20130832 Ver 1_401 Application_20130813

Kimley -Horn 3001 Weston Parkway
Cary, North Carolina 27513
and Associates, Inc. 2 0 1 3 0 8 3 2 7
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
Transmittal
Date: August 5, 2013 Job Number: 011311028
Project Name: Smith and Sanford Multi -Use Path
To: Mr. Rob Ridings
NCDWR, WBSCP Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
919 - 807 -6403 {
We are sending these by
❑ U.S. Mail ® FedEx ❑ Hand Delivery
❑ Other
We are sending you
❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items:
❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints/Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Orders
❑ Other
Conies Date No. Descriotion
5
8/5/13
Pre- Construction Notification Form Application
2
8/5/13
Full -Size Plans
3
8/5/13
Half -Size Plans
1
8/5/13
Check for Application fee
D
i I
i
i F=1 - 2013
DENR - WATEH 0U_— Y
These are transmitted as checked below: LW an s yya� g�ch
® For your use ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit ❑ Copies for approv
❑ As requested ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit ❑ Copies for distribution
❑ For review and comment ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return ❑ Corrected prints
Remarks:
Copy to: File Signed:
Jennren e, EIT

20 130832
Smith and Sanford Multi -Use Path
(C -5164)
Town of Wake Forest".. ----
From Rogers Road to Marshall Farm Road and Along Heritage Lake Road
Pre - Construction Notification Form
M&NO-160 DO
7AUG - 7 2013 �
Prepared by:
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
August 5, 2013

12MMn:=Inc.
0
Jul 31 2013 P.O. Box 33068
Y , Raleigh, North Carolina
27636 -3068
Mr. Rob Ridings
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Mr. James Lastinger
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 0 7WVATMUf:� Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 Subject: Pre- Construction Notification Application Smith and Sanford Creek Multi -Use Path (C -5164) Town of Wake Forest, North Carolina ►r �
Dear Mr. Ridings and Mr. Lastinger:
On behalf of our client, the Town of Wake Forest, Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. is
requesting approval to use Nationwide Permit 42 for the impacts from the proposed Smith
and Sanford Creek Multi -Use Path in Wake County, North Carolina. Additionally, the
Town is requesting authorization to impact Neuse Riparian Buffers. The following
information is included as part of the application submittal:
• Preconstruction Notification Form
• Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph and Jurisdictional Features Map
Figure 4: Soil Survey Map (Wake County —1970)
Figure 5: Buffer Impacts Map
• Design Drawings
• Appendix A: Agent Authorization Forms
• Appendix B: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Request and Site Photos
• Appendix C: Environmental Screening Report
• Application Fee to NCDENR for $240
The Project proposes to extend the Smith and Sanford Creek Greenways and provide
sidewalks along Heritage Lake Road to support bicycle and pedestrian travel. The greenways
are located in Wake County, Wake Forest, NC and will extend the existing paved path
approximately 3,300 feet south to the confluence of Smith Creek and Sanford Creek and
■
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

CZM=n rAm"MOMM.
9,200 feet west along Sanford Creek. Sidewalk construction is proposed for approximately
1.25 miles from Heritage Links Drive to north of Smith Creek Soccer Center.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Request was submitted to the USACE on April
10, 2013. The project footprint has been updated since that time to further avoid wetland
impacts.
The proposed project is located in the Neuse River Basin. The proposed path and stream
crossings will result in impacts to Zone 1 (20,557 sq.ft.) and Zone 2 (28,593 sq.ft) of the
riparian buffers, 134 LF of stream, and 0.53 acres of wetlands. No mitigation is anticipated.
Part of the project will occur within easements held by the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP). The Town is coordinating with the EEP to ensure compliance with easement
requirements.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (919) 653 -2950 or
[e-mail].
Sincerely yours,
KIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
/'s - -J �M ffi, 001
Todd St John
Enclosures
CC:

`O�ot W AT4:9
� 1
O `C
20130832
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre - Construction Notification CN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 42 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
le. 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
1g. 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:
Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway Project (C -5164)
2b. County:
Wake
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Town of Wake Forest
2d. Subdivision name:
N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
C -5164
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Town of Wake Forest
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
(Town will secure easements)
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Town of Wake Forest, Planning Department
3d. Street address:
301 South Brooks Street
3e. City, state, zip:
Wake Forest, NC 27587 -2901
3f. Telephone no.:
919 -435 -9513
3g. Fax no.:
919 -435 -9539
3h. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 13
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:
S. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Todd St. John, P.E.
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
5c. Street address:
3001 Weston Parkway
5d. City, state, zip:
Cary, NC 27513
5e. Telephone no.:
919 -677 -2000
5f. Fax no.:
919 -677 -2050
5g. Email address:
Todd.StJohn@kimley- horn.com
Page 2 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
See attached figure for Parcel Locations
1749287146
1749367274
1749369169
1749389140
1749463351
1749464333
1749465314
1749477456 (Heritage High School)
1749488755
1749591750
1749663478
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
1749766819
1749769436
1749769937
1749770225
1749860699
1749860745
1749860907
1749860987
1749861645
1749873079
1840405222
1840516056
-
1840601854
1840628697
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.940933 Longitude: - 78.509511
(DD.DDDDDD) (- DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size:
402 (All Affected Properties Combined) acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project:
Smith Creek and Sanford Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C; NSW
2c. River basin:
Neuse
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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 is an extension of the Smith and Sanford Creek Greenways. The proposed greenway trail runs
from Heritage Garden Street Cukie -sac to the Smith Creek Soccer Center along an existing utility easement. The length
of the facility will be approximately 2.5 miles. Proposed sidewalks include 1.25 miles along Heritage Lake Road. Land
use in the vicinity is predominately undeveloped and primarily residential along Heritage Lake Road.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
3.0 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
2350 LF
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Connect existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the Town of Wake Forest.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed improvements will include the construction of the greenway trail, sidewalk, and six bridges. Typical
roadway construction equipment will be utilized.
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?
®Yes El No El Unknown
Comments: A preliminary jurisdictional determination request
is included as part of this application. James Lastinger of the
USACE has visited the site.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
El Preliminary El Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company: Kimley -Horn and
Name (if known): Todd St. John, Chris Tinklenberg, and
Associates, Inc., March 21, 2013
Jason Hartshorn
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
The jurisdictional determination is being submitted concurrently with 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.
It is important to note that 3 other unrelated projects will interact with this project: 1) the City of Raleigh's Smith Creek
Interceptor, 2) Rogers Road Bridge widening by NCDOT, and 3) Forestville Road Bridge widening by NCDOT.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ® Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
Page 5 of 13
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)
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
or Temporary
W1 (Site #1)
Fill
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
0.003 acres
® P ® T
❑ No
❑ DWQ
temporary, 0.001
acres permanent
W2 (Site #5)
❑P ®T
Fill
❑ Yes
[I No
❑ Corps
❑DWQ
0.002 acres
W3 Site #6
❑ P(® T )
Fill
[El No
❑WQS
0.002 acres
0.031 acres
W4 Site #7
(Site
Fill
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
temporary, 0.048
® P ® T
❑ No
❑ DWQ
acres
permanent
W5 (Site #10)
❑P ®T
Fill
❑ Yes
El No
❑ Corps
❑DWQ
0.001 acres
W6 (Site #11)
❑P ®T
Fill
❑ Yes
El No
❑ Corps
El DWQ
0.02 acres
W7 (Site #13)
Fill
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
0.007 acres
SPOT
E:1 No
El DWQ
temporary, 0.017
acres permanent
W8 (Site #15)
Fill
El Yes
[I Corps
0.019 acres
® P ® T
❑ No
❑ DWQ
temporary, 0.061
acres permanent
W9 (Site #16)
Fill
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
0.005 acres
® P ® T
El No
El DWQ
temporary, 0.053
acres permanent
W10 (Site #17)
Fill
El Yes
❑ Corps
0.013 acres
SPOT
❑ No
❑ DWQ
temporary, 0.032
acres permanent
Will (Site #19)
Fill
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
0.017 acres
SPOT
❑ No
E:1 DWQ
temporary, 0.017
acres permanent
W12 (Site #20)
Fill
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
0.012 acres
SPOT
❑ No
❑ DWQ
temporary, 0.003
acres permanent
W13 (Site #21)
Fill
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
0.014 acres
SPOT
❑ No
❑ DWQ
temporary, 0.005
acres permanent
W14 (Site #22)
Fill
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
®P ®T
El No
❑DWQ
temporary, 077
acres permanent
W15 (Site #23)
Fill
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
0.023 acres
® P ® T
[I No
❑DWQ
temporary, 0.007
acres permanent
W16 (Site #31)
Fill
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
0.002 acres
❑ P ® T
❑ No
❑ DWQ
temporary, 0.001
acres permanent
0.208 acres
2g. Total wetland impacts
temporary, 0.322
acres
permanent, 0.53
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

Page 7 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
acres total
2h. Comments:
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)
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear feet)
or Temporary
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
(T)
20 LF
S1 (Site #14)
❑ PER
❑ Corps
temporary,
®P ®T
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
14 LF
permanent
S2 (Site #26)
❑ P ® T
Bank Stabilization
❑ PER
❑ INT
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
100 LF
120 LF
temporary,
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
14 LF
permanent,
134 LF
total
3i. Comments:
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
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
number —
Permanent
(P) or
Temporary
01 El PEI
T
02 ❑ P ❑
T
03 ❑ P ❑
T
04 ❑ P ❑
T
4E Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: No open waters will be impacted by the proposed project.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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
5f. Total
5g. Comments: No ponds or lakes will be impacted by the
proposed project.
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes 0 N If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
n/a
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
n/a
5k. Method of construction:
n/a
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
impact
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
(P) or
required?
Temporary
61 SPOT
Greenway /Hiking
Smith Creek
❑ Yes
9028 SF
temporary, 3602
6963 SF temporary,
Trails
® No
SF permanent
9339 SF permanent
B2 SPOT
Greenway /Hiking
Sanford Creek
❑ Yes
10613 SF
temporary, 1281
5956 SF temporary,
Trails
® NO
SF permanent
6335 SF permanent
19641 SF
temporary, 4883
12919 SF temporary,
6h. Total buffer impacts
SF permanent,
15674 SF permanent,
20557 SF total
28593 SF total
6i. Comments: The project area includes small buffer impacts to Unnamed Tributaries of Smith and Sanford Creeks. These
impact areas have been included in the Smith and Sanford impact areas presented above.
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Direct impacts to streams in the project corridor were avoided by creating a perpendicular alignment and spanning most
streams and wetlands with pedestrian bridges. The path was relocated so that the paved surface would be outside of the
regulated buffer except for at crossing locations when possible. The project was relocated higher up the slope along Smith
Creek to avoid wetlands along the Smith Creek Interceptor.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Measures will be taken throughout the construction process to reduce erosion sedimentation to the stream and buffers by
utilizing sift fencing along Smith Creek and Sanford Creek.The bank stabilization is proposed to be constructed using
vegetated soil lifts.
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
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:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool []cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
r4—e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
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.
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
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
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.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
Zone 2
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
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).
Page 9 of 13
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6h. Comments:
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
® Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b. 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
runoff around the trail. Additionally, there are many locations where offsite runoff will
® Yes ❑ No
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?
27%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Linear public transportation project.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
No runoff from the path will be allowed to concentrate. Any concentrated runoff from off site will be bypassed in a
nonerosive manner.
® 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?
Wake Forest, NC
® Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
® NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
® Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other.
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
❑ Yes ® No
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
® Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
® Yes ❑ No
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?
1b. 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 Categorical Exclusion document has been submitted but final
approval has not yet been received.
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 application?
❑ 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.
This project will not cause future development or impacts. It will serve existing communities.
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 11 of 13
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?
❑ 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?
The US Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) lists the dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), red- cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) as the only federally protected (endangered) species in Wake
County. KHA reviewed the NCNHP element occurrence database on April 1, 2013 to see if there are any documented
protected species occurrences within the project study corridor or in the vicinity of the corridor. The review of documented
occurrences shows that there are no federally listed threatened or endangered species occurrences within the study corridor.
Michaux's sumac is a plant that prefers sandy or rocky open communities. The plant survives best in areas where some form
of disturbance has provided an open area (i.e. highway rights -of -ways, roadsides, or on the edges of artificially maintained
clearings) and good access to sunlight. Potentially suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac e)asts along roadsides within the
project study corridor as well as within maintained sanitary sewer and power transmission line utility easements. Much of the
roadside areas throughout the corridor are maintained regularly through mowing, and appear to be chemically treated for
weed control. These areas are not likely to support Michaux's sumac. The less- frequently maintained utility easements and
roadside areas however, do provide potentially suitable habitat for the species. Given the scale of the study area, and the
amount of potentially suitable habitat within the study area, KHA staff invited Dr. Richard Braham, of the North Carolina State
University College of Natural Resources Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources to conduct pedestrian field
surveys on May 17, 2013 to identify if Michaux's sumac is present within the study corridor. No individuals of Michaux's
sumac were found by KHA staff or by Dr. Braham. Due to the lack of recorded occurrences and lack of observed individuals in
the project study area, it has been determined that the construction of the proposed greenway project will have no effect on
Michaux's sumac.
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 Tuesday, July 23, 2013 with no essential fish habitat 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 (July 23, 2013) to determine if any historic resources
occurred in the vicinity of the study area. There are no historic or archaeologic resources within the project boundary.
However, there is one national register individual listing, one surveyed point, and one study list individual entry within one
mile of the study area. All three of these entries are over a quarter of a mile from the project area and will not be
impacted in by the greenway project.
Page 12 of 13
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: A detailed hydraulic analysis was conducted of Smith Creek and
Sanford Creek using a HEC -RAS model and a CLOMR is being submitted to NC Flood Mapping Program.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? The NC Floodmaps database was consulted on
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Todd St. John
8/6/2013
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

Legend
0 Project Boundary
Town of Wake Forest
Town of Rolesville
Wake County
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
TOWN of Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
44W WAKE FOREST and Heritage Lake Road Sidewalk
TIP Project No. C -5164
Wake Forest, Wake County

Map Symbol
Soil Unit
AfA
Altavista fine sandy loam, Oto 2 percent slopes
ApC2
Appling sandy loam, 6to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded
Bu
Buncombe loamy sand
Cm
Chewada
LoD
Louisburg loamy sand
LwC
Louisburg - Wedowe complex
Me
Mantachie sandy loam
WmC2
Wedowee sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded
WmD2
Wedowee sandy loam, 10to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded
Wo
Wehadkee and Bibb soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Wwc
Wilkes loam, 2to1O percent slopes
WwE
Wilkes loam, 10to 20percentslopes
WwF
Wilkes loam, 20to 45 percent slopes
WX
lWilkes cobbly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, very stony
YlifnC2 �
t: %;z
AA
XT
C2
CeB2
TOWN of
WAKE FOREST
s.
wmo2�
� IL
Figure 4
USDA/NRCS Soil Survey Map (Wake County - 1970)
Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
and Heritage Lake Road Sidewalk
TIP Project No. C -5164
Wake Forest, Wake County

