20180374 Ver 1_PCN-Form-SAW-2018-00681_20180618

O�❑F W A rERQG
>r
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ❑ No
1 d.
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
1 e.
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
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern
(AEC)?
❑ Yes ® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
SAW -2018-00681 - UT to Falls Lake Restoration — Marbrey/Jackson Property
2b.
County:
Durham
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Durham
2d.
Subdivision name:
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Jason K. Marbrey and Betty J. Jackson
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
Deed Book/Deed Page: 7762/448 and 2006-E/694
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
N/A
3d.
Street address:
3115 and 3227 Redwood Road
3e.
City, state, zip:
Durham, NC, 27704
3f.
Telephone no..-
o.:3g.
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Durham Soil and Water Conservation District
4b.
Name:
Eddie Culberson
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
Durham Soil and Water Conservation District
4d.
Street address:
721 Foster Street
4e.
City, state, zip:
Durham, NC 27701
4f.
Telephone no.:
[phone]
4g.
Fax no.:
Surface Waters
4h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
5.
Agent/Consultant Information
(if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Joshua White
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
5c.
Street address:
250 Old Wilson Bridge Road, Ste. 250
5d.
City, state, zip:
Worthington, OH 43085
5e.
Telephone no.:
614-540-6633
5f.
Fax no.:
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
0853-03-92-5108 and 0863-03-03-1220
1b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 36.037602 Longitude: -78.797805
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c.
Property size:
53.295 / 46.199 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Falls Lake
proposed project:
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
WS -IV, NSW, CA
2c.
River basin: map is available at
Neuse
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/

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:
Panther Creek, on the Marbrey & Jackson properties, flows downstream along the right side of the floodplain after recently
transitioning from the left side of the floodplain (as it flows onto the Marbrey property). The channel flows approx. 1,000'
before migrating over to the left floodplain near the abandoned railroad. Panther Creek flows for another approx. 1,000' before
migrating back to the right side of the floodplain and running against the toe of slope (with some bedrock present). Panther
Creek has downcut to bedrock in several places, which is —7-8' deep (in most places) from the abandoned floodplain.
Adjacent tributaries have also incised due the downcutting of Panther Creek. Panther Creek is in the process of widening
since it can no longer downcut. Some trees have already fallen in and more trees will continue to fall into the stream channel
causing more erosion until a new floodplain is created at a lower elevation causing a new equilibrium. Schumm's (1984)
channel evolution model; that has been adopted, modified, and used by Dave Rosgen (1998) and Andrew Simon (2006);
suggests that Panther Creek is in a degradation and widening stage. This is where a lot of sediment will continue to erode
from the banks and be transported downstream to Falls Lake. The proposed design intends to keep sediment on site and
provide areas for sediment sinks, while providing stability and habitat.
Stream reaches are experiencing excess vertical and lateral erosion that are creating additional sedimentation into the
nutrient sensitive Falls Lake Reservoir. Current stream channels are disconnected from a floodplain leaving excessive shear
stresses building up and causing additional erosion. Much of the erosion has cut below the tree rooting depth and causing
trees to fall in and cause debris jams, which cause even more erosion and sedimentation that is being delivered to Falls Lake.
One would assume there would more wetlands on such a wide floodplain. However, with the stream's deep incision and lack
of floodplain connection, the potential for recharge and retainage of water is nearly non-existent. The incision has lowered the
groundwater table and therefore not allowing for frequent overbank water storage and allowing for wetlands to populate. The
proposed design provides frequent overbank flooding with a connected floodplain and created vernal pools, which will
promote wetlands with greater groundwater interaction and higher water table.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.403 acres and only impacting 0.242 acres. However, we try to create wetlands as part of this ecosystem restoration stream
project. The project will be connecting the stream to a floodplain where wetlands will be able to develop through creation of
several vernal pools on the floodplain, raising the water table, and having more frequent overbank flows.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
—4,082 of all streams on the property. This project looks to restore only 3,568' and "tie-in" 515' into Panther Creek within
the Marbery-Jackson property. See table on front of planset for existing and proposed lengths.

3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The project started when Mr. Marbrey was implementing agricultural BMPs on his site through an agricultural cost -share
program with Durham Soil and Water Conservation District (DSWCD). He wanted to install new fencing, livestock drinkers,
heavy use pads, and a couple ford crossings across Panther Creek. DSWCD was reviewing the areas of requested cost -
share opportunities and noticed the impairment and incision along Panther Creek. DSWCD asked Mr. Marbrey about
restoring the creek and putting an easement around the project. They stated this would involve acquiring grant funding from
multiple sources. He was onboard. At that point, the project (due to tie-ins upstream and downstream) was proposed to be
shifted slightly to the left of its current alignment in order to create a new floodplain and to be able to tie-in at the downstream
end of his property (at the Jackson property boundary). During a review of the watershed, it was noticed that the adjacent
downstream property (Betty Jackson property) would provide an even greater opportunity to reduce sediment, nutrients, and
shear stresses in the incised channel; and increase habitat, riffle/pool sequence, floodplain connectivity, and flood flow
routing. DSWCD approached Betty Jackson and her son about this Panther Creek improvement project. They understood the
how project would reduce the amount of trees falling into the creek and reduction of additional sediment from being delivered
to the 303d listed nutrient sensitive Falls Lake. The terminus of the proposed project is only two parcels (or —1,200') away
from the ACOE property that surrounds Falls Lake Reservoir.
The purpose of the project is to restore, stabilize, and/or improve highly degraded streams. To provide permanent vegetative
buffers surrounding the stream to protect their integrity in the future through conservation easements. This project is not part
of any mitigation or future development. Both properties are part of an agricultural program with DSWCD.
Additional goals and objectives:
- Improve water quality within the Panther Creek Restoration Project area through reduction of bank erosion, and reductions
in nutrient and sediment loads,
-Create geomorphically stable conditions along Panther Creek through the project area,
- Improve in -stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating deeper pools and areas of
water re -aeration, and reducing bank erosion,
- Stabilize streambanks through installation of in -stream structures and establishing a riparian buffer consisting of native plant
species,
-Provide better flood routing through stream realignment and creation of a new connected floodplain that will reduce erosion
and downstream sedimentation in Falls Lake
- Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through increased substrate and in -stream cover, additional localized woody debris,
and reduced water temperature by increasing stream shading, and restored terrestrial habitat.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
This is a GRANT funded project.
Restoration of approximately 3,568' of a degraded headwater and perennial streams that drain to Falls Lake, a state -
designated nutrient sensitive water. Work to be conducted with track hoes, dozers, track dump trucks, and other equipment
typically used for stream restoration projects.
The proposed design intends to create a new channel and floodplain along the left half of the existing floodplain. The project
will install in -stream structures to provide grade control, in -stream habitat, and stability. A new riparian buffer will be planted.
The Contractor will do a majority of the planting with supplemental plants from a local high school. Students have grown and
will plant approx. 400-500 plants as part of their school's agribusiness.
Doing this project provides a channel with a connected floodplain, increased riffle/pool sequences, increased terrestrial and
aquatic habitat, improved stability, reduced erosion and sedimentation, increased opportunity for wetland development,
increased groundwater interaction, while reducing nutrients from flowing into the nutrient sensitive Falls Lake.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
®Yes [_1 No El Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
®Preliminary El Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company: 3 Oaks Engineering
Name (if known):
Other: Michael Wood, LSS
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Site visit 6/7/18 with Roscoe Sullivan III, ACOE

5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained
for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b.
If yes, explain.

