HomeMy WebLinkAbout20121055 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