Appendix A:
Agent Authorization Form

Latter of Authorhation
Mrs. Candace Davis, with the Town of Wake Forest authorizes K.imley -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 d�ations and 404/401 permits
applications associated with the Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway project
(C -5164) located in Wake County, North Carolina. Authorization will terminate
on either final agency action or upon written neon fiom either parties
involved.
Company Name: --jUmhleg Horn and Ash. Inc.
Contact Name: Jason Pace, P.E.
Client Name: Candace Davis
Client Address: 301 South Brooks Street
Wake Forest. NC 27587 -2901
Client Phone M 919435 -9513
Client Fax M 919435 -9539
Client Email: odavil@Mkeforesb w.=
t
(Signature of Client)
3.1g.ac,�3
Date

Appendix B:
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Request and Site Photos

Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
2. Name of Property Owner /Applicant: Town of Wake Forest
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
'Agent authorization needs to be attached
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): N/A
5. Site Address: Heritage Lake Road and Rogers Road
7. City: Wake Forest
8. County: Wake County
9. Lat: 35.939343 Long: - 78.511176 (Decimal Degrees Please
10. Quadrangle Name: Wake Forest and Rolesville
11. Waterway: Smith and Sanford Creeks
12. Watershed: HUC 03020201 / NEUSE 03 -04 -02
13. Requested Action:
Nationwide Permit #
General Permit #
X Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre- Application Request (Mitigation Proposal)
The following information will be completed by the Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder Assign number in ORM Begin Date
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:

Kimley -Hom
and Associates, Ina
April 10, 2013
Mr. James Lastinger
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Re: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Request
Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway (STIP# C -5164)
Wake Forest, Wake County, NC
Dear Mr. Lastinger:
On behalf of our client, the Town of Wake Forest, Kimley -Horn and Associates,
Inc. (KHA) is submitting the enclosed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
(JD) request package for your review for the above referenced project. The
following information is included as part of this JD package:
The JD package includes the following sections:
• Preliminary Jurisdictional Request Form
• Site Figures
• Figure 1— Vicinity
• Figure 2 — USGS Topo (Wake Forest and Rolesville, 1993)
• Figure 3 — SSURGO Soils (NC OneMap 2010 Imagery)
• Figure 4 — Jurisdictional Features (NC OneMap 2010 Imagery)
• Figure 5 — NRCS Soil Survey
• Data forms and Site Photographs
• USACE Wetland Determination Data Form — Atlantic and Gulf
Coastal Plain Region
• NCDWQ Stream Identification Form
• USACE Stream Quality Assessment Form
• Site Photographs
The Preliminary JD information presents site conditions evaluated by KHA staff
(Todd St. John, P.E. and Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT) on March 21, 2013. The
delineation was performed using sub -meter GPS equipment to define wetland
data point locations and wetland/upland boundaries. Stream centerlines were
defined by utilizing available GIS data from the NC Division of Water Quality
( NCDWQ).
The proposed project area is located in Wake Forest, Wake County, NC. The
proposed project seeks to construct 2.4 miles of greenway trail and 1.25 miles of
sidewalk to support pedestrian and bicycle travel between residential,
■
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
■
3001 Weston Parkway
Cary, North Carolina
24513

[:=F1 1(imley -Hom
and Associates, ft
employment, commercial, and institutional centers by providing an alternative
transportation network connecting all of the development along Heritage Lake
and Rogers Road. The project study corridor is bounded by NC98 Bypass on the
north, the railroad on the west, and Forestville Road on the east. The proposed
project will extend the existing 10 feet wide paved Smith Creek Greenway trail
south 3,326 LF to the confluence of Smith Creek and Sanford Creek with
connections to Heritage Elementary, Middle and High School. Additionally, the
construction will extend the trail 9,240 LF to the west along Sanford Creek to
connect to a recently completed section of trail adjacent to the Heritage South
Subdivision. Sidewalk construction is necessary along 6,550 LF of Heritage
Lake and Rogers Roads to complete the connection to major portions of Heritage
Phase I -IV and Heritage North.
The project study area was determined by establishing a 50' buffer on either side
of the proposed alignment for the greenway on new location and DOT right -of-
way limits for the proposed sidewalk areas.
Please feel free to contact me at (919) 653 -2950 if you have any questions, or if
additional information is necessary.
Sincerely,
A 0-0.- L
i
Todd St. John, P.E.
Attachments

ATTACHMENT
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD):
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Candace Davis,Town of Wake Forest
Wake Forest Town Hall
301 S. Brooks Street
Wake Forest, NC, 27587
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES
AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County /parish /borough: Wake
City: Wake Forest
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat. 35.939343 ° N, Long. 78.511176 ow
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Smith and Sanford Creeks
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non - wetland waters: —2,350 linear feet: 8 width (ft) and /or 0.10 acres.
Cowardin Class: Riverine
Stream Flow: Perennial
Wetlands: 3.0 acres.
Cowardin Class: Palustrine
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal:
Non - Tidal:
1

E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre- construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non - reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or

to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
This preliminary JD finds that there "may be "waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply
- checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and
requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
® Data sheets prepared /submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24,000 Wake
Forest and Rolesville Quads
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
Wake County NRCS Soil Survey, 1970
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State /Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
[:11 00-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum
of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): NC OneMap, 2010 Wake County
or ® Other (Name & Date): Site photographs, March 21, 2013
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
3

IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Cores and should not be relied upon for
lateriurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
I JOVY14 - -
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)

Estimate
d amount
Site
Cowardin
of
Class of
number
Latitude
Longitude
Class
aquatic
aquatic
resource
resource
in review
area
Stream 1
35.955725
- 78.501182
Riverine
934 linear
non - section
(Smith
feet
10 - non -tidal
Creek
Stream 2
35.937745
- 78.507634
Riverine
593 linear
non - section
(Sanford
feet
10 - non -tidal
Creek
Stream 3
35.949992
- 78.500909
Riverine
NA; piped
non - section
10 - non -tidal
Stream 4
35.948194
- 78.502186
Riverine
10 linear
non - section
feet
10 - non -tidal
Stream 5
35.937837
- 78.50722
Riverine
36 linear
non - section
feet
10 - non -tidal
Stream 6
35.938244
- 78.499863
Riverine
158 linear
non - section
feet
10 - non -tidal
Stream 7
35.944174
- 78.512198
Riverine
115 linear
non - section
feet
10 - non -tidal
Wetland 1
35.948177
- 78.502201
Palustrine
0.002
non - section
acres
10 - wetland
Wetland 2
35.937743
- 78.506967
Palustrine
0.47 acres
non - section
10 - wetland
Wetland 3
35.937745
- 78.500042
Palustrine
0.016
non - section
acres
10 - wetland
Wetland 4
35.938052
- 78.502019
Palustrine
0.005
non - section
acres
10 - wetland
Wetland 5
35.939334
- 78.514278
Palustrine
0.15 acres
non - section
10 - wetland
Wetland 6
35.937903
- 78.511915
Palustrine
0.02 acres
non - section
10 - wetland
Wetland 7
35.937590
- 78.512137
Palustrine
0.14 acres
non - section
10 - wetland

NCr98�BYP
sa N� N
oa p'r m� W I E
S
Heritage'r\
creek Dr
a�a
'1O^
�0, GI b Aver
.4 QN4
Ge
Or SRd g ioiL1
C�
Ca cra �
jJO �q-
5 eP�e C aa �5pt �- -�Foxwild\tin -
rri N
ge Meaaj
l c�
0 1,000 2,000 �a
Feet ct
Legend
Project Study Corridor CI Town of Wake Forest
Fz2 Neuse NWI Wake County
— Neuse Streams
40
Figure 1
Project Vicinity
Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
WakeUbrL—A STIP Project No. C -5164
Wake Forest, Wake County

ilk
i VINTA f ff
`f � ii� ;+lam• +� 3 ;+n'r�r., i J ^��
wk
IL
■
■

Legend Figure 3
Q Project Study Corridor ® Wetlands Delineated by KHA for the Smith Creek Greenway Wetland and Stream Features
Neuse Streams ELI Wetlands Delineated by Others for the Smith Creek Interceptor Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
STIP Project No. C -5164
WakeI'rorest •Wetland Data Form Wake Forest, Wake County

• AB - Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes, rarely flooded
• ApC2 - Appling sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded
• BuB - Buncombe loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes, frequently flooded
• CmA - Chewacla sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
W wF
• DuB - Durham loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes
• DuC - Durham loamy sand, 6 to 10 percent slopes
• LoD - Louisburg loamy sand 10 to 15 percent slopes
• LWB2 - Louisburg- Wedowee complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes, moderately eroded
• LwC- Louisburg-Wedowee complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes
• MeA - Mantachie sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded
• WmC- Wedowee sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
• WmC2 - Wedowee sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded
• WmD2 - Wedowee sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded
• WoA - Wehadkee and Bibb soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
''
W 1
• WwC - Wilkes loam, 2 to 10 percent slopes*
• WwE- Wilkes Imam, 10 to 20 percent slopes
• WwF - Wilkes loam, 20 to 45 percent slopes
• WxE– Wilk. mbbly boo, 15 b 25 perms slws,—y am
f�
CI
�l
V
N a 1
ry... .fi r
400 800
Feet
,rte
�v
i
4196"-
W Ir
Legend Figure 4
Q SSURGO Soils Project Study Corridor QJ Wetlands Delineated by KHA for Smith Creek Greenway Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
'0* r „4 Wake County SSURGO Soils — Neuse Streams
Wake FO est STIP Project No. C -5164
N.1,C r Wetlands Delineated by Others for Smith Creek Interceptor Wake Forest, Wake County

Legend Figure 5
—�_ NRCS Soil Survey
Project Study Corridor Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
WakeFoast STIP Project No. C -5164
K�Cr4— Wake Forest, Wake County

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
Applicant/Owner. Town of Wake Forest
City /County: Wake Forest/Wake
State: NC
Investigator(s): Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT; Todd St. John, P.E. Section, Township, Range:
Landfbrm (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Drained pond Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: 35.94825
Soil Map Unit Name: LoD - Louisburg loamy sand, 10 to 15 percent slopes
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic?
Sampling Date: 3/21/2013
Sampling Point: W1 -Wet
Slope ( %): <1 %
_ Long: -78.502273 Datum: NAD83
NWI classification- N/A
No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, 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:
Wetland 1 is a non -tidal freshwater marsh wetland type located within a finger of a historically
drained pond. Hydrology is influenced primarily by Stream 5/6 but likely receives roadside and
parking lot runoff from Heritage Lake Road and the adjacent developments.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that aooly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
— Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
✓ High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U)
✓ Drainage Patterns (610)
✓ Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
` Moss Trim Lines (616)
_ Water Marks (81) _
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 Soils (C6)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134) _
Thin Muds Surface (C7)
✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
— Iron Deposits (135) `
Other (Explain in Remarks)
` Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation 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): na
Water Table Present? Yes It' No
Depth (inches): 6"
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): 0'
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Hydrology is influenced by an unnamed tributary that flows into and through the wetland as well as
storm runoff from adjacent developments.
The wetland area is within an old pond bed that has been
drained.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
° Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata.
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover.
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
1
= Total Cover
20% of total cover.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x2=
FAC species x3=
FACU species x4=
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: (A)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(B)
2
3
4
5
6'
50% of total cover.
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1'
= Total Cover
20% of total cover.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
_
= Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1
2.
3.
4.
5
6.
7
8.
9
10.
11.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
ProjecvSite: Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway City /County. Wake Forest/Wake Sampling Date: 3/21/2013
4pplicanvOwner. Town of Wake Forest State. NC Sampling Point: W1 - Up
Investigator(s): Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT; Todd St. John, P.E. Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope ( %): 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Let: 35.948276 Long. -78.502145 Datum: NAD83
Sod Map Unit Name: LoD - Louisburg loamy sand, 10 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _2L 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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓
Wetiand Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
W1 -Up is located within the buffer area just outside of a regularly maintained lawn. Although the
dominance test was met, indicators of hydrology and hydric soil were not present; therefore the data
point is upland.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that aooly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
` Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (610)
Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
` Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (131) _
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 Soils (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)
Inundation 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): na
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): na
Saturation Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): na
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Indicators of hydrology were not observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Guff Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
1.
)
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sapling Stratum (Plot size:
1
50% of total cover.
)
= Total Cover
20% of total cover.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x2=
FAC species x3=
FACU species x4=
UPL species x 5
Column Totals: (A)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(B)
2
3
4
5.
6.
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
1.
50% of total cover.
)
= Total Cover
20% of total cover.
Hydrophytic vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophydc Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover.
Herb Stratum (Plot size* )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
50% of total cover.
)
= Total Cover
20% of total cover.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover.