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ® Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
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
T
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
Stream Restoration
WB — Headwater
® Yes ❑ No
® Corps ❑ DWQ
0.176
Forested
W2 ® P ❑ T
Stream Restoration
WD — Headwater
® Yes ❑ No
® Corps ❑ DWQ
0.031
Forested
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
Stream Restoration
WE — Floodplain
ElYes ® No
® Corps ElDWQ
0.035
loo
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
Not Impacted
WA — Headwater
® Yes ❑ No
® Corps ❑ DWQ
0.000
Forested
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
Not Impacted
WC — Headwater
® Yes ❑ No
® Corps ❑ DWQ
0.000
Forested
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
Not Impacted
WF — Headwater
® Yes ❑ No
® Corps ❑ DWQ
0.000
Forested
W7 ❑ P ❑ T
Not Impacted
WG — Headwater
® Yes ❑ No
® Corps ❑ DWQ
0.000
Forested
2g. Total wetland impacts
0.242
2h. Comments: There are a total of 0.403 acres of wetland and only 0.242 acres will be impacted through the habitat
improvement and stream stabilization project.
Many of the forested wetlands are young growth due to the farm previously being logged about 7 years ago.
WA -WG in Column 2c - These letters correspond to the letters designated in the attached PJD report.
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
or Temporary
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
(T)
S1 ® P ❑ T
Stream Restoration
Panther Creek- M1
® PER ❑ INT
® Corps ❑ DWQ
24
1,588
S2 ®P ❑ T
Stream Restoration
Panther Creek —M2
® PER ❑ INT
® Corps ❑ DWQ
28
1,524
S3 ®P ❑ T
Stream Restoration
UT1 (SD)
® PER (192')
® INT (24')
® Corps ❑ DWQ
3
216
Tying into stream
S4 ®P ❑ T
restoration project,
UT2 (SB)
® PER ❑ INT
® Corps ❑ DWQ
6
132
no restoration to
occur
Tying into stream
S5 ®P ❑ T
restoration project,
UT3 (SA)
❑ PER ® INT
® Corps ❑ DWQ
3
264
no restoration to

occur
Tying into stream
S6 ® P ❑ T
restoration project,
UT4 (SC)
❑ PER ® INT
® Corps ❑ DWQ
2
247
no restoration to
occur
Tying into stream
S7 ® P ❑ T
restoration project,
UT5 (SE)
® PER ❑ INT
® Corps ❑ DWQ
3
111
no restoration to
occur
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
4,082
3i. Comments: We are only tying UT2, 3, 4, & 5 into the proposed channel. No restoration work to occur.
Lengths are actual total lengths from the actual stream survey.
In stream name category, the Letters in parenthesis correspond to the PJD stream names.
A table of existing and proposed lengths is located on the front of the planset.
4. Open Water Impacts If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or
any other o Den 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 T
01 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit
required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area
(acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:

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 T
131 ®P ❑ T
Stream
Restoration
Panther Creek— M1
❑ Yes ® No
92,307
61,303
B2 ®P ❑ T
Stream
Restoration
Panther Creek — M2
❑ Yes ® No
87,298
55,062
B3 ® P ❑ T
Stream
Restoration
UT1 (SD)
❑ Yes ® No
13,847
10,497
B4 ® P ❑ T
Stream
UT2 (SB)
❑ Yes ® No
2,910
2,014
Restoration
B5 ® P ❑ T
Stream
UT3 (SA)
❑ Yes ® No
11,817
7,072
Restoration
B6 ®P ❑ T
Stream
UT4 (SC)
❑ Yes ® No
8,498
4,080
Restoration
B7 ®P ❑ T
Stream
UT5 (SE)
❑ Yes ® No
725
1,677
Restoration
6h. Total buffer impacts
217,402
141,705
6i. Comments: Stream restoration and invasive control projects are an allowable practice within the buffer rules. After
construction, the entire buffer area will be replanted in native herbaceous and riparian vegetation.
Many of the forested areas are young growth due to the farm previously being logged about 5 years ago (Summer
2013).
In stream name category, the Letters in parenthesis correspond to the PJD stream names.
These impacts are to existing buffers. However, new riparian buffers will be reestablished. See last sheet of planset
for existing and proposed buffers.

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The existing stream channels are so incised and degraded that a new channel is being designed in order to stabilize and
restore stream function to this section of channel while reducing sediment from entering Falls Lake or ACOE property (only
two parcels downstream or —1,200' away for the terminus of this proposed project). The new channels will have an
opportunity to function with a floodplain again and help with nutrient removal and reduce stresses that are currently contained
in the channel.
There are 0.403 acres of wetland in the Limits of Disturbance. The project has reduced the wetland impacts to 0.242 acres by
avoiding as much wetland area as possible.
Sediment and Erosion control measures will be designed in order to keep sediment onsite and to temporarily stabilize the site.
b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Sediment and Erosion control measures will be used in order to minimize the impact on the stream ecosystem. Such
measures will be rock dams, coir fiber matting, silt fence, wood mat crossings, pump -around, geolifts, and working offline.
Construction of the proposed Panther Creek will be approximately 80% offline construction — meaning the contractor will be
able to construct the new channel and floodplain without affecting the existing channel. They will construct the entire new
channel and ready the new channel for flow before backfilling the current existing channel. The contractor will do their best to
harvest any stream alluvium (gravel, cobble, boulder -sized material) and reuse the materials in the new stream. Also, trees
that can be transplanted will be transplanted in the new floodplain area.
Construction of UT1 — the contractor will be utilizing the lower portion of Panther Creek for the new alignment of UT1. The
lower portion of existing Panther Creek will be backfilled and the new alignment of UT1 will be placed over the old alignment
of the recently backfilled Panther Creek. This reduces and minimizes the amount of tree clearing and grading footprint on the
project.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
❑ Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
❑ Mitigation bank ❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
Page 9 of 13
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
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
4e.
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? If yes, you will have to fill out this entire form — please
contact the State for more information.
❑ 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
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
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).
6h.
Comments: Stream restoration and invasive control projects are an allowable practice within the buffer rules. After
construction, the entire disturbed area will be replanted in native herbaceous and riparian vegetation.
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
® Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ®No
Comments: A diffuse flow plan is not required for stream restoration activity.

