (A2) Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) Drainage Patterns (810) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (61) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry - Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (132) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) HSaturation Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (134) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (02) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) Other (Explain in Remarks) HShallow Aquitard (D3) eInundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) HSphagnum FAC- Neutral Test (D5) Water - Stained Leaves (139) moss (D8) (LRR T, U) Field Observations. Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches) Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches) >18" Saturation Present? Yes _ No- ✓ Depth (inches) >1811 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes[—] No z includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well aerial photos previous inspections), if available Remarks No hydric indicators were observed within WC -UP. Due to the steep elevations adjacent to wetlands WC and WD, this area is at a significantly higher elevation than the adjacent wetland. This data point is representative of both WC -UP and WD -UP due to the wetland's similar conditions and close proximity. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2 0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point WC /WD -UP 0% =Total Cover Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 7 1 Liriodendron tultpfera 100/0 Y FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A) 2 Liquidambar.styractflua 10% Y FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata (B) 3 Acer rubrum 10% Y FAC 4 3 Smilax rotundfolia 10% Y FAC Percent of Dominant Species 100% 5 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A/B) 5 6 30% =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation W Prevalence Index worksheet 7 8 6% Present? Yes No Total % Cover of Multiply by OBL species x 1 = 30% = Total Cover 50% of total cover 15% 20% of total cover 6% FACW species x 2 = Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 30' ) FAC species x 3 = 1 Ltqutdambar sryractflua 5% Y FAC FACU species x 4 = 2 UPL species x 5 = 3 Column Totals (A) (B) 4 Prevalence Index = B/A = 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 6 _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7 X 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 8 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3 0' 5% = Total Cover _ _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 50% of total cover 2 5% 20% of total cover 10/0 Herb Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 'Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must 1 none be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2 Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata 3 Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or 4 more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height 5 6 Sapling/Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less 7 than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless 8 9 of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall 10 Woody vine —All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in 11 height 12 0% =Total Cover Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) The steep side slope uplands adjacent to WC and WD have an established canopy and a thick vine layer. Most of the slopes south of the wetlands are covered in debris and discarded household trash that has apparently been dumped from the housing developments at the top of the hillslope. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 50% of total cover 0% 20% of total cover 0% Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 1 Campsis radicans 10% Y FAC 2 Vans rotund folta 10% Y FAC 3 Smilax rotundfolia 10% Y FAC 4 5 30% =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation W 50% of total cover 15% 20% of total cover 6% Present? Yes No Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) The steep side slope uplands adjacent to WC and WD have an established canopy and a thick vine layer. Most of the slopes south of the wetlands are covered in debris and discarded household trash that has apparently been dumped from the housing developments at the top of the hillslope. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 SOIL Sampling Point WC /WD -UP Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators) Depth Matrix Redox Features _(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc 0 -6" 10YR 4/3 100 6 -18" 10YR 5/3 100 'Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains Hydnc Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otheranse noted ) Hstosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (M LRA 150A) Sandy Mucky Mineral (31) (LRR O, S) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U) Restrictive Layer (if observed) Type Depth (inches) Remarks Texture Remarks Fine sandy loam Sandy loam 2Location PL =Pore Lining, M =Matrix Indicators for Problematic Hydnc Soils3 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T) Depleted Matrix (F3) E] Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 15313) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151) Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present, Delta Ochnc (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1506) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D) Hydric Soil Present? Yes F-1 No _a No hydr(c soil indicators were observed within 18" and data point WC -UP. The soil profile documented here is also representative of the soils found at WD -UP. This data form represents both WC -UP and WD -UP due to the wetland's close proximity and similarity of conditions. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Project/Site EB -5539 - South Tar River Greenway City/County Greenville, Pitt County Sampling Date 9/27/2012 Applicant/Owner City of Greenville State NC Sampling Point WC -WET Investigator(s) B Reed (KHA), J. Hartshorn (KHA) Section, Township Range Greenville Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc) Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none) Concave Slope ( %) <1% Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR T Lat 35.617599 N Long 77.392502 W Datum NAD 1983 Sod Map Unit Name Bb - Bibb complex NWI classification- Are climatic / hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No = (if no, explain in Remarks ) Are Vegetation Sod Ror or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present) Yes 7Y/No= Are Vegetation Sod Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ _ No Is the Sampled Area Hydnc Sod Present? Yes ✓ _ No within a Wetland? Yes V No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks WC -WET is located at the foot of a large hillslope, and groundwater seepage is the primary hydrologic influence. WC also receives floodwaters from stream SD. Conditions have been sunny and dry, with no rain recorded in the last 96 hours. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) ❑ ❑ Surface Sod Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) Aquatic Fauna (B13) ✓ High Water Table (A2) Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) Drainage Patterns (B10) ✓ Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (61) Sediment Deposits (82) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ✓ Dry- Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (63) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Geomorphic Posmon (D2) ❑ Iron Deposits (65) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Agwtard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) FAC- Neutral Test (135) Water - Stained Leaves (B9) Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U) Field Observations- Surface Water Present? Yes _ No _ ✓ Depth (inches) Water Table Present? Yes _ ✓ No_ Depth (inches) 8" Saturation Present? Yes _ ✓ No _ Depth (inches) 6° Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes W No ❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well aerial photos previous inspections) if available Remarks Soils were saturated at depths of 6 ", and the water table was observed at 8 ". Groundwater seepage from the hillslopes south of the easement maintain wetland hydrology but over bank flood flows from the Tar River and stream SD also inundate this area. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point WC -WET Wetland WC Is sparsely vegetated, but the dominant vegetation Is herbaceous. WC is Inundated when SD floods and when the Tar River floods, so It remains saturated throughout the year. WC is also located in a sewer easement. Canopy species are present along the wetland fringe, but no sapling or shrub species are present. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2 0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' ) % Cover Species Status Number of Dominant Species 7 1 Acer rubrum 5% Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A) 2 Ligutdambar styraciflua 2% Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 7 3 Ulmus rubra 2% Y FAC Species Across All Strata (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species 100% 5 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A/B) 6 Prevalence Index worksheet 7 8 Total % Cover of Multiply by OBL species x 1 = 9% = Total Cover 50% of total cover 4 5% 20% of total cover 1.8% FACW species x 2 = Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 30' ) FAC species x 3 = 1 none FACU species x 4 = 2 UPL species x 5 = 3 Column Totals (A) (B) 4 Prevalence Index = B/A = 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 6 _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7 Y 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 8 3 - Prevalence Index is :53 0' 0% = Total Cover _ _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 50% of total cover 0% 20% of total cover 0% Herb Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 'Indicators of hydnc sod and wetland hydrology must 1 Saururus cernuus 30% Y OBL be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2 Impatiens capensts 20% Y FACW Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata 3 Peltandra virgmcca 10% N OBL Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or 4 more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 5 height 6 Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less 7 than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall 8 Herb —All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless 9 of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall 10 Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in 11 height 12 60% = Total Cover 50% of total cover 30% 20% of total cover 12% Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 1 Campsrs radreans 5% Y FAC 2 Vitis rotundzfolia 5% Y FAC 3 4 5 10% =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation 50% of total cover 5% 20% of total cover 2% Present? Yes No Wetland WC Is sparsely vegetated, but the dominant vegetation Is herbaceous. WC is Inundated when SD floods and when the Tar River floods, so It remains saturated throughout the year. WC is also located in a sewer easement. Canopy species are present along the wetland fringe, but no sapling or shrub species are present. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2 0 SOIL Sampling Point WC -WET Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators ) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc 04" 10YR 3/1 100 4 -10" 10YR 4/1 100 10 -18" 10YR 5/1 100 'Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains Hydnc Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless othermse noted ) Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U) Active Layer (If observed) Type Depth (inches) Texture Remarks Fine sandy loam Fine sand Fine sand 'Location PL =Pore Lining, M =Matrix Indicators for Problematic Hydnc Soils' Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,13) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19) (LRR P, S, T) Depleted Matrix (F3) HAnomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1538) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Ochnc (F11) (MLRA 151) Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present, Delta Ochnc (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D) Hydric Soil Present? Yes . No g The soils at WC -WET are saturated at 6 ". The water table was observed at 8 ". WD -WET Is located within a sewer easement, but frequent inundation and groundwater seepage from the adjacent hlllslope maintain wetland hydrology throughout the year. The sand content In the profile Increases with depth. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Project/Site EB -5539 - South Tar River Greenway City/County Greenville, Pitt County Sampling Date 9/27/2012 Applicant/Owner City of Greenville State NC Sampling Point WD-WET Investigator(s) B Reed (KHA), J. Hartshorn (KHA) Section, Township Range Greenville Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none) Concave Slope ( %) <1% Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR T Lat 35 618000 N Long 77.397102 W Datum- NAD 1983 Soil Map Unit Name Bb - Bibb complex NWI classification Are climatic / hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No= (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No= Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present> Yes ✓ _ No _ Is the Sampled Area 71 Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No _ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ _ No within a Wetland? Yes FTNo Remarks WD -WET Is located at the foot of a large hillslope, and groundwater seepage is the primary hydrologic Influence. WD Is located In a maintained sewer easement. Conditions have been sunny and dry, with no rain recorded in the last 96 hours. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (136) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply) ✓ Surface Water (At) Aquatic Fauna (1313) ✓ High Water Table (A2) Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) Drainage Patterns (610) ✓ Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Moss Trim Lines (616) Water Marks (61) Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ✓ Dry- Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (64) Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Geomorphic Position (132) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) BInundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) FAC- Neutral Test (D5) Water - Stained Leaves (B9) Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U) Field Observations - Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches) < Water Table Present? Yes - ✓ No- Depth (inches) 8" Saturation Presents Yes _ ✓ No _ Depth (inches) 6" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 1� �__._J No El includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge monitoring well aerial photos previous inspections) if available Remarks Soils were saturated at depths of 6 ", and the water table was observed at 8 ". Low -lying areas within WD had surface water pooled to depths less than 1 ". Groundwater seepage from the hillslopes south of the easement maintain wetland hydrology (surface water observed during a month of low rainfall), but over bank flood flows from the Tar River also inundate this area seasonally. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point WD -WET Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 none That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 2 Total % Cover of Multiply by 3 x 1 = FACW species x 2 = 4 x 3 = FACU species x 4 = 5 x 5 = Column Totals (A) (B) 6 7 8 0% = Total Cover 50% of total cover 0% 20% of total cover 0% Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 1 none 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0% = Total Cover 50% of total cover 0% 20% of total cover no /n Herb Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 1 Saururus cernuus 40% Y OBL 2 Persicaria amphtbia 20% Y OBL 3 Peltandra vergrnzca 20% Y OBL 4 Impatiens capensis 10% N FACW 5 Carex sp 5% N FAC 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 95% = Total Cover 50% of total cover 47 5% 20% of total cover 19% Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 1 Campsrs radtcans 20% Y FAC 2 3 4 5 20% =Total Cover 50% of total cover 10% 20% of total cover 4% Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 4 (A) 4 (B) 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet Total % Cover of Multiply by OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Y 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0' Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height Sapling /Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall Herb —All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall Woody vine —AII woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in height Hydrophytic Vegetation J Present? Yes • No Wetland WD Is dominated by herbaceous vegetation. It is located at the foot of a significant topographic slope rising to the south. WD Is also located In a sewer easement. Significant Inundation from flooding of the Tar River prevents any canopy, sapling, or shrub species from establishing in the wetland, and during dry months, groundwater seepage from the adjacent hillslope maintains hydrology in the wetland. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 SOIL Sampling Point WD -WET Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc 0 -4" 10YR 3/1 100 4 -10" 10YR 4/1 100 10 -18" 10YR 5/1 100 'Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains Hydnc Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted ) Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U) trictive Layer (if observed) Type Depth (inches) Texture Remarks Fine sandy loam Fine sand Fine sand 'Location PL =Pore Lining, M =Matrix Indicators for Problematic Hydnc Soils' Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) HAnomalous Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19) (LRR P, S, T) Depleted Matrix (F3) Bright Loamy Soils (F20) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151) Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present, Delta Ochnc (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D) Hydric Soil Present? Yes F71 No g The soils at WD -WET are hydric, and the soils are saturated at 6 ". The water table was observed at 8 ", and low -lying pockets within the wetland have surface water less than 1" deep. WD -WET is located within a sewer easement, but frequent inundation and groundwater seepage from the adjacent hillslope have left the soil profile clearly indicative of hydric soils. The sand content in the profile increases with depth. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Project/Site EB -5539 - South Tar River Greenway City /county Greenville, Pitt County Sampling Date 10/08/2012 Applicant/Owner Cl ty of Greenville State NC Rmminhnn Pnint WE -UP Investigator(s) B Reed (KHA), J Hartshorn (KHA) Section, Township Range Greenville Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Hlllslope Local relief (concave, convex, none) none Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR T Lat 35 617199 N Long 77.390404 W Sod Map Unit Name Bb - Bibb com NWI classification Slope (%) 3% Datum NAD 1983 Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 57-1 No = (If no, explain in Remarks ) Are Vegetation B Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No= Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ _ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ No ✓ ✓ ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks The uplands associated with wetland WE are mostly developed or maintained /disturbed areas. WE is bounded to the west and to the south by a steep hlllslope and roadway corridor. No recent rainfall has been recorded, but rain was beginning to fall at the time of observation. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Sod Cracks (66) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2) Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Moss Trim Lines (616) Water Marks (B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry- Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (B3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (132) ❑ iron Deposits (B5) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) eInundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) FAC- Neutral Test (D5) Water - Stained Leaves (B9) Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U) Field Observations- Surface Water Present? Yes _ No_ ✓ Depth (inches) Water Table Present? Yes No- ✓ Depth (inches) >24" Saturation Present? Yes _ No _ ✓ Depth (inches) 11 > 24 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge monitoring well aerial photos previous inspections) if available Remarks No Indicators of wetland hydrology were observed at the data point location or within 24" of the surface. The area is a steep side slope adjacent to developed roadway corridors. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point WE -UP Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Canopy and vine cover are dense in the uplands adjacent to WE. This area is upslope of wetland WE, approximately 34 higher in elevation than wetland WE. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2 0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 Fraxmus pennsylvamca 20% Y FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 8 (A) 2 L[quidamhar styrac[flua 15% Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 8 5% Y 3 3 Smilax rotund foha Species Across All Strata (B) 4 4 5 Percent of Dominant Species 100% 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation J That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A/B) 6 7.5% 20% of total cover 3% Present? Yes Prevalence Index worksheet 7 8 Total % Cover of Multiply by OBL species x 1 = 35% = Total Cover 50% of total cover 17 5% 20% of total cover 7% FACW species x 2 = Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 30' ) FAC species x 3 = 1 Acer ruhrum 5% Y FAC FACU species x 4 = 2 Quercus phellos 5% Y FACW UPL species x 5 = 3 Ligustruns stnense 5% Y FAC Column Totals (A) (B) 4 Prevalence Index = B/A = 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 6 _ 1 - Rapid Test for HydrophAc Vegetation 7 X 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 8 3 - Prevalence Index is :53 0' 15% = Total Cover _ _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 50% of total cover 7.5% 20% of total cover 30% Herb Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1 none be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2 Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata 3 Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or 4 more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 5 height 6 Sapling /Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less 7 than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless 8 g of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall 10 Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in 11 height 12 Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Canopy and vine cover are dense in the uplands adjacent to WE. This area is upslope of wetland WE, approximately 34 higher in elevation than wetland WE. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2 0 U" /o = Total Cover 50% of total cover 0% 20% of total cover 0% Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 1 Vitrs rotund folra 5% Y FAC 2 Lonzcerajapomca 5% Y FAC 3 Smilax rotund foha 5% Y FAC 4 5 15% =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation J 50% of total cover 7.5% 20% of total cover 3% Present? Yes • No Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Canopy and vine cover are dense in the uplands adjacent to WE. This area is upslope of wetland WE, approximately 34 higher in elevation than wetland WE. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2 0 SOIL Sampling Point WE -UP ment the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators Depth Matrix Redox Features ((nches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc 0 -3" 10YR 4/3 100% 3 -16" 10YR 5/3 100% 16 -24" 10YR 4/1 100% 'Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains Hydnc Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless othennnse noted ) Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (M LRA 150A) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U) Restrictive Layer (If observed) Type Depth (inches) Texture Remarks Sandy loam Sandy loam Sandy loam 2Location PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix Indicators for Problematic Hydnc Soils3 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19) (LRR P, S, T) Depleted Matrix (F3) HAnomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 15313) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Ochnc (F11) (MLRA 151) Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present, Delta Ochnc (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D) Hydric Soil Present? Yes F-1 No g No indicators of hydric soil were observed within 24" of the soil surface. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Project/Site EB -5539 - South Tar River Greenway city/county Greenville, Pitt County Sampling Date 10/08/2012 Applicant/Owner City of Greenville State NC Sampling Point WE-WET Investigator(s) B Reed (KHA), 1. Hartshorn (KHA) Section, Township, Range Greenville Landform (hdlslope, terrace, etc) Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none) Slope ( %) Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR T Lat 35.617199 N Long 77 390404 W Datum- NAD 1983 Soil Map Unit Name Bb - Bibb complex NWI classification Are climatic / hydro) is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Fv(--] No= (If no, explain in Remarks ) Are Vegetation or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes = No❑ SoiRor Are Vegetation Sod Hydrology❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ _ No Is the Sampled Area Hydnc Sod Present? Yes ✓ _ No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No F7 Wetland Hydrology Presents Yes _ No Remarks WE -WET is located approximately 5' north of wetland flag WE12 and approximately 2' lower in elevation than WE12. Rain was falling at the time of observation. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (136) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) Drainage Patterns (1310) ✓ Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Moss Tnm Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roofs (C3) ✓ Dry- Season Water Table (C2) Deposits (132) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ✓ Crayfish Burrows (C8) HAIgaSediment Drift Deposits (B3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6) Saturation Visible on Aenal Imagery (C9) l Mat or Crust (134) Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (03) eInundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) FAC- Neutral Test (D5) Water - Stained Leaves (139) ❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U) Field Observations, Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches) Water Table Present? Yes _ ✓ No Depth (inches) 14" _ Saturation Present? Yes _ ✓ No _ Depth (inches) 10" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Z No 1:1 includes capillary fin e Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well aerial photos previous inspections) if available Remarks Saturation was present at 10" and the water table was observed at 14 ". Wetland WE is a low -lying floodplain adjacent to the Tar River. There is a berm separating WE from the Tar River within the project corridor, but west of the corridor, a large break in the berm allows flood flow to enter WE. The concave depressional nature of the wetland prevents the flood flow from escaping the wetland and WE remains inundated. Cypress knees throughout the wetland are 3 -4' tall. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point WE -WET Wetland WE has an established canopy dominated by black gum and cypress trees. The herbaceous layer is diverse, and Indicates that WE is Inundated on a regular basis. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 7 1 Nyssa sylvattca 30% Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A) 2 Taxodzum distichum 25% Y OBL 3 FraYtnus pennsylvantca 10% N FACW Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata 8 (B) 4 styractflua 5% N FAC 5 _Lzqutdambar Acer rubrum 5% N FAC Percent of Dominant Species 875% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A/B) 6 Prevalence Index worksheet 7 8 Total % Cover of Multiply by OBL species x 1 = 75% = Total Cover 50% of total cover 37.5% 20% of total cover 15% FACW species x 2 = Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 30' ) FAC species x 3 = 1 Fraxanus pennsylvanica 10% Y FACW FACU species x 4 = 2 brtodendron tulipifera 10% Y FACU UPL species x 5 = 3 Acer rubrum 5% N FAC Column Totals (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 Quercus phellos 5% N FAC 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 6 _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7 X 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 8 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3 0' 30% =Total Cover _ _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 50% of total cover 15% 20% of total cover 60 /n Herb Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1 Carex sp 30% Y FAC be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2 Saururus cernuus 30% Y OBL Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata 3 Boehmerza cylendnca 5% N OBL Peltandra virgtnica 2% N OBL Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or 4 more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 5 Woodwardia areolata 2% N OBL height 6 Sapling /Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less 7 than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall Herb —All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless 8 9 of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall 10 Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in 11 height 12 69% = Total Cover 50% of total cover 34 5% 20% of total cover 13.81/o Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 1 Vitzs rotund foba 5% Y FAC 2 Lonicerajaponica 2% Y FAC 3 4 5 7% = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation 50% of total cover 3.5% 20% of total cover 1.4% Present? Yes v No Wetland WE has an established canopy dominated by black gum and cypress trees. The herbaceous layer is diverse, and Indicates that WE is Inundated on a regular basis. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 SOIL Sampling Point WE -WET Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators ) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc 0 -4" 10YR 3/1 100% 4 -10" 10YR 4/1 100% 10 -16 +" 10YR 5/1 60% 10 YR 5/6 40% C M 'Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains Hydnc Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless othermse noted ) Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U) Restrictive Layer (if observed) Type Depth (inches) emarks Texture Remarks Loam Clay loam Clay loam 2Location PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix Indicators for Problematic Hydnc Soils3 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) 1 _I Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T) Depleted Matrix (F3) HAnomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1538) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151) Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present, Delta Ochnc (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A) Anomalous Bright Loamy Sods (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D) Hydric Soil Present? Yes ED l No Saturation Is present at 10" and the water table was observed at 16 ". The soils below 16" are too saturated for analysis and removal. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region WF WG,WH,WI,WJ,WK -UP Project/Site EB -5539 - South Tar River Greenway City /County Greenville, Pitt County Sampling Date 10/08/2012 Applicant/owner City of Greenville State NC Samnlinn Pnmt WF -UP Investigator(s) B. Reed (KHA), J Hartshorn (KHA) Section, Township, Range Greenville Landform (hilisiope, terrace, etc) Hlllslope Local relief (concave, convex, none) none Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR T Lat 35.617900 N Long 77.386500 W Sod Map Unit Name WaC - Wagram loamy sand NWI classification Slope ( %) 3% Datum NAD 1983 Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � Noy (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal C rcumstances' present? Yes � No= Are Vegetation Soor Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ _ No Is the Sampled Area F-1 Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ _ No ; No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes Remarks Wetlands WF through WK are low -lying wetlands located within the floodplain of the Tar River. The wetlands are bounded on the southern side by a steep topographic break. The data point was taken approximately 10' north of flag WF -6, and it was raining at the time of observation. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators- Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) ✓ Surface Sod Cracks (66) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply) ✓ Surface Water (Al) Aquatic Fauna (B13) ✓ High Water Table (A2) Marl Deposits (815) (LRR U) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10) ✓ Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ✓ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry- Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (132) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ✓ Crayfish Burrows (C8) ✓ Drift Deposits (83) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (84) Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑Iron Deposits (B5) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Agwtard (D3) U Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) FAC- Neutral Test (D5) Water - Stained Leaves (69) Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U) Field Observations- Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth (inches) 2" Water Table Present? Yes _ ✓ No Depth (inches) 2 -10" I�� , Saturation Presents Yes _ ✓ No _ Depth (inches) 0-10" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes I t No El includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge monitoring well aerial photos previous inspections) if available Remarks Wetlands WF through WK are located within the floodplain of the Tar River. Saturation and surface water were found throughout the Interior reaches of the wetlands. Due to these wetlands' close proximity to the Tar River, and all of the wetlands being primarily influenced by groundwater and flooding from the Tar River, one representative data form was completed for the wetlands. While accounted for Individually, the conditions, vegetative communities, hydrology indicators, and soil profiles were mostly identical throughout the wetlands. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point WF -UP Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Wetlands WF through WK are low -lying cypress -gum swamp vegetative communities. The higher elevation wetlands have more herbaceous vegetation (wetlands WF and WH) and are primarily dominated by jewelweed and lizards tall. Canopy coverage remains unchanged at these higher elevations, sweet gum, cypress, and black gum dominate the canopy. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 8 1 Ltqutdambar styracaflua 15% Y FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A) 2 Taxodium dtstachum 15% Y OBL 3 Nyssa sylvattca 15% Y FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata 9 (B) 4 Acer rubrutn 5% N FAC 5 Percent of Dominant Species 88'9% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A/B) 6 Prevalence Index worksheet 7 8 Total % Cover of Multiply by OBL species x 1 = 50% = Total Cover 50% of total cover 25% 20% of total cover 10% FACW species x 2 = Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 30' ) FAC species x 3 = 1 _Ltqutdambar styractflua 10% Y FACW FACU species x 4 = 2 Acer rubrutn 10% Y FAC UPL species x 5 = 3 Nyssa sylvattca 5% N FAC Column Totals (A) (B) 4 Taxodium disttchum 5% N OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 6 _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7 X 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 8 3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0' 30% = Total Cover _ _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 50% of total cover 15% 20% of total cover 60 /n Herb Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1 Impatiens capensts 15% Y FAC be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2 Saururus cernuus 15% Y OBL Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata 3 Boehtnerta cyltndrtca 5% N OBL Peltandra vtrgtnaca 5% N OBL Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or 4 more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 5 height 6 SaplingtShrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less 7 than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall 8 Herb —All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless 9 of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall 10 Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in 11 height 12 40% = Total Cover 50% of total cover 20% 20% of total cover 8% Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 1 Vitas rotundtfolta 5% Y FAC 2 Lonacera/apontca 2% Y FAC 3 4 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation 7% = Total Cover 50% of total cover 3.50/0 20% of total cover 1.4% Present? Yes No Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Wetlands WF through WK are low -lying cypress -gum swamp vegetative communities. The higher elevation wetlands have more herbaceous vegetation (wetlands WF and WH) and are primarily dominated by jewelweed and lizards tall. Canopy coverage remains unchanged at these higher elevations, sweet gum, cypress, and black gum dominate the canopy. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 SOIL Sampling Point WF -UP n (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) °k Type Loc Texture Remarks 04" 10YR 3/1 100% loam 4 -10" 10YR 4/1 1000/0 clay loam 10 -16 "+ 10YR 5/1 60% 10 YR 5/6 40% C M clay loam 'Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix Hydnc Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwnse noted ) Indicators for Problematic Hydnc Soils' Histoscl (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O) Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) HAnomalous Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T) Stratified Layers (A5) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) Bright Loamy Soils (F20) Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 15313) 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2) Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) Redox Depressions (178) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Mari (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochnc (F11) (MLRA 151) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ✓ Umbnc Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) Delta Ochnc (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A) Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U) stncuve Layer (IT oDserve Type Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes 2/1 No _a Saturation occurs In all of the wetlands within 10" of the surface. Through much of the wetland area, saturation is present at the surface. The water table was observed between 2" and 10" below the surface. The soils below 16" are too saturated for analysis and removal. The wetlands receive hydrologic input throughout the year from groundwater, as well as from flooding from the Tar River. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region WF,WG,WH,WI,W3,wK -WET Project/Site EB -5539 - South Tar River Greenway city/county Greenville, Pitt County Sampling Date 10/08/2012 Applicant/Owner City of Greenville State NC Sampling Point WF-WET Investigator(s) B Reed (KHA), J Hartshorn (KHA) Section, Township, Range Greenville Landform (hillsiope, terrace, etc) Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none) Concave Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR T Lat 35 617900 N Long 77 386500 W Sod Map Unit Name WaC - Wagram loamy sand NWI classification _ Are climatic 1 h drolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes F7_1 No= (if no, explain in Remarks ) Are Vegetation Sod 1=1 or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Slope (%) < 1% Datum NAD 1983 Yes a] No= Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ _ No Is the Sampled Area Hydnc Sod Present? Yes ✓ _ No within a Wetland? Yes 1-71 No� 14 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks Wetlands WF through WK are low -lying wetlands located within the floodplain of the Tar River. The wetlands are bounded on the southern side by a steep topographic break. The data point was taken approximately 10' north of flag WF -6, and It was raining at the time of observation. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) ✓ Surface Sod Cracks (66) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply) ✓ Surface Water (A1) Aquatic Fauna (613) ✓ High Water Table (A2) Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) ✓ Drainage Patterns (1310) ✓ Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry- Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (132) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ✓ Crayfish Burrows (C8) ✓ Drift Deposits (133) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (134) Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) B✓ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) FAC- Neutral Test (D5) Water - Stained Leaves (69) Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U) Field Observations. Surface Water Present? Yes **/ No Depth (inches) 2° I/ Water Table Present? Yes _ No _ Depth (inches) 2 -10° ✓ Saturation Present? Yes No _ Depth (inches) 0-10° Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well aerial photos previous inspections) if available Remarks Wetlands WF through WK are located within the floodplain of the Tar River. Saturation and surface water were found throughout the Interior reaches of the wetlands. Due to these wetlands all being located in close proximity to the Tar River, and all of the wetlands being primarily Influenced by groundwater and flooding from the Tar River, one representative data form was completed for the wetlands. While accounted for individually, the vegetative communities, hydrology Indicators, and soil profiles were mostly Identical throughout the wetlands. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point wF -WET Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Wetlands WF through WK are low -lying cypress -gum swamp vegetative communities. The higher elevation wetlands have more herbaceous vegetation (wetlands WF and WH) and are primarily dominated by jewelweed and lizards tail. Canopy coverage remains unchanged at these higher elevations, sweet gum, cypress, and black gum dominate the canopy. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2 0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 8 1 Ltgutdambar styraciflua 15% Y FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A) 2 Taxodium disttchum 15% Y OBL 3 N s y ssa ylvattca 15% Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 9 Species Across All Strata (B) 4 Acer rubrum 5% N FAC 5 Percent of Dominant Species ° 88'9 �0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A/B) 6 Prevalence Index worksheet 7 8 Total % Cover of Multiply by 50% = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = 50% of total cover 25% 20% of total cover 10% FACW species x 2 = Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 30' ) FAC species x 3 = 1 Liquzdambar styracrflua 10% Y FACW FACU species x 4 = 2 Acer rubrum 10% Y FAC UPL species x 5 = 3 Nyssasylvatica 5% N FAC Column Totals (A) (B) 4 Taxodium disttchum 5% N OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 6 _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7 X 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 8 3 - Prevalence Index is :53 0' 30% =Total Cover _ _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 50% of total cover 15% 20% of total cover 6% Herb Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1 Impatiens capensts 15% Y FAC be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2 Saururus cernuus 15% Y OBL Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata 3 Boehmeria cylindrica 5% N OBL Peltandra vtrgtnica 5% N OBL Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or 4 more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 5 height 6 Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less 7 than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall 8 Herb —All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless g of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall 10 Woody vine —All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in 11 height 12 40% = Total Cover 50% of total cover 20% 20% of total cover 8% Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' ) 1 Vitis rotund folra 5% Y FAC 2 Lomcerajapomca 2% Y FAC 3 4 5 7% = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation J 50% of total cover 3 5% 20% of total cover 14% Present? Yes • No Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below) Wetlands WF through WK are low -lying cypress -gum swamp vegetative communities. The higher elevation wetlands have more herbaceous vegetation (wetlands WF and WH) and are primarily dominated by jewelweed and lizards tail. Canopy coverage remains unchanged at these higher elevations, sweet gum, cypress, and black gum dominate the canopy. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2 0 SOIL Sampling Point wF-WET Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators ) Depth Matrix Redox Features unless otherwse noted ) Indicators for Problematic Hydnc Soils' (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 0 -4" 10YR 3/1 100% loam 4 -10" 10YR 4/1 100% clay loam 10 -16 "+ 10YR 5/1 60% 10 YR 5/6 40% C M clay loam 'Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL =Pore Lining, M =Matrix Hydnc Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwse noted ) Indicators for Problematic Hydnc Soils' Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O) Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) ❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T) HAnomalous Stratified Layers (A5) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) Bright Loamy Soils (F20) Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 15313) 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2) Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Mari (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) I Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (M LRA 150A) ✓ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) Delta Ochnc (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719) (MLRA 149A) Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U) Restrictive Layer (If observed) Type � Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes I v l No g Remarks Saturation occurs in all of the wetlands within 10" of the surface. Through much of the wetland area, saturation is present at the surface. The water table was observed between 2" and 10" below the surface. The soils below 16" are too saturated for analysis and removal. The wetlands receive hydrologic input throughout the year from groundwater, as well as from flooding from the Tar River. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0 NCDWR BUFFER DETERMINATION LETTER January 29, 2013 Kimley -Horn & Associates, Inc. Ms Beth Reed, PWS Post Office Box 33068 Raleigh, NC 27636 Subject Property: South Tar River Greenway Project Tar - Pamlico River Basin, Tar River [TAR 05, 28 -(94); C, NSW] John E Skvarla, III Secretary DWQ # 12 -1055 Pitt County On -Site Determination for Applicability to the Tar- Pamlico River Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0259) Dear Ms. Reed- On January 28, 2013 at your request, Roberto Scheller of this Office conducted an on -site determination to review a drainage feature located on the subject property for applicability to the Tar - Pamlico Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0259) The features reviewed are labeled as "SA, SB, SC, SD, and SE" on the attached maps and initialed by me on January 28, 2013. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has determined that the features labeled as "SA, SB, SC, SD" on the attached maps, and highlighted in red are not subject to the 'Car Pamlico Buffer Rules. It has been determined that the stream features, are not represented on the NRCS Pitt County Soils map or the USGS Topographic map and therefore riparian buffers are not applicable to these features. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has determined that the feature labeled as "SE" on the attached maps, and highlighted in blue is subject to the Tar Pamlico Buffer Rules. It has been determined that the upstream features of this drainage have been piped underground The riparian buffers begin at the pipe outlet, located in a wooded area north of West 3rd Street (N 35° 37' 02.61" W 77° 23' 29 39 "), and continues down gradient into the Tar River as shown on the attached maps. This letter only addresses the applicability to the buffer rules and does not approve any activity within the buffers, Waters of the United States or Waters of the State. If you have any additional questions or require North Carolina Division of Water Quality 943 Washington Square Mall Washington, NC 27889 Phone 252 - 946 -6481 1 FAX 252- 946 -9215 nternet vmv rimaterqualrty orq An Equal Opportunity 1 AfFfri Action Employer NorthCarolina Alturally •� . ., I., f. ..... `rte, ! 1' ,'t ,,J��+ GE } 't ` u �•- y yrr� ` . � .< <� ,� � �- -qtr -• .. � I� --- __ (`� ` ,,-_. •_ti ! ``_ ,!! ,dr o._ -ply.. -•sw• - --- ?' SB ranc So � \ w 1 , - .>", � .w,. � ..�• � --tiff_ "" _..,.�...� �`.) ,r' I�'�`� .. — ......� � I .`~ _JF 1'�-.�•L` —. �aa.u•. -lr. -sue, — - r.z SO SE N 35 37' 02.61" II II I) W 77 23'29.39" - t ` �' � i' �, � �"; f r� f .,, - ! 1, ~ !_ r • �t � _� �' . � . -- - .' i �f � ��:` - �� \;, _ �' J ��,� lTti� C��VB� —''' •- ^� i — t'r• f f_ Wt r,'' �. �� - } _ •- w S,ci A1 Chat Pcl;• is - .. �' ;. _ ..� 48'� - - -- .. - - -►' _fit �r 2' .C�� , _ -►rte -. FL 1141G Phu FlaRJtiii%liT LE ! •`,49L{r k �'4 i► .' �" �'' /i II ! wirl lam: J!" �! ly' �•� ,1 a 41l r 13 - mom f:L � _i JL' . ��,� _ t ?'., N 35 36' 15.62'f W 77 23'21.67' e�( F-0, -` trt B!