SOIL
to the depth needed to
or
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture
0 -5 10YR 5/4 100 Sandy loam
5 -14 1 OYR 4/3 100 Sandy loam
Sampling Point: W1 - Up
Remarks
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M =Mati
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric
Histosol (A1)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (SB) (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)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3) _
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
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)
` Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
` Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A,1508)
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)
Type:
Depth (inches):
The soil profile did not meet any indicators of hydric soil.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes El No —a
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: Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway City /County:
4pplicant/Owner. Town of Wake Forest
Wake Forest/Wake
State: NC
Sampling Date: 3/21/2013
Sampling Point: W2 -Wet
Investigator(s): Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT; Todd St. John, P.E. Section, Township, Range:
Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope ( %): 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Let: 35.937423 Long: -78.506649 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: CmA - Chewacla sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic 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, transacts, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Welland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
W2 -Wet is a bottomland hardwood forest wetland located within the geomorphic floodplain of Sanford Creek.
Hydrology for Wetland °2" is also influenced by seepage from the adjacent hillside to the south as well as an upslope
pond to the north flowing parallel to Forestville Road. It is likely that the construction of the sanitary sewer line has
altered the natural hydrology in this area.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Seoondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks (66)
_ Surface Water (Al) _ Aquatic Fauna (613) ` Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
✓ High Water Table (A2) _ Mari Deposits (1315) (LRR U) _ Drainage Patterns (1310)
✓ Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Suede Odor (Cl) ` Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (131) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (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)
Inundation 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): na
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): 12"
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): 6'
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, momtonng well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Hydrology has likely been altered due to the relatively recent construction of the sanitary sewer line
which has likely compacted the soils and affected permeability. Groundwater seepage and surface
saturation was observed slightly downslope from the data point location.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size- 30' ) Cover Species? Status
1 Acer rubrum 40 Yes FAC
2 Betula nigra 15 Yes FACW
3. Sala nigra 15 Yes OBI.
4.
5.
6.
70 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 35 20% of total cover: 14
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30, )
1 Acer rubrum
2
3.
4.
5
6.
50% of total cover. 5
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1 Ligustrum sinense
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
10 Yes FAC
10 = Total Cover
20% of total cover 2
5 Yes FAC
5 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 2.5 20% of total cover. 1
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10, )
1 Panicum SP. 50 Yes FAC
2 Juncos effusus 15 Yes OBL
3 Rubus argutus 5 No FAC
4.
5.
6
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
70 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 35 20% of total cover. 14
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10, )
1 Lonicerglaponica 15 Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
15 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 7.5 20% of total cover. 3
hological adaptations below).
Sampling Point: W2-Wet
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 8 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals: 0
(A) 0 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
n✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree— Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 it (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 it (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub— Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 It (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb —All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 it (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation n
Present? Yes . No El
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
or
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loci
0-5 10YR 3/2 90 7.5YR 5/6 10 C PL
5-14 10YR 5/2 95 10YR 5/6 5 C M
Sampling Point: w2 -wet
Texture Remarks
loam
Loamy sand
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matra, MS= Masked Sand Grains. `Location: PL =Pore Lining, M =Mati
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric
_ 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 (F7) (LRR O)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
— Depleted Matrix (F3) _
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
— Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 153B)
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)
` Marl (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (At 6) (MLRA 150A) `
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochric (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, 1530)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes 171 No f2
Remarks-
An abrupt change from loamy to sandy soils is likely a result of the sanitary sewer
construction. Hydric soil indicator S5 (Sandy Redox) was met beginning at 5 ".
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Guff Coastal Plain Region
Project/Sde: Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway City /County: Wake Forest/Wake Sampling Date: 3/21/2013
Applicant/Owner. Town of Wake Forest State: NC Sampling Point: W2 -Up
Investigator(s): Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT; Todd St. John, P.E. Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none)- concave Slope ( %): 3%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Let: 35.937227 Long, -78.506586 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: WmD2 - Wedowee sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation . Sal 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
Hydnc Soil Present? Yes No ✓ ✓
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
W2 -Up is located in an open field just upslope from the wetland data point. Hydrophytic vegetation,
indicators of hydrology and hydric soil were not present; therefore the data point is upland.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reawred)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) _
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
` Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
— High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (B15) (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)
Dnft Deposits (B3) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (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 Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
— FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water - Stained Leaves (B9)
` Sphagnum moss (138) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
40' Depth (inches): na
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): na
Saturation Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): na
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes ca ilia fri e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), d available-
Remarks:
Indicators of hydrology were not observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W2 - Up
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) ° Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1 Quercus rubra 10 Yes FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
4 Percent of Dominant Species
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 29% (AB)
6.
'u = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover.
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30'
1 Acer rubrum
2 Jumperus wginiana
3 Pinustaeda
4.
5
6.
50% of total cover. 12.5
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1. na
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10,
10 Yes FAC
10 Yes FACU
5 Yes FAC
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals: 0
(A) 0 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
25 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 20% of total cover. 5 0 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
0 = Total Cover
20% of total cover.
1 Eupatorium capillijohum 30 Yes
2 Fesiuca sp. 30 Yes
3 Dig,taria sp. 30 Yes
4 Rubus argutus 5 No
5.
6.
7.
B.
9.
10.
11.
FACU
FACU
FACU
FAC
95 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 47.5 20% of total cover. 19
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10, )
1. na
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0 = Total Cover Vegetation
_ 20% of total cover. I Present?
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Tree— Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub— Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb —All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover.
Remarks: (If observed, list
Yes F] No r . s
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
to
or
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) ° Color (moist) Type' Loc
0 -8 10YR 7/6 100
8-15 10YR 4/6 100
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Sampling Point: W2 - Up
Texture Remarks
Loamy sand
Sandy day loam
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
_ Histosol (A1)
— 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)
Stratified Layers (A5)
— Depleted Matra (F3) _
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
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)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (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)
` Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 160B)
Sandy Redox (S5)
` Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 15313)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
The soil profile did not meet any indicators of hydric soil.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes _a No .
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: Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway City /County: Wake Forest/Wake Sampling Date: 3/2112013
Applicant/Owner. Town of Wake Forest State: NC Sampling Point: W3-Wet
Investigator(s): Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT; Todd St. John, P.E. Section, Township, Range:
Landform ( hillslo e, terrace, etc.) : Flooplain Local relief ( concave, convex, none • concave Slope /
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.937807 Long: -78.500068 Datum* NAD83
Soil Map unit Name: CmA - Chewacla sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: PF01A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes V/ 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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes No
Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
W3 -Wet is a bottomland hardwood forest wetland located within the floodplain of Sanford Creek. The wetland
boundary continues offsite away from the project study area and likely ties to the creek. It is likely that the construction
of the sanitary sewer line as well as the residential development has modified the natural hydrology of the area.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) _ Aquatic Fauna (613) ` Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
✓ High Water Table (A2) _ Mari Deposits (1315) (LRR U) ✓ Drainage Patterns (610)
✓ Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ` Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (131) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Burrows (08)
Dnit Deposits (133) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (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)
Inundation 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): na
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): 10"
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): 6'
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes L No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland 4 is located within the geomorphic floodplain of Sanford Creek. Hydrology is also
influenced by stormwater runoff from the adjacent residential properties. Groundwater seepage and
surface water were observed further downslope outside of the project study area boundary.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W3-Wet
av = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 15 20% of total cover. 6
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10, )
1 Sm:1ax rorundifolia 50 Yes FAC
2 Lonicerajaponica 10 No FAC
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
60 = Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover. 30 20% of total cover. 12 Present? Yes No
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 Berula nigra
25 Yes FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
2 Acerrubrum
15 Yes FAC
3 L,quuiambar sryraci lua
5 No FAC
Total Dominant 6
Speciees s Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5•
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
45 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 22•5 20% of total cover. 9
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30,
)
OBL species x 1 =
1 Acer rubrum
20 Yes FAC
FACW species x2=
2
FAC species x3=
3.
FACU species x4=
4
UPL species x5=
5
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
6•
Prevalence Index = B/A =
20 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover. 4
E] 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
�✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 L,gusrrum s,nense
50 Yes FAC
D 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
2•
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4•
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50 = Total Cover
Tree— Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of total cover. 25 20% of total cover: 10
approximately 20 it (6 m) or more in height and 3 in
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10,
)
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 Rubus argurus
30 Yes FAC
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2.
approximately 20 it (6 m) or more in height and less
3
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4.
Shrub —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5
approximately 3 to 20 it (1 to 6 m) in height.
6.
Herb —All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, including
7
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
6
3 it (1 m) in height.
9.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
10.
11.
av = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 15 20% of total cover. 6
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10, )
1 Sm:1ax rorundifolia 50 Yes FAC
2 Lonicerajaponica 10 No FAC
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
60 = Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover. 30 20% of total cover. 12 Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point W3 -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) _JY Jvoe Loc
Texture Remarks
0 -6 10YR 4/2 85
7.5YR 4/6 15 C M
Clay loam
6-12 10YR 4/2 85
7.5YR 4/6 15 C M
sandy day loam
12 -18 10YR 6/1 90
7.5YR 4/6 10 C M
Sandy day
'T : C= Concentration D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matra, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric 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)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 153B)
_ 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)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (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) ` Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic (1718) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
_ 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)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth
^
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No LL
(inches):
. .
Remarks:
Soils display evidence
of a depleted matrix (F3) beginning
at the surface and continuing
throughout the soil profile.
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: Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway City /County: Wake Forest/Wake Sampling Date: 3/21/2013
Applicant/Owner. Town of Wake Forest State: NC Sampling Point- W3-Up
Investigator(s)- Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT; Todd St. John, P.E. Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope ( %): 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Let: 35.937909 Long: - 78.500144 Datum: NAD83
Sod Map Unit Name: CmA - Chewacla sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: PF01A
Are climatic / hydrologic 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 V/ 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 ✓ ✓
Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No
W3 -Up is located within the buffer area just southwest of a privately owned, regularly maintained
lawn. Although the dominance test was met, indicators of hydrology and hydric soil were not
present; therefore the data point is upland.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that awls)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
` Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3) _
`_
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C7)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (131) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
` Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (132)
Iron Deposits (65) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
` Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): na
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): na
Saturation Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): na
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Indicators of hydrology were not observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
55 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 27.5 20% of total cover. 11
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30, )
1 JunWrus v:rgmtana 5 Yes FACU
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
5 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 2 5 20% of total cover. 1
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30.
1 Llgustrum srnense
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover: 10
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10,
20 Yes FAC
20 = Total Cover
20% of total cover. 4
1 Festuca sp. 10 Yes
2 Alhum cernuum 5 Yes
3 Rubus argulus 3 No
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
9.
10.
11.
Sampling Point: W3-Up
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% (AB)
Total % Cover of:
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30'
) ° Cover
Species?
Status
1 Belula nigra
20
Yes
FACW
2 Quercus nigra
20
Yes
FAC
3 Acer rubrum
10
No
FAC
4 Liguufambar slyracii lua
5
No
FAC
5.
6.
55 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 27.5 20% of total cover. 11
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30, )
1 JunWrus v:rgmtana 5 Yes FACU
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
5 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 2 5 20% of total cover. 1
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30.
1 Llgustrum srnense
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover: 10
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10,
20 Yes FAC
20 = Total Cover
20% of total cover. 4
1 Festuca sp. 10 Yes
2 Alhum cernuum 5 Yes
3 Rubus argulus 3 No
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
9.
10.
11.
Sampling Point: W3-Up
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% (AB)
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals: 0
(A) 0 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑✓ 2 -Dominance Testis >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.
Tree— Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
FAC Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
FACU approximately 20 it (6 m) or more in height and less
FAC I than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
16 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 9 20% of total cover. 3.6
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10, )
1 Smilax rohmdifolia 30 Yes FAC
2 Lomcera japonica 10 Yes FAC
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover. 20
40 = Total Cover
20% of total cover. 6
Shrub— Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 it (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb —All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 It (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation n
Present? Yes r . r No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
to
or
Depth
Matrix
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Tvoe Loci Texture
0 -8
10YR 5/8
100
Loam
8 -18
10YR 4/4
100
loamy sand
18 -21
10YR 5/2
85
7.5YR 4/6 15 C M Clay
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) —
Redox Depressions (F8) _
Sampling Point: W3-UP
Remarks
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matra, MS= Masked Sand Grains. `Location: PL =Pore Lining, M =Mati
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric
_ 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)
_ Stratified Layers (A5) —
Depleted Matra (F3) _
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) _
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) `
Depleted Dark Surface (177) _
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) —
Redox Depressions (F8) _
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) _
Marl (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _
Depleted Ochdc (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) `
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P. T)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (Al 6) (MLRA 150A) ,_
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) _
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
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)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
The soil profile did not meet any indicators of hydric soil.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes F] No r .
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: Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway City /County: Wake Forest/Wake Sampling Date: 3/21/2013
Applicant/Owner: Town of Wake Forest State: NC Sampling Point: W4 -Wet
Investigator(s)- Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT; Todd St. John, P.E. Section, Township, Range:
Landforrn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope ( %): <1 %
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.938054 Long: - 78.502024 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: MeA - Mantachie sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded NWI classification: PSS1A
Are climatic / hydrologic 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 V/ 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 V No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Wetland 4 is a very small ( -200 sgft) non -tidal freshwater marsh wetland type located within the
floodplain of Sanford Creek. Herbaceous vegetation dominates the area. Hydrology is influenced by
periodic flooding events as well as shallower microtopographic relief than the surrounding floodplain area.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that aooly)
` Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
` Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
✓ High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
` Drainage Patterns (1310)
✓ Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
` Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (131) _
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 Soils (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
✓ Geomorphic Position (132)
Iron Deposits (135) ,--_
Other (Explain in Remarks)
` Shallow Aquitard (D3)
— 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): na
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): 10'
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches)- 6"
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Hydrology is influenced predominately by periodic overbank flooding where water is ponded within
this small basin area.
US Amry Corps of Engineers
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W4-Wet
50% of total cover.
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
1 na
2.-
3
4
5
6
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
) ° Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. na
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
1 na
Total Number of Dominant
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
3.
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
6.
6
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover.
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
1 na
2.-
3
4
5
6
0 = Total Cover
20% of total cover.
0 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x2=
FAC species x3=
FACU species x4=
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover.
20% of total cover.
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
�✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 na
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
2.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3
4
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
0 = Total Cover
Tree— Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of total cover.
20% of total cover.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 Panicum sp.
80 Yes FAC
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2 Juncos effusus
15 No OBL
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3 Rubus argurus
5 No FAC
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4,
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6.
Herb — All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, including
7
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
8.
3 ft (1 m) in height.
9
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
10
11.
100 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 50 20% of total cover. 20
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Lonicera japonica 5 Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
5 = Total Cover Vegetation �
50% of total cover.. 20 °k of total cover
Present? Yes 1 • No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Guff Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: W4 -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) % Tvoe 1oc7—
Texture Remarks
0 -5 10YR 3/2 90 7.5YR 5/6 C PL
Loam
5 -15 10YR 5/1 100
Sandy loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matra, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matmk.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric 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 (At 0) (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)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T. U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
` Depleted Dark Surface (177)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
` Redox Depressions (F8)
` Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
` Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophybc vegetation and
Coast Praine Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
` Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochric (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)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes z No il
Indicators for a depleted matrix (F3) is met beginning at 5" within the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Guff Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway City /County Wake Forest/Wake Sampling Date: 3/21/2013
Applicant/Owner: Town of Wake Forest State: NC Sampling Point: W4-Up
Investigator(s): Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT; Todd St. John, P.E. Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope ( %): �1 %
Subregion (LRR or MLRA)• LRR P Lat: 35.937909 Long: - 78.501949 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: MeA - Mantachie sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic 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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
M -Up is located within a regular maintained utility easement. Indicators of hydrology, hydrophytic
vegetation and hydric soil were not present; therefore the data point is upland.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that awlv)
— Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
` Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Pattems (610)
Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Moss Trim Lines (B16)
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 Soils (C6)
_ Satyration Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (B5) `
Other (Explain in Remarks)
` Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation 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): na
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): na
Saturation Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): na
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Vf
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Indicators of hydrology were not observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W4 -Up
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
) ° Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. na
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B)
6
0 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover.
Total % Cover of Multiply by:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
OBL species x 1 =
1 na
FACW species x2=
2.
FAC species x3=
3
FACU species x4=
4
UPL species x5=
5.
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
0 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover
El 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
Ej 2 - Dominance Testis >50%
1 na
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
2
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
0 = Total Cover
Tree —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover.
approximately 20 it (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10,
)
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 ' Fes tuca sp
60 Yes FAC
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2 Euparorium capiihfolwm
20 Yes FACU
approximately 20 it (6 m) or more in height and less
3 Rubus argutus
10 No FAC
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4 Andropogon virgmicus
10 No FAC
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6•
Herb —All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, including
7.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
6•
3 it (1 m) in height.
9.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
100 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 50 20% of total cover. 20
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
10, - )
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0 = Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover.
Present? Yes n No v
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Depth
(inches)
0 -12
Sampling Point: M-Up
to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm
Matrix Redox Features
Color (moist) % Color (moist) Tvoe Loc' Texture Remarks
10YR 7/8 100 Sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric
_ Histosol (A1)
_ 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 Floodplam Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5) _
Depleted Matrix (F3) _
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) _
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 153B)
_ 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) _
Mart (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) `
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetabon and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ,_
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) _
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic
_ Sandy Gleyed Matra (S4) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
_ 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)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
The soil profile did not meet any indicators of hydric soil.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes _a No ]a
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: Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
City /County: Wake Forest/Wake
Sampling Date: 3/21/2013
ApplicantlOwner. Town of Wake Forest State: NC Sampling Point: W5-Wet
Investigator(s): Chris Trnklenberg, WPIT; Todd St. John, P.E. Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain /SW Outfall Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (ova): <11%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.939318 Long: -78.514282 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: CmA - Chewacla sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic 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
Hydnc Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes No
Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Wetland 5 is located within the floodplains of Smith and Sanford Creeks; however, hydrology appears to be altered by the construction of Heritage High
School and is now primarily influenced by a stormwater detention basin which outlets via a 36" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) to the wetland area.
Additionally, the wetland is further altered from the construction of an access road that is likely used for maintenance of overhead power transmission
lines. The upper area is impounded from the lower area; however, a connection to the downslope wetland area is established by an 18" RCP that is
located beneath the access road.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ Aquatic Fauna (613) ✓ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
✓ High Water Table (A2)
_ Marl Deposits (815) (LRR U) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10)
✓ Saturation (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ` Moss Trim Lines (616)
— Water Marks (B1)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (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)
— Inundation 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): na
Water Table Present? Yes
✓ No Depth (inches): 12"
Saturation Present? Yes
✓ No Depth (inches)- 10"
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Hydrology is influenced primarily by the stormwater outlet which collects runoff from the upslope
High School. Additionally, overbank flooding from from Smith and Sanford Creeks also contribute to
the observed hydrology.
Approximately 6" of surface water is present in the portion of Wetland 6
north of the access road.
Surface water is present within the main drainage pattern south of the
access road.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30, )
Cover Species? Status
1 Acer rubrum
5 Yes FAC
2 Plaranus occidenialis
5 Yes FACW
3. Liguuiiambarsryraciva
5 YeS FAC
4.
x4=
5.
x5=
6.
(A) 0 (B)
7.
15 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 7.5
20% of total cover. 3
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30, )
1 Acer rubrum
5 FAC
2.
3.
100 = Total Cover
4
20% of total cover. 20
5.
6.
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30,
1. no
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
5 = Total Cover
50% of total cover 2.5 20% of total cover. 1
0 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10, )
Multiply by:
1 Panwum sp
80 Yes FAC
2 Typha latifoka
10 No OBL
3 Juncus effusus
10 No OBL
4.
x4=
5.
x5=
6.
(A) 0 (B)
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
100 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 50
20% of total cover. 20
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10, )
1. na
2
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
Sampling Point: W5-Wet
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals: 0
(A) 0 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
n✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree- Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 it (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 it (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 it (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb- All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 it (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover. I Present? Yes No
Remarks- (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
The portion of Wetland 5 on the north side of the access is dominated by young red maples.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point w5-wet
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 Texture Remarks
0 -6 10YR 4/2 85 10YR 4/6 15 C PL Loam
6-15 10YR 3/2 85 10YR 4/6 15 C
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
M Loam
ins. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S. T, U) _
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0)
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 0)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P. S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3) _
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(IIRLRA 1538)
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)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
` Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
,_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetiand hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochric (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)
Restrictive Layer (ff observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No f2
Indicator F3 is met within the upper 6" of the soil profile. Indicator F6 is met beginning at 6"
and continues down through the soil profile.
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: Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway City /County: Wake Forest/Wake Sampling Date: 3/21/2013
Applicant/Owner. Town of Wake Forest State: NC Sampling Point: W5-up
Investigator(s): Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT; Todd St. John, P.E. Section, Township, Range:
Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Road -bed Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope %
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.939466 Long: -78.514367 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: CmA - Chewacla sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic 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 I/ 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 ✓
W5 -Up is located within the regularly maintained /disturbed access road /utility easement. Although
the dominance test was met, indicators of hydrology and hydric soil were not present; therefore the
data point is upland.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that aoolvl
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
` Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
` Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
` Moss Trim Lines (616)
Water Marks (131) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
` Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (82) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
` Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135) —
Other (Explain in Remarks)
` Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
` FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
_ Sphagnum moss (138) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): na
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches). na
Saturation Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): na
Wetiand Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Indicators of hydrology were not observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WS-Up
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15' ) Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 na That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
0 = Total Cover
50% of total cover 20% of total cover. _
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
1 no
2.
3
4.
5.
6
0 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover. _
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
1. no
2.
3.
4.
S.
6.
0 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover. _
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10' )
1 Andropogon virgmicus 20 Yes
2. Festuca sp 20 Yes
3 Krigia caespitosa 10 Yes
4.
5.
6.
7.
8
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover. 25
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10, )
1. no
2.
3.
4.
5.
Remarks:
50 = Total Cover
20% of total cover. 10
FAC
FAC
FAC
0 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover.
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals: 0
(A) 0 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
p 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree— Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 it (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub— Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 it (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb— Ail herbaceous (non - woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation ��✓,
Present? Yes r . No _a
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
or confirm
Sampling Point- W5-up
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) ° Color (moist) Tvoe Loc Texture Remarks
0-12 10YR 4/6 100 Loam Disturbed
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. `Location: PL =Pore Lining, M =Mati
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric
_ 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 (Al 0) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F7) (LRR O)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) _
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matra (F3) _
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
_ 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)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
` Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
3Indicators of hydrophyhc vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
` Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T. U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matra (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1506)
_ 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)
Type:
Depth (inches):
The soil profile did not meet any indicators of hydric soil.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes il No n,
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- Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
Cdy /County: Wake Forest/Wake
Sampling Date: 3/21/2013
ApplicantlOwner. Town of Wake Forest State: NC Sampling Point: W6/7 -Wet
Investigator(s): Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT; Todd St. John, P.E. Section, Township, Range:
d lain o
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floo p Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (/o): ° °
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.937464 Long. - 78.512169 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: WoA- Wehadkee and Bibb soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: PF01A
Are climatic / hydrologic 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 V 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
Wetlands 6 and 7 are non -tidal freshwater marsh wetlands that have been disturbed by the construction and
maintenance of the overhead power transmission lines. Both wetlands are located within the floodplain of Sanford
Creek; therefore hydrology is influenced by periodic overbank flooding. Hydrology for both wetlands is also influenced
by surface drainage from adjacent developments.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that aooly) _ Surface Sal Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (313) ` Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (38)
High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits C31 5) (LRR U) _ Drainage Patterns (310)
V. Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ 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 (63) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
— Iron Deposits (65) `
Other (Explain in Remarks) ` Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation 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): na
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): na
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches)- 0'
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), d available:
Remarks:
An impervious layer of hard stone /cement is present at 12" below the surface therefore hydrology
likely flows through the upper 12"
of the soil following the topographic gradient before it begins to
seep out of the soil approximately 10' downslope from the data point location.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W617 -Wet
50% of total cover.
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1. na
2.
3.
4.
5.
6
50% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30, )
1. na
2.
3.
4.
5.
6
0 = Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet
_ 20% of total cover. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x3=
FACU species x4=
UPL species x5=
Column Totals- 0 (A) 0 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
0 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 20% of total cover: n 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
0 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10, )
1 Panicum sp. 70 Yes FAC
2 Juncus ef%usus 20 Yes OBL
3 Rubus argurus 10 NO FAC
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
11.
100 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 50 20% of total cover. 20
'Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree- Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 It (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub- Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb- All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10, )
1. na
2.
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
0 = Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover. Present?
Remarks: (If observed, list
Yes, No-a
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. na
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67% (A/B)
6_
50% of total cover.
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1. na
2.
3.
4.
5.
6
50% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30, )
1. na
2.
3.
4.
5.
6
0 = Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet
_ 20% of total cover. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x3=
FACU species x4=
UPL species x5=
Column Totals- 0 (A) 0 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
0 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 20% of total cover: n 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
0 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10, )
1 Panicum sp. 70 Yes FAC
2 Juncus ef%usus 20 Yes OBL
3 Rubus argurus 10 NO FAC
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
11.
100 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 50 20% of total cover. 20
'Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree- Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 It (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub- Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb- All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10, )
1. na
2.
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
0 = Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover. Present?
Remarks: (If observed, list
Yes, No-a
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: W617 -Wet
to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
Cinches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) - % Type Loc' Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 3/2 90 7.5YR 5/6 10 C PL Loam
4 -12 10YR 5/1 100 Sandy loam
'Type: C= Conoentration, D =De letion RM= Reduced Matra MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoIIS3:
_ 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 (Al 0) (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)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Sods (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T. U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
_ 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 (All 1)
Depleted Ochnc (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
` Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
,_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
_ Delta Ochric (1717) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A,1SOB)
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)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type: Stone /Cement
Depth (inches): 12'
Hydric Soli Present? Yes 10 . No
Indicators for a depleted matrix (1=3) is met beginning at 4" within the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Guff Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway City /County: Wake Forest/Wake Sampling Date- 3/21/2013
Applicant/Owner. Town of Wake Forest State: NC Sampling Point: W617 -Up
Investigator(s): Chris Tinklenberg, WPIT; Todd St. John, P.E. Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.937389 Long: -78.512032
Soil Map Unit Name: WoA - Wehadkee and Bibb soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic 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.)
Slope (%): 1%
Datum- NAD83
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area
Hydnc Soil Present? Yes No ✓
Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
W6/7 -Up is located within a regular maintained power line easement. Indicators of hydrology,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soil were not present; therefore the data point is upland.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired. check
all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (613)
` Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
— High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
` Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
` 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)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135) `
Other (Explain in Remarks)
— Shallow Aquitard (D3)
— Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): na
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches). na
Saturation Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): na
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Indicators of hydrology were not observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W617 -Up
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) ° Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. na That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2 Total Number of Dominant
3• Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B)
6.
0 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover.
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1. na
2.
3.
4.
5.
6
0 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover. _
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30'
1. na
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
X5=
Column Totals: 0
(A) 0 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five vegetation Strata:
100 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 50 20% of total cover. 20
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10' )
1. na
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0 = Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover. _ 20 °k of total cover.
Present? Yes F] No v
Remarks: (if observed, fist morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
u = Total Cover
Tree— Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of total cover.
20% of total cover.
approximately 20 It (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10' )
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 Fesiuca sp
60 Yes FAC
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2 Eupworium capilkfohum
20 Yes FACU
approximately 20 it (6 m) or more in height and less
3 Rubus arguws
10 No FAC
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
q Andropogon virgmicus
10 No FAC
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6
Herb — All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, including
7
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
6•
3 ft (1 m) in height.
9.
10
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
100 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 50 20% of total cover. 20
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10' )
1. na
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0 = Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover. _ 20 °k of total cover.
Present? Yes F] No v
Remarks: (if observed, fist morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: W6/7 -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) % Tvoe Loci Texture Remarks
0 -12 10YR 7/8 100 Sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric 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 (Al 0) (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)
_ Stratified Layers (A5) -_
Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
_ 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) _
Marl (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 0, S) ,_
Delta Ochric (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)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No l
The soil profile did not meet any indicators of hydric soil.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 3/21/2013
Project/Site: Smith
Creek GW
Latitude: 35.955725
Evaluator: TSJ
County: Wake
Longitude: - 78.501182
Total Points: 57.5
Stream Determination
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
(circle one) Ephemeral
Stream 1 (Smith
e.g. Quad Creek)
if a 19 or perennial if 2 30
Intermittent Perennial
Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 30
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continu 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-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
3
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
1 0.5
1 1 1
1.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
1 Yes = 3
3
arunciai ancnes are not ratea; see oiscussions in manual
B. Hvdroloqv Subtotal = 13.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
1 0
1 0.5 1
1
1 1.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
I No = 0 1
Yes = 3
3
C. Bioloav Subtotal = 14
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
2
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
2
22. Fish
0
0.5
1 1
1.5
1
23. Crayrish
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1
1.5
1
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
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: The Stream is the same up and down stream.
It is a large perennial system.
This system is Smith Creek.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 3/26/2013
Project/Site: Smith
Creek GW
Latitude: 35.937745
Evaluator: tsj
County: Wake
Longitude: - 78.507634
Total Points: 47
Stream Determination
Other Stream 2 (Sanford
Stream is at least intermittent
(circle one) Ephemeral
e.g. Quad Creek)
if a 19 or perennial if a 30
Intermittent Perennial
Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 26.5
Absent
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
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
3
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
3
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
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
aruriciai ancnes are not ratea; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hvdroloqv Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5 1
1
1.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 11.5
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
2
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
2
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
25. Algae
0
0.5
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: I observed this stream in the field, but
I rated from my recollection.
It is clearly a large perennial system in any event.
This is Sanford Creek.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 3/21/2013
Project/Site: Smith
Creek GW
Latitude: 35.949992,
Evaluator: TSJ
County: Wake
Longitude: - 78.500909
Total Points: 35
Stream Determination
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
(circle one) Ephemeral
e.g. Quad Stream 3
if a 19 or perennial if t 30
Intermittent Perennial
Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 15.5
Absentl
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continui of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
2
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
2
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
0
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
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1 1.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 11
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
2
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1 1
1 1.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 8.5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
0
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
2
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
2
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
23. Crayrish
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
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: Large golf course pond upstream.
Abandoned pond downstream + highly altered.
Appears to be perennial.
Did not investigated above pond since
the pond is not within 50' of the project boundar