C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: A stormwater management plan is not
required for stream restoration activity.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
❑ 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?
❑ 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
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
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)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
® Yes
❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
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.)
Comments: THIS PROJECT IS NOT FOR MITIGATION AND AS PER 15A NCAC
❑ Yes
❑ No
016C.0408, STREAM RESTORATION, BY DEFINITION, IS A MINOR
CONSRTUCTION ACTIVITY AND DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT.
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):
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 grant funded project seeks to reduce sediment and improve habitat and water quality on Panther Creek and
its tributaries. Panther Creek is a direct tributary to Falls Lake.
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.
N/A
Page 12 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?
NC Natural Heritage website (no known species within 2 miles as on 6/15/2018), USFWS as of 6/15/2018
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?
United States Fish and Wildlife and NOAA
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?
North Carolina Office of Archives and History website was searched. A letter was also sent to the SHPO office and have
received a no -impact letter. See attachment.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
® Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: The area is mapped in an AE floodzone. We have completed a no -
rise model and report for the project to ensure there is no impact on adjacent lands. Durham Soil and Water is discussing
project with Durham County.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC Flood Maps Website and Durham GoMaps
G
Joshua White
6/18/18
Applicant/Agent's Signature
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
Date
is provided.)

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO. PLAN NO. _ _ PARCEL ID: 0853-03-92-5108
STREET ADDRESS: 3115 Redwood Road
Durham, NC 27705
Please print: Jason K Marbrey
Property Owner:
Property Owner:
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
Joshua White, PG, PE of Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
(Contractor / Agent) (Name of consulting firm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
2614 Hillandale Road Durham, NC 27705
Telephone:
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
Date: l�
Authorized Signature
Date:

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO.
PLAN NO. PARCEL ID:
STREET ADDRESS: 3227 Redwood Road
Durham, NC 27705
Please print: Betty James Jackson
Property Owner:
Property Owner:
0863-03-03-1220
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
Joshua White, PG, PE of Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
(Contractor / Agent) (Name of consulting firm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
Telephone:
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
Authorized Signatu a Authorized Signature
Date: SA i Date:

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and IIistory
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
September 11, 2017
Joshua White
Civil and Environmental Consultants, Inc.
250 Old Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 250
Worthington, OH 43085
Re: Professional Ecosystem Restoration Services, Tributary to Falls Lake Restoration,
Marbrey/Jackson Properties Project, Durham County, ER 17-1580
Dear Mr. White:
Thank you for your letter of August 18, 2017, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above -referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
CO&M. -&40t6,
tamona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Legend
Project Parcels
Rivers, Streams, & Lakes
Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas
NCDMS Targeted Watersheds
Neuse River Basin
Targeted Watershed
03020201050010
0
Falls Lake
�a
Branch
heek,
"-- ..,/
Falls Lake
Neuse River Basin
Targeted Watershed
03020201050020
—w— , I
DURHAM
SOIL & WATER Figure 1 - Vicinity
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
PIEDMONT Feet Marbrey/Jackson Property
CONSERVATION Durham County, NC
COUNCIL. INC.

•
w
e
Neuse River B,
Targeted Water
03020201050(
0 N
r
°red
Gree*
i
Betty Jackson
� 1
0863-03-03-1220
elo fl�'?
}4 r'
1 �
S.
i
Jason Marbrey ~�
0853-03-92-5108
o
11 `
Legend
Area of Interest _
Stream To Be Restored —3,300' `
Durham Streams
Marbrey/Jackson Parcels , � • � �
Durham Parcels
1
SOIIS
OCc-Cartecay and Chewacla soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
OCh-Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded '
OCrB-Creedmoor sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Ro-Roanoke silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
W -Water /
0
Wn-Wehadkee silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded i
73 WsB-White Store sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
WsC-White Store sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
WsE-White Store sandy loam, 10 to 25 percent slopes
DURHAM
SOIL & WATER
0 300 600 1,200 Figure 4
PIEDMONT Feet Marbrey/Jackson Property
CONSERVATION Durham County, NC
i 4 COUNCIL, INC.

f '
Irir'
IJURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA — SHEET NUMBER 19
'._ rrC 7uti7 U1W FEET r8 Ila
Ir Rr8
�1 •1 �_ � prB
�l` 1 'i` � � - -- �• - _•I+' f �• ; "til
ff
?F W�> y .;r, . 4 •
Ws .".
Romer•;•
N f r i ' t'�5= • pP r �
Cf$ � . � � N � Ir•int ���r ��_ - r ,' h, � • ( � �•. � f
t•t.S��..'' ,:� I � • f _ C - --_ -ter__. ;i.
-r + r. ~'ti. tirl.F •�. t f i M:,
•tir rr '7+r •N_ _ ... 'r `�� � � I n fr, � 7 � 1 �'Y
w5c i K crEl "s^
r• y, l ' �• .Reber snu '� --Y / VIsG .� •:
n
G`R i' GrGr Il r PltriVlivr ti• s Ire -
,T.t; � '�. �f!_'_-'�isrd- _ CrR• .i _Church � .:/� —_ .- - .- �,r� - ._
I

Marbrey-Jackson Project
Panther Creek
Durham County, NC

Channel incision is below rooting depth
and has a bank height ratio of 1.6-2.
r
� v �
F.,�: ... .

"t .. iA Yi • Ir '
`r_,
1 x

Mt
Pt
Jit 1y
..AOpfox.j
Bank full
Ar
rA

Channel incision is below rooting depth
and has a bank height ratio of 1.6-2.
�r
�� F

I
W -m
- t5l

.� y ' .. ti .. , ;, •, "� � ..�' Brio *:� �. .�.I.�' +�•. ;Z - : w
�}T,y jam` Y a iTree fall and debris jam in the channel
40
w.. r
,
— �4. f w y
14
4 40
VA
t
'�sr:�sir .� � •'.� '.,i4 � ..5 :�6 �sR; r �.• 1f.f'�.".s� � ,
�- �_"R. !••'�. __ ,fir' . � ••���3�.' � 1�[ + _
- � - -. � i•. .• � �_� .Ys�' � r � _'��.. +F .11���' •' f '� .¢� irk+ 1 �.,
ti
�'' 7 .. fir.-• " � r .
- L S
l T�

W
May 29, 2018
ATTN: Roscoe Sullivan
919-554-4884. Ext. 25
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Three Oaks Engineering, Inc.
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
[phone]
Subject: Marbrey-Jackson, Durham, NC -- Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Package
Mr. Sullivan,
Three Oaks Engineering (Three Oaks) was retained by Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. to complete
the jurisdictional waters delineations within an 18 -acre study area in Durham County (Appendix A). The
study area is comprised of two parcels (PINs: 0863-03-03-1220, 0853-03-92-5108) and is accessible from
3115 Redwood Road.
The site investigation was conducted on May 4, 2018 to identify any potential jurisdictional features within the
study area. A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) field verification meeting is to be scheduled.
This PJD Package is to be approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and NC Division of Water
Resources (NCDWR). Thirteen potential jurisdictional features, six streams and seven wetlands, were
identified. Please see the following PJD Package. NCDWR Stream Identification forms are included for each
potential stream, and USACE Wetland Determination forms are included for each potential wetland
(Appendix B).
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 919-732-1300 (office) or by
email at [e-mail]. This is a request for concurrence with our assessment.
Please let us know if you have any questions or require additional information. We appreciate your assistance
on this project.
Sincerely,
Michael Wood
Three Oaks Engineering
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
Cc: Stephanie Goss, NCDWR
Three Oaks Engineering threeoaksengineering.com

Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Package
Marbrey-Jackson Project Site
Durham County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
250 Old Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 250
Worthington, OH 43085
Prepared by:
EfAjy��
WS
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
[phone]
May 2018

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Three Oaks Engineering, (Three Oaks) was retained by Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc to
assess potential jurisdictional waters at the Marbrey-Jackson Project Site in Durham County, NC.
The study area is approximately 18 acres and is comprised of two parcels (PINs: 0863-03-03-1220,
0853-03-92-5108). The study area is accessible from 3115 Redwood Road. The purpose of this
investigation was to identify, and map potential jurisdictional waters located within the study area
(Figure 1).
2.0 RESULTS
A potential jurisdictional waters delineation was conducted by Three Oaks staff on May 4, 2018.
Thirteen potential jurisdictional features, six streams and seven wetlands, were identified (Tables 1-
3; Figure 3).
Table 1. Potential iurisdictional streams in the studv area.
Stream Name
Map ID
NCDWQ Index
Number
Best Usage
Classification
Panther Creek
Panther Creek
27-6-(1)
WS -1V; NSW
Unnamed Tributary UT to Panther Creek
SA
27-6-(1)
WS -1V; NSW
UT to Panther Creek
SB
27-6-(1)
WS -IV; NSW
UT to Panther Creek
SC
27-6-(1)
WS -IV; NSW
UT to Panther Creek
SD
27-6-(l)
WS -IV; NSW
UT to Panther Creek
SE
27-6-(l)
WS -IV; NSW
Table 2. Characte
Map ID
Panther Creek
SA
SB
SC
SD -P
SD -I
SE
Total
ristics of potential jurisdictional streams in the study area.
Table 3. Characteristics of potential iurisdictional wetlands in the studv area.
Map ID
NCWAM Wetland TviDe
River Basin
Appears on NRCS Soil
Length (ft.)
I Classification
Buffer
Survey?
3,047
I Perennial
I Subject
Yes
290
Intermittent
Subject
Yes
125
I Perennial
I Subject
Yes
228
I Intermittent
I Not Subject
No
192
I Perennial
I Not Subject
No
26
I Intermittent
I Not Subject
No
111
I Perennial
I Subject
Yes
4,019
Table 3. Characteristics of potential iurisdictional wetlands in the studv area.
Map ID
NCWAM Wetland TviDe
Hydrologic Classification
Acreage
WA
Headwater Forest
Riparian
0.056
WB
Headwater Forest
Riparian
0.188
WC
Headwater Forest
Riparian
0.002
WD
Headwater Forest
Riparian
0.034
WE
Floodplain Pool
Riparian
0.084
WF
Headwater Forest
Riparian
0.017
WG
Headwater Forest
Riparian
0.022
Total
0.403
Marbrey-Jackson Project Site May 2018
PJD Package Page 1

Appendix A
Figures

IN�r Prepared For: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
o Civil & Environmental Marbrey-Jackson Mitigation Site
Consultants, Inc.
4%, Vicinity Map
Durham County, North Carolina
Date:
May 2018
Scale:() 75 150 Feet
L----L--j
Job No.:
18-614
Drawn By:
Checked By:
ETM
MGW
Figure
1

i►
WG
WA
v 11'z et
rec
Gte
oti
Qa
WF
WD WF
WE ca
y
Study Area
Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands
Potential Jurisdictional Streams
Perennial Stream
Intermittent Stream
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, National Elevation Dataset, Geographic Names
Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures
Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; U.S. Census Bureau - TIGER/Line; HERE Road Data
Prepared For: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
Civil & Environmental Marbrey-Jackson Mitigation Site
Consultants, Inc. USGS 7.5 Minute
0
Topographic Quadrangle Map
Durham County, North Carolina
Dete:
May 2018
Scale: 0 75 150 Feet
I I IL I
Job No.:
18-614
Drawn By
Checked By:
ETM
I MGW
Figure
2

Prepared For: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
Civil & Environmental Marbrey-Jackson Mitigation Site
Consultants, Inc.
0
Jurisdictional Features Map
Durham County, North Carolina
Date:
May 2018
Scale: 0 75 150 Feet
Job No.:
18-614
Drawn By:
Checked By:
ETM
I MGW
Figure
3

Appendix B
NCDWR Stream Identification Forms
Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Determination Data Forms

/r.
NC DWQ Streani Identification Forin Version 4.11
E k Date: r— 9— , Project)Site: /V"e Latitude:
y - ��chSo� �, py l
Evaluator: � N1�r Lk/ County: �,M Longitude:—%767f�DZ
Total Points: Stream Deter tion circle one) other
5lr 19 is at less[ l it
30, �d" L�phemeral Intermittent Perennial e. Quad Name:
if z i9 or ererrruef rf z 3A" 9
8. Hydrology (subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
(D
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0)
2
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
a
0.5
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = p
C. Biolociv (Subtotal=
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3
20- Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
21. Aquatic M0Itu9ks
22. Fish 0
23 Crayfish
24. Amphibians
25 Algae 0
26- Wetland plants in streambed
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: 4rnh
Sketch: S
UV
1
2 1
1 2
1 2
a.5 1
0.5 1
0-5 1
FACW = 0,75; DBL = 1.5/
es=3
er =
3
3
0
1.5
1.5
0
0
3
3
1-5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Bank Height (ft): 1 Z
8ankfu11 width (ft):Z��
Water depth tin]: 0 —
Cha nnet
substrat -Clay, Silt, and, Gravel, Cobble, Bedrock
Velocity—fast, moderate low
Claritye e r slightly turbid, turbid

NC DWQ Stream Identification florin Version 4.11
Date: 5 -
Projectlsite: P k�r6 _ amc k5?
Latitude. _51p, x-2`47
Evaluator:n0C
County: k]w hc,+ray
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least ini'ermittent-t
Stream Determination (circle a
Other
ila 19 or perennial if a 30' ] 5
Ephemeral Intermitten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor halo Subtotal = 4
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0 0,5
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
d
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
10
25 Algae
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
(0-0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
Notes:
0,5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0.5
1
15
11. Second or greater order channel
Sketch_
No = Des
TT
= 3
Bank Height (ft):
eankfull width (ft):+ I!,
Water depth (in): 7- C 0
Channel substrate - Clay ilt, Sand, ravel, Cobble, Bedrock
Velocity -fast oderate, ow
Clarity clear, g y turbid, turbid
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual T
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 10X )
12. Presence of Basefiow
0 1
2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
D 1
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5 1
4.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
D D.
1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0,5
1 1.5
17, Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
G. Biology (Subtotal=
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2 1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2 1
0
2D. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
D
1 2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
p
1 2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5 1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
D
D 1
1.5
25 Algae
0
.5 1
1.5
28. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0. 75. 0131= 1.5 Other =
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch_
Bank Height (ft):
eankfull width (ft):+ I!,
Water depth (in): 7- C 0
Channel substrate - Clay ilt, Sand, ravel, Cobble, Bedrock
Velocity -fast oderate, ow
Clarity clear, g y turbid, turbid