_'tfer ....1. Location: 035° 37' 04.45" N 077° 23'41.84" W Caption: South Tar River Greenway, Greenville, Pitt Co. (C) 1998, Maptech, Inc. USACE PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION J.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT Action Id. SAW 2013 -00063 County- Pitt U S.G S. Quad: Greenville SW NO'T'IFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Property Owner: City of Greenville attn: Mr. Lynn Raynor Address: 1500 Beatty Street Greenville, North Carolina 27834 252- 329 -4620 ox� Agent: Kimlev -Horn and Associates, Inc. attn: Ms. Beth Reed Address: Post Office Box 33068 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3068 919- 677 -2000 Property description: The proposed project area is adiacent to or within an existing sewer line easement. Size (acres) approx. 27 acres Nearest Town Greenville Nearest Waterway Tar River River Basin Tar USGS HUC 03020103 Coordinates 35.617920 N - 77.395209 W Location description- The project is identified as EB -5539 (South Tar River Greenway, Phase 3) and is a 10 -foot wide, 1.4 mile long multi -use greenway /bike path from the western terminus of the existing South Tar River Greenway at Pitt Street (SR 1611) to Move Boulevard near West 5th Street. Indicate Which of the Following Apply: A. Preliminary Determination X Based on preliminary information, there may be waters of the U.S. including wetlandson the above described project area. We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction To be considered final, ajurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331). If you wish, you may request an approved ID (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the ID. B. Approved Determination There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Unless there is a change m the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification There are waters of the U S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. _ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated Due to the size of your property and/or our present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps The waters of the U S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verged by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years _ The waters of the U S including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on _. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. There are no waters of the U.S , to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) Unless there is a change in the law or our Page 1 of 2 published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. _ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at (252) 808 -2808 to determine their requirements. Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact William Wescott at910- 251 -4629. C. Basis For Determination Wetland areas exhibit the three parameters specified in the Regional Supplement of the 1987 USAGE Wetland Delineation Manual. D. Remarks E. Attention USDA Program Participants This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B. above) This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address: US Army Corps of Engineers South Atlantic Division Attn• Jason Steele, Review Officer 60 Forsyth Street SW, Room IOM15 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801 In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by * *It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Divi ion Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence. ** Corps Regulatory Official- Date. 1/10/2013 Expiration Date: 1/10/2018 The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit http: / /per2 nwp.usace army.mil/survey html to complete the survey online. Copy furnished: Applicant. City of Greenville, attn: Lynn Raynor File Number: SAW 2013 -00063 1 Date: 1/10/2013 Attached is. See Section below ❑ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A ❑ PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B F-11 PERMIT DENIAL C F11 APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D Z11 PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E SECTION L- aThe'following identifies` yo' ur `rigits,and;ptn'sigari -- 'm `f ti bbveiecison. oo rig "adiusrative appao-- ` Additional infonna`ti6n mayqbe ` found ai http: /Iwvviv usace.aimy miUinetlfunctions /cw /cecwo %r'eg -or Cords reLyulatioris "at 33 CFR Part 331, v a A: INI'T'IAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may acceptor object to the permit. ® ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its tenns and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit ® ACCEPT. If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL. You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information. • ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. • APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION- You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD. -1 . - I -1�01-'-� -0, - -.' "'y t` SECTION 1*1"'-,,RE QUEST.FOWAPPEAL:dr,OBJECTIONSI,;t6 AN Mt PR0FFERED'PERMITt,--,,,- REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record. POINT OF CONTACT FOR'QUESTIORS,OR ISIFORMATIOW",'%, If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may appeal process you may contact: also contact: District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer Attn: William Wescott CESAD-PDO 2407 West 5th Street U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division Washinilton, North Carolina 27889 60 Forsyth Street, Room I OM15 910-251-4629 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801 Phone: (404) 562-5137 RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations. Date: Telephone number: I Signature of appellant or agent For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to: District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to: Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801 Phone: (404) 562-5137. PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION APPROVAL OF N1100 i' PROQ&; MNfK,,'IC CATC;GORIr _4f rXCLI711gj',jpC ACUlt)NCL SIPICAIWNFOR,M PC-h AL) p,byaI TIP Projecr No 1?13 -5539 WBS Plement 45529 Fedr;ral -ALL Protect No TC-4F0220 6�I – -- ---- - -L) -_ P.�q�ect�)c,cr tphcnt The South TuRvici c.recnway (P1,a,e 3) protect proposes to censtnict a multr•use bicycle and pi. d,strjai) greenway for uppioxi irately 1 5naies to cunnect cx.stnig ftrcenways,ind sidewalk factLtir,, This phase of the South far Ritter Clrcumny is plannt•.cl to be a 1 t -fort paved path argot huaidwalk path fror7 Move Aoutcvatd to Pitt Sttect All phase; of rile South I'll' Rivet (ricetruay are (or will be once constructed) oK tied sod m,untaince, by tha City if Orec.rville, 'Ih(' proposed coi odor is shoo n n Figures 1, 2, and 3 Photos along the existing, cori rrlor are shown in higure 4 Categical ls'x icon Auron ClassrliUjjan I'YPN I(A) NO I30x FS Chcc ked X ' 1'YP1i I(I3) A-NY BOX rs Checked Prepared By: 10, f b I3 Jeffrc -R_ Moots, F V. Vice Ptesid_ent Date Ktmley -horn and Assoctatcs, Inc - (919 ) 67 7 -;31 75, License No 24416 Prepared For, T , Ct of Gree villc, T�f�tL t'afolrna - — — Reviewed: / D�e� — -- - Pro�ect lleve[optnent & 1;nvuonmentalAnalysrs Unit North Carolina Department of'1'ranspurtatron Approved By: 1 ll to tston Adrumishator _ .� - -- - -- H'edcral Highway Admr,nstratiou