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 3/21/2013
Project/Site: Smith
Creek GW
Latitude: 35.948194
Evaluator: TSJ
County: Wake
Longitude: - 78.502186
Total Points: 32.5
Stream Determination
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
(circle one) Ephemeral
e.g. Quad Stream 4
if t 19 or perennial if a 30
Intermittent Perennial
Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 15.5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
2
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1 1.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
arunciai aiicnes are not rates; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hydrologv Subtotal = 7.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
1 0
1 0.5
1 1
1 1.5
1 1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
I No = 0
1 Yes = 3
1 3
C. Bioloav Subtotal = 9.5
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
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
1
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
21 Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW
= 0.75; OBL = 1.5;
Other = 0
0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods Seep. 35 of manual.
Notes: Stream/wetland complex.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 3/21/2013
Project/Site: Smith
Creek GW
Latitude: 35.937837
Evaluator: TSJ
County: Wake
Longitude: - 78.50722
Total Points: 26.5
Stream Determination
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
(circle one) Ephemeral
e.g. Quad Stream 5
if a 19 or perennial if t 30
Intermittent Perennial
Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 11
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
18. Continui of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
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
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
1
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
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. HvdrologV Subtotal = 10.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
1 0
1 0.5
1
1 1.5
0.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
I No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Bioloqv Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
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
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
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 origin already flagged by others.
Stream origin located.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 3/21/2013
Project/Site: Smith
Creek GW
Latitude: 35.938244
Evaluator: TSJ
County: Wake
Longitude: - 78.499863
Total Points: 43.5
Stream Determination
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
(circle one) Ephemeral
e.g. Quad Stream 6
rf t 19 or perennial if 2:30
Intermittent Perennial
Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 22
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
18. 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-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
3
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
2
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
arnnciai ancnes are not ratea; see alscussions in manual
B. Hvdrologv Subtotal = 13.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1 1 1
1.5
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
1 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
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
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 origin above site.
Feature is a small perennial channel.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Fonn, Version 4.11
Date: 3/21/2013
Project/Site: Smith
Creeek GW
Latitude: 35.944174
Evaluator: TSJ
County: Wake
Longitude: - 78.512198
Total Points: 38.5
Stream Determination
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
(circle one) Ephemeral
e.g. Quad Stream 7
if a 19 or perennial if 2:30
Intermittent Perennial
Name,
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 21.5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
18. Continui 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-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
3
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1 1.5
0.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
1 3
C. Biolow 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
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayrish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW
= 0.75; OBL = 1.5;
Other = 0
0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods Seep. 35 of manual.
Notes: Feature is small perennial stream.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 3/21/2013
Project/Site: Smith
Creek GW
Latitude: 35.936872
Evaluator: TSJ
County: Wake
Longitude: - 78.505799
Total Points: 6.5
Stream Determination
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
(circle one) Ephemeral
e.g. Quad Drainage Feature 1
f 2:19 or perennial if a 30
Intermittent Perennial
Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 5.5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
18. Continui of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
0
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
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
artmciai ancnes are not ratea; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hvdrologv Subtotal = 0.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1 1
1 1.5
1 0.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
1 Yes = 3
1
C. Biologv Subtotal = 0.5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
0
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
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW
= 0.75; OBL = 1.5;
Other = 0
0.75
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: No channel, seep.
Up Stream Wetland
Down Stream is a channel not stream
Strongest feature rated.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 3/21/2013
Project/Site: Smith
Creek GW
Latitude: 35.948635
Evaluator: TSJ
County: Wake
Longitude: - 78.509421
Total Points: 14
Stream Determination
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
(circle one) Ephemeral
e.g. Quad Drainage Feature 2
if z 19 or perennial if z 30
Intermittent Perennial
Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 2
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1 a. Continui of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
0
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
0
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
0
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
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 =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
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 1.5
0
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
1 0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW
= 0.75; OBL = 1.5;
Other = 0
0.75
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual
Notes: More of a Swale draining into a into a wetland.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 3/21/2013
Project/Site: Smith
Creek GW
Latitude: 35.949467
Evaluator: TSJ
County: Wake
Longitude: - 78.509199
Total Points: 13
Stream Determination
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
(circle one) Ephemeral
e.g. Quad Drainage Feature 3
if a 19 or perennial d a 30
Intermittent Perennial
Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 1.5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
18. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
0
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
0
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
0
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
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. Hvdroloqv Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1 1
1 1.5
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
1 Yes = 3
3
C. Biologv Subtotal = 6.5
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
1 0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW
= 0.75; OBL = 1.5;
Other = 0
0.75
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Stormwater conveyance only.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
'rovide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Town of Wake Forest 2. Evaluator's name: Todd St. John
3. Date of evaluation: 03/26/2013 4. Time of evaluation: 8:45 am
5. Name of stream: Stream 1 (Smith Creek) 6. River basin: Neuse
7. Approximate drainage area: 8 sgmi. 8. stream order:. Third Order
9. Length of reach evaluated: 75' 10. County: Wake
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. - 77.556611):
Method location determined (circle):OiPS[Dropo SheeEbrtho (Aerial) Photo /GIS ✓ 3ther GISather
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Heritage Lake Road, west of the golf course
14. Proposed channel work (if any): None
15. Recent weather conditions: Wetter and colder than average
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Partly sunny, 49 degrees
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: 12section 10 DTidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
nTrout Waters 00utstanding Resource Waters E[ Nutrient Sensitive Waters nWater 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:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: 50 % Residential
50 % Forested
22. Bankfull width: 30'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Oflat (0 to 2 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight 00ccasional bends
_% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( 1
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 10'
Gentle (2 to 4 0/6) DModerate (4 to 10 %) DSteep ( >10 %)
✓Frequent meander OVery sinuous 013raided 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): 87 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 03/26/2013
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.