NC DWQ Stream [dentilication Form Version 4.11
Date: - y _ 1 ProjecuSite: Nbf,
Evaluator: f�lU �/�� j County: DU. �11
Total Points:
Stream is at/aast intermlttenr '
Stream peter a '
ifa 19 or Perennial if a 30'
Sphemerat ntermitt
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = S
Absent
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
D
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri le oaf sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
8. Headcuts
9. Grade control
0
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel
Na = 0
artiricial dArhes are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. H idrology (Subtotal= X15 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0.
AC t 5-) Latitude: 3{v.Q�--! p L1145
Longitude: '?�. ctrl �[
role ane) Other
3erennial e.g. Quad [Name:
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal
18, Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)- 0 1 2
21, Aquatic Mollusks 1 2
22. Fish 05 1
23. Crayfish O's 1
24. Amphibians 0-5 1
25 Algae 0 0.5 1
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; 08L=1-5Other - o
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p. 35 of manual.
iVOteS. ( . v-c4lr m+ 4�i
Sketch: �L
4G
j6
�G
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
11.5
15
3
3
0
1.5
1.5
4
0
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Bank Height (ft); -t
Bankfull width (ftl: I 'Z
Water depth (in): [�
Channel substrate - Cla �-Sand,ravel, Cobble, Bedrock
Velocity - fast, moderate,V�j
Clarity -clear, slightly turbid, turbid /{ice
5C
a
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal
18, Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)- 0 1 2
21, Aquatic Mollusks 1 2
22. Fish 05 1
23. Crayfish O's 1
24. Amphibians 0-5 1
25 Algae 0 0.5 1
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; 08L=1-5Other - o
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p. 35 of manual.
iVOteS. ( . v-c4lr m+ 4�i
Sketch: �L
4G
j6
�G
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
11.5
15
3
3
0
1.5
1.5
4
0
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Bank Height (ft); -t
Bankfull width (ftl: I 'Z
Water depth (in): [�
Channel substrate - Cla �-Sand,ravel, Cobble, Bedrock
Velocity - fast, moderate,V�j
Clarity -clear, slightly turbid, turbid /{ice
5C

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ProjectlSite'
Evaluator: County:
r
Total Points: Stream Determination (circle ortef
Stream is at leastinfarmitfenr 'zl.� e]� Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
if a 19 or perennial if a 30'
A. Geomorphology subtotal = 3,
Absent
Weak
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3. in -channel structure: ex. rule -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
7- Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
8. Headcuts
D
1
9. Grade control
0
0.5
10. Natural valley
0
D.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
a artifieiai ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
$. H drolo Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
D
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
TO -57
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = D
C. Biology (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 1 3
19- Rooted upland plants in streambed 3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ff
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0
22. Fish 0
23. Crayfish {}
24 Amphibians D
25 Algae 0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: r�C
t
Latitude: �j �, 039 o
Longitude-
- M7g70A
Other
a.g. Quad Name:
lerate
2
01
Yes = 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.5
1.5
1
2
1 2
1 2
D5 1
0.5 1
D-5 1
FACW = 0.75; 08L =1.5 her = D
D
D
3
3
1.5
1.5
15
1-5
Bank Height (ft): E -Z
Bankfull width (ft): J-1-
Water
-LWater depth (in). -C)_ 6
Channel substrate Clay, Silt, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Bedrock
Velocity - fast, moderate slew
Clarity clea slightly turbid, turbid
5D_T

5D -P
NC DWO 5trenni [di-nfiliratinn Fnrm Vpreinn e 1 1
Date:
Projec Site:
Latitude:3(i),039V7q
Evaluator: 1 )c,� (f L`
county: Duuri""
Longitude. __7%39743
Total Paints:
Stream is at st intermittent �
if
Stream Determination (circle ane)
Ephemeral Intermittent erennta
p �
Other
e- Quad Name:
2 79 or eranniai if � 3t]'
a N81
3. In -channel structure' ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
9
� � r
A. taeomor Holo Subtotal = I .5 }
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
2
Strong
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
i
1.5
3
3. In -channel structure' ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
%�
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
02
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
n st
1
1 5
10- Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11, Second or greater order channel
a
o = 0
Yes = 3
R _ HvrImInnv (fii ihtntal = Y 'R. r V o 1 „1P lupi
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1 2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
14. Leaf litter
1 2
1 5 1 0,5
3
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.5 1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0, 1
1.5
17, Soil -based evidence of high water table)
., r.--1- - ._ .. . . — —
Nv = 0
es = 3
18, Fibrous roots in streambed
2 1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2 1
4
20- Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1 2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1 2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5 1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5 1
1.5
24 Amphibians
0
0-5 1
1.5
25 Algae
0
0-5 1
1,6
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0-75; DBL = 1.5 her = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p. 35 of manual.
Nates:
Sketch:
i
��,�
Bank Height (ft)l- j
Bankfull width (ft):
Water depth (in): j
Channel substrate -Clay, Silt, Sand Gravel, Cobble, Bedrock
Velocity—f derate slow
Clarity Clear, tightly turbid, turbid

SE
NC DW Q Streant Identification Form Version 4.11
Rate: 57-L - i �
ProjectlSite; f bf2/- rn%i+�+?
Latitude: _%- 05�33L
Evaluator: �, I' rQ L�/
County: NI'ly,/YN
Longitude: r b .�o j+" '5
Total Points:
Stream is at least Wafmittenf
Stream Determination (Cir o
E hemeral Intermittent Perennia
Other
if;! 19 or erennialita 30"
P
a QuadName:
e
I -7e -
A. veom❑ nolo Subtotal = F • ]
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
2
Strong
3
2- Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3- In -channel structure: ex- riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
03
1
(0
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
to
1
(21
3
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7- Recent alluvial deposits
0
Tj
2
3
8, Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1-5
10- Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11, Second or greater order channel
a
No = 0
Yes = 3
01 NI1-1 Ul-ipa plc fill{ I VJU, bMe ulscu ssfo ns In me nuai
B. Hydrology [Subtotal = 9. S
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
0
13. Iron oxidizfng bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
.5
1
1 5
17. 5oA•based evidence of high water table')
05 1
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
L. CSIUI[ w t7ubioial = X
18, Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2 1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2 1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1 2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
CD
1 2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
O 5 1
1.5
24 Amphibians
0
05 1
1 5
25 Algae
0
0.5 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in strearnbed
FACW = 0-75; OSL =1.5 Other =
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: _11�a
Sketch-. rQA Gr r
Bank Height tfti:Z-
5�
Bankfull width
Water depth lint: j_ I Cj
- -
Channel substrate -ay, Sit nd, ravel, Cobble, Bedrock
1n16-tly Ljre�
Velocity-tast,moderat slaw
Clarity Blear, slightly turbid, turbid

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Marbrey-Jackson City/County: Durham Sampling Date: May 4, 2018
Applicant/Owner: Civil & Environmental Consultants State: NC Sampling Point: WA -6
Investigator(s): M. Wood, E. Morgan Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): toe of slope drainageway Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 36.040894 Long: -78.795658 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: WsE - White Store NWI classification: PF01A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Headwater Foreset
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)
x Surface Water (Al)
—True Aquatic Plants (614)
x Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
x High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
x Saturation (A3)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (131)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_Iron Deposits (135)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
x Water -Stained Leaves (139)
—Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
X FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes x
No Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes x
No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes x
No Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
55 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 28 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
1. Saururus cernuus
2. Carex spp
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 25
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
1. Smilax glauca
2. Toxicodendron radicans
3.
4.
5.
10 Yes
40 Yes
50 =Total Cover
20% of total cover:
OBL
10
5 Yes FACU
5 Yes FAC
10 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling Point: WA -6
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 77.8% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 10 x 1 = 10
FACW species 25 x 2 = 50
FAC species 75 x 3 = 225
FACU species 5 x4= 20
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 115 (A) 305 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.65
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0
HDsoiute
uominant
maicatc
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
% Cover
Species?
Status
1.
Liquidambar styraciflua
15
Yes
FAC
2.
Quercus phellos
15
Yes
FAC
3.
Carpinus caroliniana
10
Yes
FAC
4.
5.
6.
7.
40
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20 20% of total cover:
8
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
)
1.
Carpinus caroliniana
20
Yes
FAC
2.
Acer rubrum
10
No
FAC
3.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
25
Yes
FACW
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
55 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 28 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
1. Saururus cernuus
2. Carex spp
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 25
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
1. Smilax glauca
2. Toxicodendron radicans
3.
4.
5.
10 Yes
40 Yes
50 =Total Cover
20% of total cover:
OBL
10
5 Yes FACU
5 Yes FAC
10 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling Point: WA -6
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 77.8% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 10 x 1 = 10
FACW species 25 x 2 = 50
FAC species 75 x 3 = 225
FACU species 5 x4= 20
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 115 (A) 305 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.65
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WA -6
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-2 10YR 3/1 80
10YR 5/6 20 C M
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
2-12 10YR 5/1 60
10YR 5/4 40 C M
Loamy/Clayey Distinct redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) —Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
? Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
? Redox Depressions (F8)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface (S7)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,
147, 148) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Marbrey-Jackson City/County: Durham Sampling Date: May 4, 2018
Applicant/Owner: Civil & Environmental Consultants State: NC Sampling Point: WA -5
Investigator(s): M. Wood, E. Morgan Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 36.040817 Long: -78.795583 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: WsE - White Store NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
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)
_True Aquatic Plants (614)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
—Saturation (A3)
—Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (131)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_Iron Deposits (135)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water -Stained Leaves (139)
—Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WA -5
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Liquidambarstyraciflua
25
Yes
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
2.
Acer rubrum
20
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
3.
Ostrya virginiana
10
No
FACU
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 62.5% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
55
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
28
20% of total cover:
11
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
)
FACW species 5 x 2 = 10
1.
Acer rubrum
30
Yes
FAC
FAC species 95 x 3 = 285
2.
FACU species 55 x4= 220
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 155 (A) 515 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.32
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
30
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
15
20% of total cover:
6
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
Polystichum acrostichoides
25
Yes
FACU
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
Arisaema triphyllum
5
No
FACW
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Galium aparine 15 Yes FACU
4.
Uvularia spp
5
No
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
Hexastylis arifolia
10
No
FAC
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
9.
10.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
60
=Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
30
20% of total cover:
12
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
1.
Smilax glauca
5
Yes
FACU
2.
Toxicodendron radicans
5
Yes
FAC
3.
Vitis rotundifolia
5
Yes
FAC
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
15
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
8
20% of total cover:
3
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WA -5
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-1 10YR 4/3 100 Loamy/Clayey
1-7
10YR 4/4
100
Loamy/Clayey-
7-12
10YR 5/6
90 7.5YR 5/8
10 C M Loamy/Clayey Distinct redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface (S7)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Marbrey-Jackson City/County: Durham Sampling Date: May 4, 2018
Applicant/Owner: Civil & Environmental Consultants State: NC Sampling Point: Wb -1
Investigator(s): M. Wood, E. Morgan Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 36.041281 Long: -78.797151 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Ch - Chewacla and Cc - Chewacla and Cartecay soils NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Headwater Forest
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)
_True Aquatic Plants (614)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
x Drainage Patterns (1310)
x Saturation (A3)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (B16)
x Water Marks (131)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_Iron Deposits (135)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water -Stained Leaves (139)
—Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes x
No x Depth (inches): 10
Wetland Hydrology
Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Surface water was present in other locations of the wetland, but not where the data poiint was taken.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
45 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 23 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x5m
1. Juncus effusus
2. Carex spp
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 30
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1 0x5 )
1. Lonicera japonica
2.
3.
4.
5.
9
50 Yes FACW
10 No
60 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 12
5 Yes FACU
5 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 3 20% of total cover: 1
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
betula nigra
Sampling Point: Wb -1
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 71.4% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 60 x 2 = 120
FAC species 25 x 3 = 75
FACU species 20 x4= 80
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 105 (A) 275 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.62
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0
Hasoiute
uominant
maicatc
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1 0x5 )
% Cover
Species?
Status
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
5
Yes
FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
5
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
3 20% of total cover:
1
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10x5m
)
1. Ostrya virginiana
15
Yes
FACU
2. Carpinus caroliniana
10
Yes
FAC
3. Viburnum dentatum
10
Yes
FAC
4. Betula nigra
10
Yes
FACW
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
45 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 23 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x5m
1. Juncus effusus
2. Carex spp
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 30
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1 0x5 )
1. Lonicera japonica
2.
3.
4.
5.
9
50 Yes FACW
10 No
60 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 12
5 Yes FACU
5 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 3 20% of total cover: 1
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
betula nigra
Sampling Point: Wb -1
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 71.4% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 60 x 2 = 120
FAC species 25 x 3 = 75
FACU species 20 x4= 80
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 105 (A) 275 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.62
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: Wb -1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-7 7.5YR 5/1 70
7.5YR 5/8 30 C M
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
7-12 7.5YR 5/1 60
10YR 5/8 40 C M
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) —Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
? Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
? Redox Depressions (F8)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface (S7)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,
147, 148) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Marbrey-Jackson City/County: Durham Sampling Date: May 4, 2018
Applicant/Owner: Civil & Environmental Consultants State: NC Sampling Point: WB -23
Investigator(s): M. Wood, E. Morgan Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 36.041447 Long: -78.796712 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Cc - Cartecay and Chewacla Soils NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No 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 X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
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)
_True Aquatic Plants (614)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
—Saturation (A3)
—Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (131)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_Iron Deposits (135)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water -Stained Leaves (139)
—Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WB -23
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
betula nigra
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0
HDsoiute
uominant
maicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Ostrya virginiana
10
Yes
FACU
Number of Dominant Species
2.
Betula nigra
5
Yes
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 20.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