Stream 1 (Smith Creek)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
5
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
6
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max Po rots
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
6
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 — 4
0-4
5
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
3
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0— 4
0— 4
0— 2
4
no fl lain = 0• extensive floc lain = max points)
a'
Entrenchment/ floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
5
(deeply entrenched = 0 uent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0 e adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
5
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
5
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max ints
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
5
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max po rots
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
5
a
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
Root depth and density on banks
14
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
3
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial ' =0; act • no evidence = max rots
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
5
16
Presence of riffle- pooltripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
H
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0, well-developed = max points)
<
17
Habitat complexity
0— 6
0— 6
0— 6
6
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy ints
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
5
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA
0-4
0 — 4
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = ML)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
2
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max p oints
Presence
21
of amphibians
0-4
0 — 4
0 —4
2
Q
no evidence = 0• common, numerous es = max points)
C
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max ints
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max ints
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
87
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

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: Town of Wake Forest 2. Evaluator's name: Todd St. John
3. Date of evaluation: 03/26/2013 4. Time of evaluation: 4:00 pm
5. Name of stream: Stream 2 (Sanford Creek) 6. River basin: Neuse
7. Approximate drainage area: 5.5 sgmi. 8. Stream order:, Fourth Order
9. Length of reach evaluated: 75' 10. County: Wake
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. — 77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): [DPSDopo SheeEDDrtho (Aerial) Photo /GIS ather GISather
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
South of Orange Cosmos Drive
14. Proposed channel work (if any): None
15. Recent weather conditions: Wetter and colder than average
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Partly sunny, 49 degrees
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters 00utstanding Resource Waters f, Nutrient Sensitive Waters nWater 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:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: 50 % Residential
50 % Forested
22. Bankfull width: 20'
24. Channel slope down center of stream Flat (0 to 2 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight 00ccasional bends
_% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 8'
Gentle (2 to 4 %) DModerate (4 to 10 %) DSteep (> 10 %)
,Frequent meander Very sinuous 011raided 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): 92 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 03/26/2013
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.

Stream 2 (Sanford Creek)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
5
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max ints
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
6
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max po ints
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
6
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max p oints
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
5
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max po ints
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
3
no discharge = 0 springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
4
no fl lain = 0• extensive floc lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
5
de 1 entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
4
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
5
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
5
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
fine azhomo homogenous = 0• le diverse sizes = max points)
NA
0-4
0 — 5
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
5
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
4
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 — 4
0-5
3
E
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial " =0; act • no evidence = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
5
16
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
5
H
no riffles/ripples or Pools = 0• well-developed = max ints
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
5
(little or no habitat = 0• frequen varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy oints
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
5
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
3
no evidence = 0• commm numerous types = max points)
Presence
G7
21
of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
3
Ono
evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
6
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first paged 1
92
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
FED-3 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
r�
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Town of Wake Forest 2. Evaluator's name: Todd St. John
3. Date of evaluation: 03/26/2013 4. Time of evaluation: 8 :53 am
5. Name of stream: Stream 3
7. Approximate drainage area: 0.5 sgmi.
9. Length of reach evaluated: 75'
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
6. River basin: Neuse
8. Stream order:. First Order
10. County: Wake
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. - 77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): [33PSQropo SheeCbrtho (Aerial) Photo /GIS ✓Dther GIS03ther
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Heritage Lake Road west of golf course.
14. Proposed channel work (if any).. None
15. Recent weather conditions: Wetter and colder than average
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Partly sunny, 49 degrees
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
DTrout Waters 0outstanding Resource Waters 13 Nutrient Sensitive Waters Dwater 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: 9 ac.
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: 30 % Residential
% Forested
22. Bankfull width: 10'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Oflat (0 to 2 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight 00ccasional bends
_% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Cleared / Logged 70 % Other ( Golf Course )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 5'
,Gentle (2 to 4 %) DModerate (4 to 10 %) ElSteep ( >10 %)
OFrequent meander Overy sinuous OBraided 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): 66 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 03/26/2013
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.

Stream 3
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
5
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max rots
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
2
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max p oints
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 — 4
0-4
5
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
0
no discharge = 0 ; springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0— 4
0— 4
0— 2
3
no fl lain = 0• extensive floc lain = max points)
Entrenchment/ floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
4
de 1 entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
5
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
fine homogenous = 0 e diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
5
�+
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 — 4
0-5
3
no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout =max rots
H 15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
'
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
5
substantial =0; act • no evidence = max rots
16
Presence of riffle - pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
2
H
no riffleshipples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent, varied habitats = max points)
0-6
0-6
0-6
4
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
2
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
2
no evidence = 0• common, numerous pAys = max ints
Presence amphibians
21
of
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
Ono
evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max rots
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
4
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max poi ots
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on fast page)
66
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
07 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Town of Wake Forest 2. Evaluator's name: Todd St. John
3. Date of evaluation: 03/26/2013 4. Time of evaluation: 9 :00 am
5. Name of stream: Stream 4 6. River basin: Neuse
7. Approximate drainage area: 20 ac. 8. Stream order:,
9. Length of reach evaluated: 75' 10. County: Wake
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
Longitude (ex. — 77.556611
Method location determined (circle): [DPSaopo SheeCbrtho (Aerial) Photo /GIS ✓ 3ther GISather
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Heritage Lake Road; west of the golf course
14. Proposed channel work (if any): None
15. Recent weather conditions: Wetter and colder than average
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Partly sunny, 49 degrees
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 OTidal Waters OEssential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters ,,Outstanding Resource Waters 12 Nutrient 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:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: 50 % Residential
Forested
22. Bankfull width: 31
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Oflat (0 to 2 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight JZOccasional bends
_% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( Golf Course )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):1
„Gentle (2 to 4 %) M✓ Moderate (4 to 10 %) DSteep (>10%)
,,Frequent meander ,Very sinuous DBraided 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): 75 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 03/26/2013
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.

Stream 4
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain;
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
4
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
4
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max ints
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
3
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max po ints
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
3
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
no fl lain = 0• extensive floc lain = max points)
0-4
0-4
0-2
4
a
�
Entrenchment/ floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
5
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
6
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
I 1
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
fine homogenous = 0• laze diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
5
?y
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
�+
13
Presence of major bank failures
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
5
M
14
Root depth and density on banks
H
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max ints
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
3
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial " =0; act • no evidence = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
5
16
Presence of riffle- pooltripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0, well-developed = max ints
.y
E"'i
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
4
little or no habitat = 0 frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
3
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
d embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 5
0-5
1
no evidence — 0 commo numerous es =max rots
Presence
-
21
of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
4
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish
0— 4
0— 4
0— 4
1
no evidence = 0• common, numerous es = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
4
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
75
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
FEM STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Town of Wake Forest 2. Evaluator's name: Todd St. John
3. Date of evaluation: 03/26/2013 4. Time of evaluation: 10:00 am
5. Name of stream: Stream 5 6. River basin: Neuse
7. Approximate drainage area: 22 8. Stream order: First Order
9. Length of reach evaluated: 40' 10. County: Wake
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
Longitude (ex. - 77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): aPSDopo Shee[DDrtho (Aerial) Photo /GIS ✓ kher GISODther
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Northeast of intersection with Forestville Road and Song Sparrow Drive.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): None
15. Recent weather conditions: Wetter and colder than average
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Partly sunny, 49 degrees
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: 12section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
ELTrout Waters 00utstanding Resource Waters 0 Nutrient 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: 2.5 ac.
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Residential
10 % Forested
22. Bankfull width: 5'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Oflat (0 to 2 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight 00ccasional bends
_% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
70 % Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 5'
Gentle (2 to 4 %) ✓Moderate (4 to 10 %) OSteep (>I 0%)
DFrequent meander Overy sinuous OBraided 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): 60 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 03/26/2013
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.

Stream 5
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
" These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
5
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max po ints
3
Riparian Zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
2
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max rots
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max po ints
a
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
3
e�
no dischar e = 0 springs, seeps, wetlands etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
3
no floodplain = 0• extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
3
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
6
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
3
extensive channeliration = 0• natural meander = max oints
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max ints
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 — 5
(fine, homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
3
W 1 incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max po rots
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
5
(�
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max ints
mod'
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 — 4
0-5
2
F
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throw hout = max rots
En
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
'
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
5
substantial =0; act • no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
2
F
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 — 6
0-6
4
or no habitat = 0 frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy oints
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
3
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
0
no evidence = 0, common, numerous rypes = max po, rots
Presence of amphibians
{y
21
0-4
0 — 4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0• common, numerous s = max points)
d
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
0
H
no evidence = 0- common, numerous brpes = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
60
" These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
FIN STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Town of Wake Forest 2. Evaluator's name: Todd St. John
3. Date of evaluation: 03/26/2013 4. Time of evaluation: 11:30 am
5. Name of stream: Stream 6 6. River basin: Neuse
7. Approximate drainage area: 50 ac. 8. Stream order:, First Order
9. Length of reach evaluated: 75' 10. County. Wake
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. - 77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): [DPSaopo Shee[DXtho (Aerial) Photo /GIS ✓�ther GIS[:]Dther
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
West of intersection with Orange Cosmos Avenue and Marshal Farm Street
14. Proposed channel work (if any): None
15. Recent weather conditions: Wetter and colder than average
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Partly sunny, 49 degrees
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
LiTrout Waters 0outstanding Resource Waters El Nutrient Sensitive Waters IIWater 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:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Residential
% Forested
22. Bankfull width: 8'
24. Channel slope down center of stream OFlat (0 to 2 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight 00ccasional bends
_% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank). 5'
,Gentle (2 to 4 %) DModerate (4 to 10 %) DSteep (>10%)
✓Frequent meander Ovcry sinuous OBraided 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): 65 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 03/26/2013
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.

Stream 6
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
5
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
4
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
5
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max rots
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 — 4
0-4
3
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
3
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0— 4
0— 4
0— 2
4
no floodplain = 0• extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
3
a+
(deeply entrenched = 0 ent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
4
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
fine homogenous = 0 e diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
3
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
4
d
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max ints
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
2
H
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max rots
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
0 — 5
0-4
0 — 5
5
16
Presence of riffle- pooltripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
H
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
5
little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy oints
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
4
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
1
>
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
0
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0 — 4
0-4
0
Q
no evidence = 0• common, numerous s = max points)
G
22
Presence of fish
0— 4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
4
(no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
65
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
FEM STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET �.
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Town of Wake Forest 2. Evaluator's name: Todd St. John
3. Date of evaluation: 03/26/2013 4. Time of evaluation: 2:00 pm
5. Name of stream: Stream 7 6. River basin: Neuse
7. Approximate drainage area: 0.5 sgmi. 8. Stream order:. First Order
9. Length of reach evaluated: 751 10. County: Wake
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. - 77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): [DPSOropo SheeCbrtho (Aerial) Photo /GIS ather GISED3ther
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Due south of Heritage Middle School
14. Proposed channel work (if any): None
15. Recent weather conditions: Wetter and colder than average
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Partly sunny, 49 degrees
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: 12section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
nTrout Waters 00utstanding Resource Waters 0 Nutrient Sensitive Waters nWater 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:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
30 % Forested
22. Bankfull width: 8'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: OFlat (0 to 2 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: „Straight ,,Occasional bends
30 % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
^% Cleared / Logged 40 % Other ( Institutional t
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
Gentle (2 to 4 %) OModerate (4 to 10 %) OSteep (>10%)
✓Frequent meander OVery sinuous OBraided 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:
Evaluator's Signature Date 03/26/2013
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.