15
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
8
20% of total cover:
3
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
)
FACW species 30 x 2 = 60
1.
Rubus spp.
50
Yes
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
Betula nigra
10
No
FACW
FACU species 25 x4= 100
3.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
10
No
FACW
UPL species 5 x 5 = 25
4.
Carya tomentosa
5
No
UPL
Column Totals: 60 (A) 185 (B)
5.
Ostrya virginiana
5
No
FACU
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.08
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
-2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
80
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
40
20% of total cover:
16
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
Rubus spp.
20
Yes
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
Arisaema triphyllum
5
No
FACW
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Solidago canadensis 5 No FACU
4.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
9.
m) tall.
10.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30
=Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
15
20% of total cover:
6
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
1.
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
5
Yes
FACU
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
5
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
3
20% of total cover:
1
Present? Yes No X
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
betula nigra
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WB -23
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-1 7.5Yr 5/3 100 Loamy/Clayey
1-9
10YR 4/4
100
Loamy/Clayey-
9-14
10YR 4/4
85 10YR 5/3
10 D PL/M Loamy/Clayey
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface (S7)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Marbrey-Jackson City/County: Durham Sampling Date: May 4, 2018
Applicant/Owner: Civil & Environmental Consultants State: NC Sampling Point: WC -3
Investigator(s): M. Wood, E. Morgan Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 36.040456 Long: -78.799566 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Ro - Roanoke silt loam NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Headwater Forest
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)
x Surface Water (Al)
_True Aquatic Plants (614)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
x Drainage Patterns (1310)
x Saturation (A3)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (B16)
x Water Marks (131)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_Iron Deposits (135)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water -Stained Leaves (139)
—Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes x
No Depth (inches): 12
Water Table Present? Yes x
No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes x
No Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
35 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 18 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x5m )
1. Saururus cernuus
2. Carex spp
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10x5m )
1. Smilax glauca
2.
3.
4.
5.
7
30 Yes OBL
10 Yes
40 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 8
5 Yes FACU
5 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 3 20% of total cover: 1
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
betula nigra
Sampling Point: WC -3
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 30 x 1 = 30
FACW species 35 x 2 = 70
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
FACU species 5 x4= 20
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 70 (A) 120 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.71
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0
Hasoiute uominant
maicatc
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species?
Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10x5m
)
1. Cornus amomum
25 Yes
FACW
2. Betula nigra
10 Yes
FACW
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
35 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 18 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x5m )
1. Saururus cernuus
2. Carex spp
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10x5m )
1. Smilax glauca
2.
3.
4.
5.
7
30 Yes OBL
10 Yes
40 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 8
5 Yes FACU
5 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 3 20% of total cover: 1
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
betula nigra
Sampling Point: WC -3
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 30 x 1 = 30
FACW species 35 x 2 = 70
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
FACU species 5 x4= 20
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 70 (A) 120 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.71
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WC -3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-12 10YR 4/2 70
7.5YR 5/4 30 C M Loamy/Clayey Distinct redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
? Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
? Redox Depressions (F8)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface (S7)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Marbrey-Jackson City/County: Durham Sampling Date: May 4, 2018
Applicant/Owner: Civil & Environmental Consultants State: NC Sampling Point: WD -2
Investigator(s): M. Wood, E. Morgan Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 36.039834 Long: -78.800501 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Ro - Roanoke silt loam NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Headwater Forest
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)
_True Aquatic Plants (614)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
x Drainage Patterns (1310)
—Saturation (A3)
—Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (131)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
x Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water -Stained Leaves (139)
—Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
25 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 13 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
1. Juncus effusus
2. Scirpus cyperinus
3. Rubus spp
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 35
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5
30 Yes FACW
30 Yes FACW
10 No
70 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 14
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
betula nigra
Sampling Point: WD -2
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 60 x 2 = 120
FAC species 10 x 3 = 30
FACU species 15 x4= 60
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 85 (A) 210 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.47
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0
HDsoiute
uominant
maicatc
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
% Cover
Species?
Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
)
1. Acer rubrum
10
Yes
FAC
2. Liriodendron tulipifera
10
Yes
FACU
3. Prunus serotina
5
Yes
FACU
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
25 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 13 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
1. Juncus effusus
2. Scirpus cyperinus
3. Rubus spp
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 35
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5
30 Yes FACW
30 Yes FACW
10 No
70 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 14
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
betula nigra
Sampling Point: WD -2
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 60 x 2 = 120
FAC species 10 x 3 = 30
FACU species 15 x4= 60
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 85 (A) 210 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.47
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WD -2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox
Features
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist)
%
Type'
Loc2
Texture
Remarks
0-3
10YR 3/1
75
10YR 4/3
25
C
M
Loamy/Clayey
Distinct redox concentrations
3-7
10YR 5/2
75
10YR 4/4
20
C
M
Loamy/Clayey
Distinct redox concentrations
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
10YR 4/6
5
C
M
unless disturbed or problematic.
Prominent redox concentrations
7-13
10YR 5/1
75
10YR 4/4
20
C
M
Loamy/Clayey
Distinct redox concentrations
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
10YR 4/6
5
C
M
Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
`Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
? Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
—Hydrogen
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
? Redox Depressions (F8)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface (S7)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Marbrey-Jackson City/County: Durham Sampling Date: May 4, 2018
Applicant/Owner: Civil & Environmental Consultants State: NC Sampling Point: WE -1
Investigator(s): M. Wood, E. Morgan Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 36.039457 Long: -78.800241 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Ch - Chewacla NWI classification: PF01A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Floodplain Pool
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)
x Surface Water (Al)
_True Aquatic Plants (614)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
x High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
x Saturation (A3)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (131)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
x Geomorphic Position (D2)
x Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water -Stained Leaves (139)
—Microtopographic Relief (D4)
x Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes x
No Depth (inches): 12
Water Table Present? Yes x
No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes x
No Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Water depth ranges from 0 on the fringe up to 12 inches in the deepeest spots.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WE -1
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
10x10m )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1
Number of Dominant Species
2.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species 20 x 1 = 20
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
(Plot size: 10x10m
)
FACW species 40 x 2 = 80
1.
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
FACU species 0 x4= 0
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 60 (A) 100 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.67
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
X 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
15x5m )
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. Juncus effusus
25 Yes
FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2. Saururus cernuus
20 Yes
OBL
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Onoc/ea sensibilis 15 Yes FACW
4. Carex spp
15 Yes
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
9.
10.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
75 =Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
38 20% of total cover:
15
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
betula nigra
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WE -1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-2 10YR 3/1 75
10YR 4/3 25 C M
Loamy/Clayey Distinct redox concentrations
2-12 10YR 5/2 65
10YR 4/4 35 C M
Loamy/Clayey Distinct redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) —Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
? Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
? Redox Depressions (F8)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface (S7)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,
147, 148) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Marbrey-Jackson City/County: Durham Sampling Date: May 4, 2018
Applicant/Owner: Civil & Environmental Consultants State: NC Sampling Point: WD -1b
Investigator(s): M. Wood, E. Morgan Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 2-3
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 36.039523 Long: -78.800599 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Ro - Roanoke silt loam NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No 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 X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