Stream 7
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
5
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max Po rots
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
1
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max Po rots
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 - 4
0-4
3
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
4
no floodplain = 0• extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0- 5
0- 4
0- 2
5
p+
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
4
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
1
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max rots
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
4
�.+
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
�-+
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
4
d
severe erosion = 0• no erosioj4 stable banks = max points)
PQ
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
1
H
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max rots
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max rots
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
5
16
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
H
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max joints ints
e�
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
18
little or no habitat = 0 uen varied habitats = max
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
0
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0
no evidence = 0• commo numerous = max points)
Presence of amphibians
0 - 5
0-5
1
21
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
Q
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
D
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
0
no evidence = 0• commo numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
4
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max R2in ts
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
50
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

run=.

r_mn °""°

CCO � :..

�E e
•S•�
Photo 7: Stream 7 looking downstream from inside the project study corridor.
Photo 8: Drainage Feature 1 looking downslope from the sanitary sewer easement.
Based on aerial imagery there is an upslope pond; however, a surface connection was not observed.
There was no observed flow and leaf litter was evident at the time of the investigation.
Title Site Photographs
Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
Prepared For: Project SUP Project No. C -5164
Wake Forest, Wake County
Date KHA Project Number Site Photo Page
WA - Forest
4/10/13 011311028 4
r-mn .

Y i It.J k'
r
Is,
Photo 9: Drainage Feature 2. This area is illustrated on the NRCS Soil Survey as a buffered stream;
however it appears that the feature is a vegetated swale.
Photo 10: Drainage Feature 3. This area is illustrated on the NRCS Soil Survey as a buffered stream;
however, it appears that the feature conveys stormwater only.
Title Site Photographs
Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
Prepared For: Project STIP Project No. C -5164
Wake Forest, Wake County
Date KHA Project Number Site Photo Page
WaLrvwst
-- 4/10/13 011311028 5
[:on=.

ran=.

from Heritage Lake Road.
xth side of the wetland boundary.
ect Number I Site Photo Page
111028

r-Emn�
�... rirrarc

lll;. �—
Photo 17: View of Wetland 5 looking northeast from the access road.
Notice 36" RCP in the background.
M,Y11M
1 s
Photo 18: View of Wetland 6 and 7 looking north from the south side of Sanford Creek.
Title I Site Photographs
Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
Prepared For: Project STIP Project No. C -5164
Wake Forest, Wake County
Date KHA Project Number Site Photo Page
Wa[cel"ionest
4/10/13 011311028 9
ran=.

Appendix C:
Environmental Screening Report

ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT
SMITH AND SANFORD CREEK GREENWAY
AND HERITAGE LAKE ROAD SIDEWALK
TOWN OF WAKE FOREST, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
❑mm❑ =mm
KIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
3001 WESTON PARKWAY
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 27513
[phone]
KHA FILE # 011311028
PREPARED FOR:
THE TOWN OF WAKE FOREST, NORTH CAROLINA
Town of
Wake Forest
JUNE 2013

ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT
V�e �.,.t SMITH AND SANFORD CREEK GREENWAY
.st
Contents
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... ............................... l
H. ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING ................................................................................. ..............................1
Physical Resources, Soils, and Geology ....................................................................... ..............................1
WaterResources ......................................................................................................... ..............................2
Wetlands.................................................................................................................... ............................... 2
BufferRules ................................................................................................................. ..............................3
Floodplains................................................................................................................. ............................... 4
BioticResources .......................................................................................................... ..............................4
Federally - Protected Species ....................................................................................... ..............................4
Permitting.................................................................................................................. ............................... 5
Figures
Figure 1— Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 — USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3 — Wetland and Stream Features
Figure 4 — SSURGO Soils
Figure 5 — FEMA Flood Zone Map
Figure 6 — NRCS Soil Survey Map
Appendix
Appendix A - Site Photographs
Appendix B — Threatened and Endangered Species Database Search Results
i

ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT
VLTake Farest SMITH AND SANFORD CREEK GREENWAY
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Town of Wake Forest, in coordination with the North Carolina Department of Transportation
( NCDOT), proposes the construction of 2.4 miles of greenway trail and 1.25 miles of sidewalk to support
pedestrian and bicycle travel between residential, employment, commercial, and institutional centers by
providing an alternative transportation network connecting all of the development along Heritage Lake
and Rogers Road. The project study corridor is bounded by NC98 Bypass on the north, the railroad on
the west, and Forestville Road on the east (Figure 1). The proposed project will extend the existing 10
foot wide paved Smith Creek Greenway trail south 3,326 linear feet (LF) to the confluence of Smith
Creek and Sanford Creek with connections to Heritage Elementary, Middle and High School.
Additionally, the construction will extend the trail 9,240 LF to the west along Sanford Creek to connect to
a recently completed section of trail adjacent to the Heritage South Subdivision. Sidewalk construction is
necessary along 6,550 LF of Heritage Lake and Rogers Roads to complete the connection to major
portions of Heritage Phase I -IV and Heritage North. This project is included in the current NCDOT State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as Project C -5164 and is funded through the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ).
IL ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING
The following is a preliminary review of the environmental resources that are in or near the project study
corridor. The information obtained for this section is readily available from state and federal agency
databases. A field review by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) staff was conducted on March 21,
2013. Field investigations were undertaken to determine natural resource conditions (Figure 3) and to
document wildlife and the presence of protected species or their habitats.
Physical Resources, Soils, and Geology
The project corridor is located in the piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina. Topography is
moderate within the study corridor and roughly ranges from 210 to 230 feet in elevation (Figure 2;
National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929).
There are eighteen mapped soil units located within the project corridor, as shown in Figure 4. The
following soils occur within the project corridor:
• AfB — Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes, rarely flooded
• ApC2 — Appling sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded
• BuB — Buncombe loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes, frequently flooded
• CmA — Chewacla sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
• DuB — Durham loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes
• DuC — Durham loamy sand, 6 to 10 percent slopes
• LoD — Louisburg loamy sand, 10 to 15 percent slopes
• LwB2 — Louisburg- Wedowee complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes, moderately eroded
• LwC — Louisburg- Wedowee complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes
• MeA — Mantachie sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded
• WmC — Wedowee sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes

Aw ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT
T�bwb of
MUM Rwest SMITH AND SANFORD CREEK GREENWAY
• WmC2 — Wedowee sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded
• WmD2 — Wedowee sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded
• WoA — Wehadkee and Bibb soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
• WwC — Wilkes loam, 2 to 10 percent slopes
• WwE — Wilkes loam, 10 to 20 percent slopes
• WwF — Wilkes loam, 20 to 45 percent slopes
• WxE — Wilkes cobbly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, very stony
Wahadkee and Bibb soils (WoA) are classified as hydric soil by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS). The NRCS classifies Chewacla (CmA) and Altavista (AfB) soils as non -hydric soils
which contain hydric inclusions or components. The NRCS defines a hydric soil as one that is saturated,
flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper
part of the soil. Such soils typically support hydrophytic vegetation and may be considered jurisdictional
wetlands. The hydric soils within the project corridor are associated with Smith and Sanford Creeks
which are located adjacent to and within the project corridor. A detailed discussion of wetlands is
included below.
Water Resources
The project is located in the Neuse River Basin (sub -basin 03- 04 -02) in the US Geological Survey
(USGS) Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201. Smith Creek (Stream 1) and Sanford Creek (Stream 2)
as well as five jurisdictional unnamed tributaries (Streams 3 -7) are located within the project study
corridor and discharge into the Neuse River approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the project study
corridor. Smith and Sanford Creeks as well as the receiving reach of the Neuse River are rated by the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality
(NCDENR -DWQ) as Class "C, NSW" (Stream Indices 27- 23 -(2); 27 -23 -5; and 27- (22.5)a respectively).
"C" refers to waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption,
aquatic life including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture.
Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water
where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. "NSW" refers to a
supplemental classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to being
subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
In accordance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states are required to develop a list of
waterbodies not meeting federal water quality standards or that have impaired uses. Smith Creek is
included on the NCDWQ 2012 Final 303(d) List of Impaired Waters due to Ecological/biological
Integrity Benthos. The project study corridor does not lie within a Water Supply Watershed and there are
no Outstanding Resource Waters or High Quality Waters within the study corridor.
Wetlands
Field investigations by KHA staff identified nine wetland areas within the project corridor as shown on
Figure 3. Four additional wetland areas within the project corridor were identified by others and verified
by the USACE in conjunction with a City of Raleigh sanitary sewer project. The wetlands identified by
others were not re- evaluated as part of this report but are shown on Figure 3.
2

Aw ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT
� Forest SMITH AND SANFORD CREEK GREENWAY
�
Wetland "1" is a non -tidal freshwater marsh wetland type located within a finger of a historically drained
pond (Photo 8). Hydrology is influenced primarily by Stream 4 but likely receives roadside and parking
lot runoff from Heritage Lake Road and the adjacent developments.
Wetlands "2 ", "3 ", and "8" are bottomland hardwood forest wetlands located within the geomorphic
floodplain of Sanford Creek (Photo 9 and 10). Hydrology for Wetland "2" is also influenced by seepage
from the adjacent hillside to the south as well as an upslope pond to the north flowing parallel to
Forestville Road. In addition to geomorphic position, hydrology for Wetlands "3" and "8" are also
influenced by stormwater runoff from the adjacent residential areas to the northeast and southeast
respectively. It is likely that the construction of the sanitary sewer line has also altered the natural
hydrology for these wetland areas.
Wetland "4" is a very small ( -200 sgft) non -tidal freshwater marsh wetland type located within the
floodplain of Sanford Creek. (Photo 11) Herbaceous vegetation dominates the area. Hydrology is
influenced by periodic flooding events as well as shallower microtopographic relief than the surrounding
floodplain area which would indicate that the water table is close to the soil surface.
Wetlands "5," "6," and "7" are non -tidal freshwater marsh wetlands that have been significantly altered
by adjacent developments (Photo 12 and 13). Wetland "5" is located within the floodplains of Smith and
Sanford Creeks; however, hydrology appears to be altered by the construction of Heritage High School
and is now primarily influenced by a stormwater detention basin which outlets via a 36" reinforced
concrete pipe (RCP) to the wetland area. Additionally, the wetland is further altered from the
construction of an access road that is likely used for maintenance of overhead power transmission lines.
The upper area is impounded from the lower area; however, a connection to the downslope wetland area
is established by an 18" RCP that is located beneath the access road. Wetlands "6" and "7" have also
been altered by the construction and maintenance of the overhead power transmission lines. Both
wetlands are located within the floodplain of Sanford Creek; therefore hydrology is influenced by
periodic overbank flooding. Hydrology for both wetlands is also influenced by surface drainage from
adjacent developments.
Wetland "9" is a bottomland hardwood forest wetland located within the geomorphic floodplain of Smith
Creek. In addition to geomorphic position, hydrology for Wetland "9" is also influenced by seepage from
the adjacent hillside to the northwest. Surface water was present throughout much of wetland "9 ", and it
is likely that the construction of the sanitary sewer line has also altered the natural hydrology for this
wetland area.
Buffer Rules
The project corridor is located within the Neuse River Basin and is therefore subject to the Neuse River
Basin Riparian Buffer regulations (15A NCAC 02B .0233). North Carolina surface waters (streams,
ponds, lakes) that are either mapped on the USGS topographic map or NRCS Soil Survey are regulated
by NCDWQ as buffered streams. These rules limit activities within 50 feet from the top of the stream
bank, and include specific activities within the buffer which are exempt, allowable, allowable with
3

ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT
�Waef ke Foist SMITH AND SANFORD CREEK GREENWAY
g,
mitigation, or prohibited. Greenway/Hiking trails are considered `allowable' according to the Neuse
River Basin Riparian Buffer regulations' `Table of Uses.'
The USGS map (Figure 2) shows Smith and Sanford Creeks as well as 6 additional unnamed tributaries
within the project study corridor as buffered streams. Additionally, the NRCS Soil Survey for Wake
County (Figure 6) shows 6 additional unnamed tributaries. A number of the streams illustrated on the
USGS and NRCS Soil Survey map either no longer exist or have been altered due to development (see
Figure 3 for identified streams). A field review of these stream features will be scheduled with NCDWQ
representative Rob Ridings to confirm which features will be regulated under the Neuse River Basin
buffer rules.
Floodplains
The Sanford Creek crossing underneath Forestville Road and the Smith Creek crossing at Rogers Road
are Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulated streams. The Digital Flood Insurance
Rate Map (DFIRM) number 3720184000J, Panel 1840 and 3720174900J, Panel 1749 with an effective
date of May 2, 2006 shows most of the project corridor that is adjacent to Smith and Sanford Creeks is
located within a designated FEMA floodway and within the 100 -year floodplain (Zone AE). Figure 5
shows the FEMA Flood Zone.
Biotic Resources
Based on a review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) database on April 1, 2013,
there are no element occurrences within a half mile search radius of the project study corridor. An
"element occurrence" is defined by the NCNHP as a specific occurrence of an element of natural
diversity. Natural features tracked by the NCNHP include: (1) rare plant and animal species, sub - species,
varieties, and populations; (2) rare and high - quality natural communities; and (3) notable animal
assemblages, such as heronries or shorebird nesting areas.
Federally - Protected Species
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 -1943) mandates that federal agencies ensure that
any actions authorized, funded, or carried out by that agency do not jeopardize the "continued existence"
of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536).
Additionally, North Carolina laws require consideration of rare plants and animals that are endemic to the
state or whose populations are in severe decline. Typically, protected species are only an issue on a
project if federal/state funding is utilized or if a federal/state permit is required, or if federally threatened
or endangered animals are known to occur or discovered within the project area. Because this project will
be provided federal/state funding and may require a federal 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and a state 401 Water Quality certification from NCDWQ for stream/wetland
impacts, the protected species issue is relevant.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists the dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), red -
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) as the only federally
protected (threatened or endangered) species known to occur in Wake County. KHA reviewed the
NCNHP element occurrence database on April 1, 2013 to see if there are any documented protected
species occurrences within the project study corridor or in the vicinity of the corridor. The review of
2

,446 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT
Wake Fort SMITH AND SANFORD CREEK GREENWAY
documented occurrences shows that there are no known federally listed threatened or endangered species
within the study corridor.
Dwarf wedgemussel inhabits creeks and rivers with slow to moderate currents with sand, gravel, or firm
silt bottoms that are well oxygenated. Stream banks are generally stable with abundant vegetation where
root systems hold soils in place. Potentially suitable habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel exists within
Smith and Sanford Creeks and their tributaries; however, stream impacts as a result of the greenway
construction will be avoided through the use of bridges or spans. Therefore, the construction of the
proposed greenway will have `No Effect' on the Dwarf wedgemussel.
In the Piedmont, Michaux's sumac occurs on a wide range of soils and habitats, but it always prefers open
communities where abundant sunlight reaches the ground layer. The plant survives best in areas where
some form of regular but limited disturbance maintains openings (i.e. surface fires, utility rights -of -ways,
roadsides, or on the edges of artificially maintained clearings). None of the interior portions of forested
areas in the study area contained potential habitat, because the stands are too dense (basal areas over 100
f /acre) and have thick litter layers. In addition, none of the trees in the forested areas have charred bark,
suggesting that surface fires have no occurred in many years. Potentially suitable habitat for Michaux's
sumac exists along some forest edges, some roadsides within the project study corridor as well as within
maintained sanitary sewer and power transmission line utility easements. Much of the roadside areas
throughout the corridor are maintained regularly through mowing, and appear to be chemically treated for
weed control. These areas are not likely to support Michaux's sumac. The less - frequently maintained
utility easements and roadside areas, however, do provide potentially suitable habitat for the species.
Given the scale of the study area, and the amount of potentially suitable habitat within the study area,
KHA staff, along with Dr. Richard Braham, of the North Carolina State University College of Natural
Resources Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, conducted pedestrian field surveys on
May 17, 2013 to identify if Michaux's sumac is present within the study corridor. No individuals of
Michaux's sumac were found by KHA staff or by Dr. Braham. Due to the lack of recorded occurrences
and lack of observed individuals in the project study area, it has been determined that the construction of
the proposed greenway project will have `No Effect' on Michaux's sumac.
Red - cockaded woodpecker prefers longleaf pine for nesting, but will utilize other southern pines of
sufficient size and age. Pines at least 60 years of age with a minimum diameter at breast height (dbh) of
10 inches provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. No red - cockaded woodpecker habitat was
observed within the project study corridor and therefore the construction of the greenway will have `No
Effect' on the Red - cockaded woodpecker.
Permitting
The following permits may be required for this project:
• Section 404 (Impacts to "Waters of the United States ") — Impacts to "Waters of the United
States" (including wetlands, streams, and ponds that are hydrologically connected to a navigable
water) come under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE). Discharges of
dredge or fill material into jurisdictional wetlands, streams, or open waters associated with the
construction of the greenway trail and sidewalk project will require a Section 404 permit from the
USACE. The Nationwide Permit 42 (Recreational Facilities) may cover the impacts to the
jurisdictional wetlands /streams within the project corridor. Final determination of permit
applicability lies with the USACE and NCDENR.
E

AA ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT
Wake Rwet SMITH AND SANFORD CREEK GREENWAY
,s...�
• Section 401 General Water Quality Certification — A Section 401 General Water Quality
Certification will be required for any activity that may result in a discharge into "Waters of the
United States" or for which an issuance of a federal permit is required. The issuance of a
required Section 401 certification is a prerequisite to the issuance of a Section 404 permit. If
project impacts exceed the Nationwide Permit impact thresholds, an Individual Section 401
Water Quality Certification will be required.
• NCDENR Erosion Control Permit from the Division of Land Resources
• FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision
6

ly
• � s
°
I III oil
now WrAw
40� •��
l
Legend
Project Study Corridor [] Town of Wake Forest
Neuse NWI 0 Wake County
I — Neuse Streams
Figure 1
Project Vicinity
m^ r Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
Wake Forest STIP Project No. C -5164
��� Wake Forest, Wake County

■b 7
AM
SI
NJ
t ` ..'r •
Ilk
� �• '�► . \ �r �. � + "� �" '�- "ter +'q""y�►�a.' �Y � 4p,
rl
-,,�;

�y
4 ryy�
'e rT
10
Z
ID �.
m (D
(D 2
CQ C/)
CD
w C
3
m (7
O
CL
O
ElC�
N N N
c = c
N N N
a a n
o � o cn
FCD
O CD CD 2L
3
v O-
O =
CD D
N O
O S
? N
CD 0
cl) 3.
3 s
s c)
x
m
m CD
$ m
0
3, y
E�
da
CL
7
X 4 °0' d
N
T T O K
y3.0C1
C
CD -n
C7 C7
CD N "�*(�
c ; :3 -,
<D (D
.< A N W

• AID - Altavista fine sandy loam. 0 to 6 percent slopes, rarely flooded -
• ApC2 - Appling sandy loam. 6 to 10 percent slopes. moderately eroded 0`
• BuB - Buncombe loamy sand. 0 to 5 percent slopes., frequently flooded 1
• CmA - Chewacla sandy loam. 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded ®W C
• DuB - Durham loamy sand, 2 to 6 percem slopes ip
• DuC - Durham loamy sand. 6 to 10 percent slopes
• LoD Louisburg loamy sand. 10 to 15 percent slopes
• LwB2 Louisburg- Wedowee eomple> 2 to 6 percent slopes, moderately eroded
h
• LwC Louisburg- Wedowee complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes "•
• MeA Mantachie sandy 1— 0 to 2 percent slopes. rarely flooded
• WmC Wedowee sandy loam 610 10 percent slopes
• WmC2 Wedowee sandy loam. 6 to 10 percent slopes. moderately eroded
• WmD2 Wedowee sandy loam. 10 to 15 pecent slopes. moderately eroded �T �f 3.E
• WoA Wehadkce and Bibb soils. 0 to 2 pereem slopm frequenth flooded W W E y r = f
• W wC Wilkes loam. 2 to 10 percent slopes L r t f
• WwE- Wilkes loam. 10 to 20 percent slopes 4;. 6
• W wF - Wilkes loam 20 to 45 percent slopes +.
WE Wilkes 46lr loves 15 b25 pnma lM
q'7,
1,
0 400 800
Feet
Legend Figure 4
Q Project Study Corridor ® SSURGO Soils Wetlands Delineated by KHAfor the Smith Creek Greenway Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
r „r Wake County SSURGO Soils D Wetlands Delineated by Others for the Smith Creek Interceptor STIP Project No. C -5164
Wake Forest — Neuse Streams
ta,�6t -4– Wake Forest, Wake County

Figure 5 - FEMA Flood Zone Map
i.ePf@f11f1':nIARRrPRRRt
* Ma)or Cltres
+ Benchmarks
OF IRM Grid
— Rivera and Streams
—• — Transacts (Coastal)
0 County Boundaries
Coastal Barrier Resource Systems
Roads - 100yr Flooding • Ftoodway (AE) 0 3000 Fe et
— NC Highway 100yr Flooding • He* SFE's (AE)
U5 Highway t00yr Flooding • No BFE's (A)
aar_ Interstate Highway ® 100yr Flooding . Velocity Zeno
Political Areas - 5DOyr Flooding (Shaded X)
® Extrsterritonal Jurisdictions - -_ Base Flood Elevation (Syrrl W) North Carolina
= Coastal sounds — Cross sections Floodplain Mapping Program

Legend Figure
�— NRCS Soil Survey
T n f Q Project Study Corridor Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
Wake iCSt STIP Project No. C -5164
nt,a c, Wake Forest, Wake County

Appendix A — Site Photographs

Photo 1: Stream 1 (Smith Creek) looking downstream from Heritage Lake Road.
Photo 2: Stream 2 (Sanford Creek) looking downstream
from the western portion of the project corridor.
Title I Site Photographs
Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
Prepared For: Project STIP Project No. C -5164
Wake Forest, Wake County
Date KHA Project Number Site Photo Page
WakeFo�+esr
4/10/13 011311028 1
con=.

Photo 3: Stream 3 looking downstream from west side of Heritage Lake Road.
Photo 4: Stream 4 looking downstream from Heritage Lake Road.
Title I Site Photographs
Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
F °" Project STIP Project No. C -5164
Wake Forest, Wake County
WakeF Date KHA Project Number Site Photo Page
4/10/13 011311028 2
can=.

can=..

Photo 7: Stream 7 looking downstream from inside the project study corridor.
Photo 8: View of Wetland 1 looking northwest from Heritage Lake Road.
Title I Site Photographs
Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
Prepared For: Project STIP Project No. C -5164
Wake Forest, Wake County
WakeForest Date KHA Project Number Site Photo Page
4/10/13 011311028 4
con:=.

4 �7�
g,
Lei
IA NO

C=❑ .

R
k
Photo 13: View of Wetland 6 and 7 looking north from the south side of Sanford Creek.
Title I Site Photographs
Smith and Sanford Creek Greenway
Parma F °" Project STEP Project No. C -5164
Wake Forest, Wake County
Date KHA Project Number Site Photo Page
WakeI�arest
4/10/13 011311028 7
Con=.

Appendix B — Threatened and Endangered Species Database Search Results

"lulgii rculuglum 3crVICUS r1clu V111CC rage 1 ui
L*sj
Raleigh Ecological Services Field
qu Office
Conserving the Nature of America
Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
Dwarf wedgemussel
Federal Status: Endangered, Listed March 14, 1990
Description: The dwarf wedgemussel is a small bivalve, rarely exceeding 45 mm in length. Clean young shells
are usually greenish -brown with green rays. As the animal ages, the shell color becomes obscured by diatoms or
mineral deposits and appears black or brown. The shell is thin but does thicken somewhat with age, especially
toward the anterior end. The anterior end is rounded while the posterior end is angular forming a point near the
posterio- ventral margin. The ventral margin is only slightly curved. The nacre is bluish- white, appearing whiter in
the thicker anterior end. The most distinctive shell character of the dwarf wedgemussel is the arrangement of the
lateral teeth. There are two lateral teeth in the right valve and one in the left valve. The typical arrangement for
most freshwater mussel species consists of two lateral teeth in the left valve and one in the right valve. The
incurrent and excurrent apertures and their associated papillae are usually white. The foot and other organs are
also white. Maximum age for the dwarf wedgemussel is around twelve years. The species is a bradytictic
breeder, meaning that females become gravid in the early fall and glochidia are released by mid - spring. The
tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum), and mottled sulpin (Cottus bairdi)
have been identified as hosts for the dwarf wedgemussel. An anadromous fish may also serve as a host species
but this has not been documented for the dwarf wedgemussel in the southern portion of its range.
Habitat: The dwarf wedgemussel appears to be a generalist in terms of its preference for stream size, substrate
and flow conditions — it inhabits small streams less than five meters wide to large rivers more than 100 meters
wide; it is found in a variety of substrate types including clay, sand, gravel and pebble, and sometimes in silt
depositional areas near banks; and it usually inhabits hydrologically stable areas, including very shallow water
along streambanks and under root mats, but it has also been found at depths of 25 feet in the Connecticut River.
Dwarf wedgemussels are often patchily distributed in rivers.
Map of Dwarf wedgemussel distribution in North Carolina.
Distribution: Historically, the dwarf wedgemussel was found from the Petitcodiac River in New Brunswick,
Canada to the Neuse River in North Carolina, and was found in 15 major Atlantic slope river systems. It is now
1,4?�+• / /sn�nir faun nn�r /rn�ninll /n�oninn /on �� :rn�•i •vn�nurr�»nnol 1,*.,.1 A /'') /'')Al2

Ri lelgll nuoluglual aervices r1clu V111ce raga z ul L
extinct in Canada, extirpated in the Neuse River, and present in low densities through -out much of its former
range. It is known from 54 locations in 15 major watersheds, with the largest populations in the Connecticut River
watershed. North Carolina supports the greatest number of known sites: Neuse River Basin: Orange County,
Wake County, Johnston County, Wilson County, and Nash County; Tar River Basin: Person County, Granville
County, Vance County, Franklin County, Warren County, Halifax County, and Nash County. Unfortunately, most
of these populations are very small and isolated.
Threats: Impacts including riparian disturbance, pollution, sedimentation, impoundments, artificial flow regimes,
and stream fragmentation disrupt mussel life cycles, prevent host fish migration, block gene flow, and prohibit
recolonization, resulting in reduced recruitment rates, decreased population densities and increased probability
of local extinctions. Toxic effects from industrial, domestic and agricultural pollution are the primary threats to this
mussel's survival. Increased acidity, caused by the mobilization of toxic metals by acid rain, is thought to be one
of the chief causes of the species' extirpation from the Fort River in Massachusetts. One of the largest remaining
populations has declined dramatically in the Ashuelot River, downstream of a golf course. This population
probably has been affected by fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers which have been applied to the
golf course. Agricultural runoff from adjacent corn fields and pastures also is contributing to this population's
decline. Freshwater mussels, including the dwarf wedgemussel, are sensitive to potassium, zinc, copper,
cadmium, and other elements associated with industrial pollution.
Short life spans, low fecundity, high degree of host specificity, limited dispersal ability of its primary host, low
population densities, coupled with the threats facing the species, likely all contribute to the endangered status of
the dwarf wedgemussel.
References:
N.C. Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Guide to Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species of North
Carolina: Dwarf wedgemussel. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. Page 61.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Dwarf wedgemussel Recovery Plan. Hadley, MA. 48 pp.
Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. 2009. Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon). Westborough, MA.
New Hampshire Fish and Game. 2006. New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan: Appendix A: Species Profiles —
Invertebrates. Dwarf Wedgemussel. Concord, NH.
Species Contact:
Sarah McRae, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 919 - 856 -4520V ext. 16
Last Updated: November 1, 2012
�1i++• / /i�mn�r it :rn nrw /rnlni Rt, /nnonion /on �i: rnrf ��ru�nnrr���nnol l,4vr1 A/7/7l11Z

1CUlclg11 rwoluglual aervicus r1clu kidlike rage 1 ul L
Raleigh Ecological Services Field
Office
Conserving the Nature of America
Red - cockaded Woodpekcer (Picoides borealis)
t;
ff
Red - cockaded Woodpecker. Credit Jim Hanula/USFS.
Federal Status: Endangered, Listed October 13, 1970
Description: The red - cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is a small bird measuring about 7 inches in length.
Identifiable by its white cheek patch and black and white barred back, the males have a few red feathers, or
"cockade ". These red feathers usually remain hidden underneath black feathers between the black crown and
white cheek patch unless the male is disturbed or excited. Female RCWs lack the red cockade. Juvenile males
have a red 'patch' in the center of their black crown. This patch disappears during the fall of their first year at
which time their 'red-cockades' appear.
Habitat: Red - cockaded woodpecker habitat includes forests with trees old enough for roosting, generally at least
60 -120 years old, depending on species of pine. The most prominent adaptation of RCWs is their use of living
pines for cavity excavation.
For nesting and roosting habitat, red - cockaded woodpeckers need open stands of pine containing trees 60 years
old and older. RCWs need live, large older pines in which to excavate their cavities. Longleaf pines (Pinus
palustris) are preferred, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable. Dense stands (stands that are
primarily hardwoods, or that have a dense hardwood understory) are avoided. Foraging habitat is provided in
pine and pine hardwood stands 30 years old or older with foraging preference for pine trees 10 inches or larger
in diameter. In good, moderately - stocked, pine habitat, sufficient foraging substrate can be provided on 80 to 125
acres.
Roosting cavities are excavated in living pines, and usually in those which are infected with a fungus known as
red -heart disease. The aggregate of cavity trees is called a cluster and may include 1 to 20 or more cavity trees
on 3 to 60 acres. The average cluster is about 10 acres. Completed cavities that are being actively used have
numerous, small resin wells which exude sap. The birds keep the sap flowing as a cavity defense mechanism
against rat snakes and other tree climbing predators.
Hardwood midstory encroachment results in cluster abandonment; therefore, it is critical that hardwood midstory
be controlled. Prescribed burning is the most efficient and ecologically beneficial method to accomplish
hardwood midstory control.
U++r- /hymxmv,Awo —A n ^1L Aoa AM/71112

Ilil1C1g11 nuologic ll acrVicus r1clu V1111:e
Map of Red - cockaded Woodpecker distribution in North Carolina.
Yilguzo1L
Distribution: RCWs were once considered common throughout the longleaf pine ecosystem, which covered
approximately 90 million acres before European settlement. Historical population estimates are 1 -1.6 million
"groups ", the family unit of RCWs. The birds inhabited the open pine forests of the southeast from New Jersey,
Maryland and Virginia to Florida, west to Texas and north to portions of Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee and
Kentucky. The longleaf pine ecosystem initially disappeared from much of its original range because of early
(1700's) European settlement, widespread commercial timber harvesting and the naval stores /turpentine industry
(1800's). Early to mid -1900 commercial tree farming, urbanization and agriculture contributed to further declines.
Much of the current habitat is also very different in quality from historical pine forests in which RCWs evolved.
Today, many southern pine forests are young and an absence of fire has created a dense pine /hardwood forest.
Threats: The loss of suitable habitat has caused the number of RCWs to decline by approximately 99% since
the time of European settlement. The primary habitat of the RCW, the longleaf pine ecosystem, has been
reduced to 3% of its original expanse. Many RCW populations were stabilized during the 1990's due to
management based on new understanding of RCW biology and population dynamics. However, there are still
populations in decline and small populations throughout the species' current range are still in danger of
extirpation.
References:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery Plan for the Red - cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Second Revision. Atlanta, GA. 316 pp.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Conservation Online System
• Recovery Plan for the Red - cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Second Revision
Bibliography: RCW Bibliography
Species Contact:
John Hammond, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 919 - 856 -4520Q ext. 28
Species profile revised on October 20, 2011.
Last Updated: November 1, 2012
144 "4/«mm,%irn roil nnnLnilnil •irnnil—l— U+ —I A/''f PIA 11

AiUClgll zC010glual aerviucs 1'1clu 111111 e rugs 1 U1'+
Raleigh Ecological Services Field
Office
Conserving the Nature of America
Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Michaux's Sumac. Credit: Susan Miller/USFWS.
Family: Cashew (Anacardiaceae)
Federal Status: Endangered, listed September 28, 1989
Best Search Time: May through October
Description: Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous, densely hairy shrub, with erect stems from 1 - 3 feet (ft) (30.5 —
91 centimeters, cm) in height. The compound leaves contain evenly serrated, oblong to lanceolate, acuminate
leaflets. Most plants are unisexual; however, more recent observations have revealed plants with both male and
female flowers on one plant. The flowers are small, bome in a terminal, erect, dense cluster, and colored
greenish yellow to white. Flowering usually occurs from June to July; while the fruit, a red drupe, is produced
through the months of August to October.
Habitat: Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. Apparently, this
plant survives best in areas where some form of disturbance has provided an open area. Several populations in
North Carolina are on highway rights -of way, roadsides, or on the edges of artificially maintained clearings. Two
other populations are in areas with periodic fires, and two populations exist on sites undergoing natural
succession. One population is situated in a natural opening on the rim of a Carolina bay.
Map of Michaux's Sumac distribution in North Carolina.
Distribution: Michaux's sumac is endemic to the coastal plain and piedmont of Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The largest population known is located at Fort Pickett in Virginia, but the most
populations are located in the North Carolina piedmont and sandhills. Currently, the plant is extant in the
following North Carolina counties: Cumberland, Davie, Durham, Franklin, Hoke, Moore, Nash, Richmond,
Robeson, Scotland and Wake. It is considered historic in the following counties: Johnston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg,
Orange, Union and Wilson.
l,Hr• / /s: n�rtTr Av,o ni,rv,nn 1%+w`! A /'1N(11 Z

IC ieigit rcuiogic i oefvwes riciu. V1111:c
rage L 01 't
Threats: Perhaps the most crucial factor endangering this species is its low reproductive capacity. A low
percentage of the plant's remaining populations have both male and female plants. The plant is also threatened
by fire suppression and habitat destruction due to residential and industrial development. Michaux's sumac
populations have been destroyed by residential and commercial development, conversion of a site to a pine
plantation, the construction of a water tower, highways and herbicides used for power line maintenance.
References:
Buchanan, M.F. and J.T. Finnegan. 2010. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
USFWS (N. Murdock and J. Moore.). 1993. Michaux's Sumac Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. 30 pp.
Bibliography:
• Amoroso, J. 1998a. Michaux's sumac restored at Umstead State Park. The Steward 12(5):7.
• Amoroso, J. 1998b. Michaux's sumac restored at Umstead State Park. The Umstead Coalition Newsletter.
Fall 1998, p. 5.
• Barden, L.S. and J.F. Matthews. 2004. Andre Michaux's sumac - Rhus michauxii Sargent: Why did
Sargent rename it and where did Michaux find it? Castanea 69(2):109 -115.
• Boyer, M. 1996. Final report on Rhus michauxii Monitoring and Management 1992 -1996. Unpublished
report to NC Plant Conservation Program and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 26 pp. + maps.
• Braham, R.R. 1999. Enhancing populations of Michaux's sumac in North Carolina. First annual report.
Unpublished report. 11 pp. + appendices.
• Braham, R. and D. Suiter. 2000. Status and management of encapsulated Michaux's sumac populations
in North Carolina. Unpublished report. 15 pp.
• Braham, R., C. Murray and M. Boyer. 2006. Mitigating impacts to Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii
Sarg): a case study of transplanting an endangered shrub. Castanea 71(4):265 -271.
• Buchanan, M.F. and J.T. Finnegan. 2008. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
• Burke, J.M. and J.L. Hamrick. 2002. Genetic variation and evidence of hybridization in the genus Rhus
(Anacardiaceae). The Journal of Heredity 93(1):37 -41.
• Carolina Country. 2004. Vegetation Management Program - Responsible and Effective. Carolina Country.
36(6):22.
• Coile, N.C. 2000. Notes on Florida's endangered and threatened plants. Bureau of Entomology,
Nematology, and Plant Pathology - Botany Section, No. 38, 4th ed. Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, Gainsville, FL.
• Coile, N.C. and M.A. Garland. 2003. Notes on Florida's endangered and threatened plants. Bureau of
Entomology, Nematology, and Plant Pathology - Botany Contribution, No. 38, 4th ed. Florida Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainsville, FL.
• Cooper, J.E.; Robinson, S.S.; Funderburg, J.B. 1977. Endangered and threatened plants and animals of
North Carolina. Raleigh, NC.: North Carolina State Museum Natural History. 444 pp.
• Cuda, J.P., J.C. Medal, M.D. Virorino and D.H. Habeck. 2005. Supplementary host specificity testing of
the sawfly Heteroper yia hubrichi, a candidate for classical biological control of Brazilian peppertree,
Schinus terebinthifolius, in the USA. BioControl 50:195 -201.
• Deese, J., O. Hutchins, K Kerecman, J. Mason, J. Maples, C. Olekson, S. Savin, T. Snow, K. Sweaney
and L. Bardin. 2001. The reintroduction of Rhus michauxii into Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Conservation Biology Laboratory, University of North Carolina - Charlotte. Unpublished report.
• Emrick, V. 2009. Preliminary Report: Reproductive Status of Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii Sarg.) on
Fort Bragg and Camp Mackall, NC. Unpublished report to Fort Bragg. Peaks to Prairies Ecological
Services.
• Emrick, V. and A. Hill. 1997. Density of Rhus michauxii stems at Fort Pickett Military Reservation, Virginia.
Springfield, VA: US Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratories. p. 16.
• Emrick, V. and A. Hill. 1998. Plant community composition of Rhus michauxii colonies at Fort Pickett
military Reservation, Virginia. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Resarch Lab., USACERL Technical Report.
Champaign, IL. 98/49.27 pp.
• Emrick, V. and J. Jones. 2008. Influence of Competition on the Density of the Federally Endangered
Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxil) at Fort Pickett, Virginia. Southeastern Naturalist 7(1):61 -68.
t�1+r�• //n n�nTr ia:.n `er��s /rn�oi n� /n�nnivo lon min�n�wn mimnn h +ml AMMAI Z

1Cd1C1g11 rwolugleal aurvi us r1cll1 Lmluc
Ydge -1 01'+
• Emrick, V.R., R.J. Proffitt, T. O. Southall, and L.M. Boyette. 1995. The community ecology of Michaux's
sumac (Rhus michauxii Sargent), a globally endangered species occurring at Fort Pickett, Virginia.
Abstract in ASB Bulletin 42(2):123.
• Hardin, J.W. and L.L. Phillips. 1985a. Atlas of foliar surface features in woody plants, VII. Rhus subg.
Rhus (Anacardiaceae) of North America. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 112(1):1 -10.
• Hardin, J.W. and L.L. Phillips. 1985b. Hybridization in Eastern North American Rhus (Anacardiaceae).
ASB Bulletin 32(3):99 -106.
• Henderson, B. 2001. Native plant life from 1700s returned to Mecklenburg. Charlotte Observer November
29, 2001.
• Herring, B. 2006. A status survey for Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) in Alachua County, Florida.
Unpublished report submitted to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of
Administration (FDACS) /Division of Forestry. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, FL.
• Kartesz, J.T. 1999. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the U.S., Canada, and Greenland. In:
Kartesz, J.T. and Meacham, C.A., editors. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Version 1.0. North
Carolina Botanical Garden. Chapel Hill, NC.
• Legrand. H., Jr. 1992. Heritage staff member finds more rare species in the Sandhills Game Land. Natural
Diversity, Summer 1992 pp. 4 -5.
• Murray, C.A., R. Braham and S. Burleson. Undated. Development and implementation of mitigation plans
to off -set impacts to Michaux's sumac from roadway construction in North Carolina. Unpublished report.
NC Department of Transportation and NC State University.
• The Nature Conservancy. 1993. Rare and endangered plant survey and natural area inventory of Fort
Bragg and Camp Mackall military reservations, North Carolina. Sandhills Field Office: Final report by The
Nature Conservancy.
• North Carolina Department of Agriculture. 1997. Endangered native sumac to be reintroduced. NCDA
Press Release, February 21, 1997. Raleigh, NC.
• North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation. 1993. CP &L, Heritage Program enter management
agreement. The Steward 7(4 )4-5.
• Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected Plants of Georgia, An informational manual
on plants designated by the State of Georgia as endangered, threatened, rare or unusual. Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia Natural Heritage Program, Social
Circle, GA.
• Pokorski, B. and V. Emrick. 2007. Current status of the federally endangered Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii). Conservation Management Institute - Military Lands Division College of Natural Resources,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. CMI -MLD- 2007 -R -58.
• Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
• Rees, M.D. 1989. Final Listing Rules approved for 13 Species. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin.
14, 9 -10: 8 -9.
• Sargent, C.S. 1895. New or little -known plants - Rhus michauxii. Garden and Forest 8(398):404 -405.
• Savage, S., M. Bucher, C. Mayes, J. Moore and R. Sutter. 1991. Preliminary results of a demographic and
genetic analysis of Rhus michauxii. Unpublished report. 8 pp.
• Schafale, M. and A. Weakley. 1990. Classification of natural Communities of North Carolina. NC Natural
Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC. 325 pp.
• Sherman - Broyles, S.L., J.P. Gibson, J.L. Hamrick, M.A. Bucher and M.J. Gibson. 1992. Comparisons of
allozyme diversity among rare and widespread Rhus species. Systematic Botany, Vol. 17(4):551 -559.
• Sherfy, Mark H. 1997. Working together for sumac recovery. Endangered Species Bulletin 22(1):20 -21.
• Schiffer, J.E. 1999. The sumac rescue mission. Raleigh News and Observer January 17, 1999.
• Sorrie, B.A., B. VanEerden and M. J. Russo. 1997. Noteworthy Plants from Fort Bragg and Camp Mackall,
North Carolina. Castanea 62(4): 239 -259.
• Thrush, L.E. 2002. Planting Site Determination Techniques for Rhus michauxii. M.S. Thesis. Department
of Forestry, NC State University, Raleigh, NC. 52 pp.
• Townsend, J.F. 2009. Natural Heritage Resources of Virginia: Rare Plants. Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation. Richmond, VA. 66 pp.
• USFWS. 1989. Proposed endangered status for Rhus michauxii ( Michaux's sumac). Federal Register. 54
(4):441 -445. USFWS. 1993. Regional news. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin. 18: 3.
• USFWS. 1989. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of endangered status for
Rhus michauxii ( Michaux's sumac) 54(187):39853- 39857.
• USFWS (N. Murdock and J.Moore.). 1993. Michaux's Sumac Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. 30 pp.
U+M•Hci m, A-0 mi­ 1k+_1 n ►�i ►'il11 Z

tcaicign rwowgium acrviccs riciu vincc
rags '+ ui '+
• Uttall, L.J. 1984. The type localities of the Flora boreali- americana of Andre Michaux. Rhodora 86:1 -65.
• Van Alstine, N.E. and A. Belden, Jr. 2004. An inventory for Rhus michauxii Sarg. ( Michaux's sumac) in the
southern Piedmont of Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report 05 -02. Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA.
• Van Alstine, N.E. and A. Belden, Jr. 1995. Distribution of Rhus michauxii of Fort Pickett, Virginia. Natural
Heritage Technical Report 95 -15. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural
Heritage, Richmond, VA.
• Warren, L.E. 1910. Rhus michauxii — A non - poisonous plant. The American Journal of Pharmacy.
• Weakley, A. 2011. Flora of the Southern and Mid - Atlantic States. Working Draft May 2011. University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
• Willis, M.S. 2008. Status and Soil Requirements of Rhus michauxii in North Carolina. M.S. Thesis.
Department of Forestry, NC State University, Raleigh, NC. 43 pp.
• Yi, T.S., Miller, A.J. and Wen, J. 2004. The phylogeny and biogeographic diversification of Rhus
(Anacradiaceae) in the Northern Hemisphere. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 33(3)861 -879.
• Yi, T.S., Miller, A.J. and Wen, J. 2007. The phylogeny of Rhus (Anacradiaceae) based on sequences of
nuclear NIA -i3 intron and chloroplast tmC -D suggests reticulate evolution. Systematic Botany 32: 379-
391.
For More Information on Michaux's Sumac...
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Conservation Online System
• Michaux's Sumac Recovery Plan
• U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service Plants Database
• Center for Plant Conservation species profile
Species Contact:
Dale Suite r, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 919- 8564520Q ext. 18
Species profile revised on August 25, 2011.
Last Updated: November 1, 2012
1�44w• / %�ntnir fa�rn nn�i /rn�uinh /nr�oninn /on rr�in�n»vn n»mnn �4m1 A MMAI 2