WDUpland form is also being used for the upland form for WC and WE as it is representative of the uplands surrounding WC and WE
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)
_True Aquatic Plants (614)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
—Saturation (A3)
—Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (131)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_Iron Deposits (135)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water -Stained Leaves (139)
—Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
75 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 38 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
1. Rubus spp.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
1. Smilax glauca
2.
3.
4.
5.
40 Yes
15
40 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 8
5 Yes FACU
5 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 3 20% of total cover: 1
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
betula nigra
Sampling Point: WD -1b
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 45 x 3 = 135
FACU species 5 x4= 20
UPL species 30 x 5 = 150
Column Totals: 80 (A) 305 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.81
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
-2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0
HDsoiute
uominant
maicatc
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
% Cover
Species?
Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
)
1. Pinus taeda
30
Yes
FAC
2. Pinus virginiana
30
Yes
UPL
3. Liquidambar styraciflua
15
Yes
FAC
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
75 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 38 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
1. Rubus spp.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
1. Smilax glauca
2.
3.
4.
5.
40 Yes
15
40 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 8
5 Yes FACU
5 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 3 20% of total cover: 1
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
betula nigra
Sampling Point: WD -1b
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 45 x 3 = 135
FACU species 5 x4= 20
UPL species 30 x 5 = 150
Column Totals: 80 (A) 305 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.81
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
-2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WD -1b
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 4/3 100 Loamy/Clayey-
3-12 10YR 5/6 80 10YR 6/2 20 C PL Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
? Redox Depressions (F8)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface (S7)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Marbrey-Jackson City/County: Durham Sampling Date: May 4, 2018
Applicant/Owner: Civil & Environmental Consultants State: NC Sampling Point: WF -3
Investigator(s): M. Wood, E. Morgan Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 36.039958 Long: -78.798112 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Ch - Chewacla NWI classification: PF01A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Headwater Forest
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)
_True Aquatic Plants (614)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
x Drainage Patterns (1310)
x Saturation (A3)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (131)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
x Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
x Water -Stained Leaves (139)
—Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes x
No Depth (inches): 4
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
55 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 28 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
1. Juncus effusus
2. Typha latifolia
3. Onoc/ea sensibilis
4. Carex spp
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 45
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
35
Yes FACW
Hasoiute
uominant
maicatc
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
% Cover
Species?
Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
)
1.
Liquidambar styraciflua
10
Yes
FAC
2.
Salix nigra
15
Yes
OBL
3.
Liriodendron tulipifera
10
Yes
FACU
4.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
10
Yes
FACW
5.
Pinus taeda
5
No
FAC
6.
Rubus spp.
5
No
7.
8.
9.
55 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 28 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
1. Juncus effusus
2. Typha latifolia
3. Onoc/ea sensibilis
4. Carex spp
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 45
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
35
Yes FACW
30
Yes OBL
15
No FACW
10
No
90 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 18
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
betula nigra
Sampling Point: WF -3
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 83.3% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 45 x 1 = 45
FACW species 60 x 2 = 120
FAC species 15 x 3 = 45
FACU species 10 x4= 40
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 130 (A) 250 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.92
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WF -3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 3/3 75
10YR 4/3 25 C M
Loamy/Clayey Faint redox concentrations
3-12 10YR 5/2 75
10YR 4/6 20 C M
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) —Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
? Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
? Redox Depressions (F8)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface (S7)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,
147, 148) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Marbrey-Jackson City/County: Durham Sampling Date: May 4, 2018
Applicant/Owner: Civil & Environmental Consultants State: NC Sampling Point: WF -2
Investigator(s): M. Wood, E. Morgan Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 2-4
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 36.039644 Long: -78.797625 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Ch - Chewacla NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No 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 X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
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)
_True Aquatic Plants (614)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
—Saturation (A3)
—Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (131)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_Iron Deposits (135)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water -Stained Leaves (139)
—Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
80 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 40 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
1. Ligustrum sinense
2. Lonicera japonica
3. Rubus spp
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 18
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
1. Vitis rotundifolia
2.
3.
4.
5.
16
20 Yes FACU
10 Yes FACU
5 No
35 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 7
5 Yes FAC
5 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 3 20% of total cover: 1
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
betula nigra
Sampling Point: WF -2
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 42.9% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
FAC species 40 x 3 = 120
FACU species 65 x4= 260
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 115 (A) 400 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.48
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
-2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0
HDsoiute
uominant
maicatc
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
% Cover
Species?
Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
)
1.
Acer rubrum
20
Yes
FAC
2.
Ligustrum sinense
20
Yes
FACU
3.
Liriodendron tulipifera
15
Yes
FACU
4.
Liquidambar styraclflua
15
Yes
FAC
5.
Betula nigra
10
No
FACW
6.
7.
8.
9.
80 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 40 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
1. Ligustrum sinense
2. Lonicera japonica
3. Rubus spp
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 18
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
1. Vitis rotundifolia
2.
3.
4.
5.
16
20 Yes FACU
10 Yes FACU
5 No
35 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 7
5 Yes FAC
5 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 3 20% of total cover: 1
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
betula nigra
Sampling Point: WF -2
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 42.9% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
FAC species 40 x 3 = 120
FACU species 65 x4= 260
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 115 (A) 400 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.48
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
-2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WF -2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
_ Histosol (Al)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-4
10YR 4/3
100
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy/Clayey-
4-8
10YR 7/3
80
7.5YR 4/6 20 C M
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
8-14
10YR 7/6
80
10YR 6/4 30 C M
Loamy/Clayey Distinct redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
`Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
? Redox Depressions (F8)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface (S7)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Marbrey-Jackson City/County: Durham Sampling Date: May 4, 2018
Applicant/Owner: Civil & Environmental Consultants State: NC Sampling Point: WG -1
Investigator(s): M. Wood, E. Morgan Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 36.038275 Long: -78.801581 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Ch - Chewacla NWI classification: PF01A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Headwater Forest
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)
_True Aquatic Plants (614)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
x Drainage Patterns (1310)
x Saturation (A3)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (131)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
x Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
x Water -Stained Leaves (139)
—Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes x
No Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
90 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 45 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
1. Saururus cernuus
2. Impatiens capensis
3. Onoc/ea sensibilis
4. Arisaema triphyllum
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 30
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
18
20
Yes
Hasoiute
uominant
maicatc
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
% Cover
Species?
Status
1.
Acernegundo
15
Yes
FAC
2.
Liquidambar styraciflua
10
Yes
FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
25
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
13 20% of total cover:
5
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
)
1.
Ostrya virginiana
15
No
FACU
2.
Acernegundo
25
Yes
FAC
3.
Aesculus glabra
10
No
FACU
4.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
25
Yes
FACW
5.
Ligustrum sinense
15
No
FACU
6.
7.
8.
9.
90 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 45 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
1. Saururus cernuus
2. Impatiens capensis
3. Onoc/ea sensibilis
4. Arisaema triphyllum
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 30
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
18
20
Yes
OBL
10
No
FACW
15
Yes
FACW
15
Yes
FACW
60 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 12
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
betula nigra
Sampling Point: WG -1
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 20 x 1 = 20
FACW species 65 x 2 = 130
FAC species 50 x 3 = 150
FACU species 40 x4= 160
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 175 (A) 460 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.63
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WG -1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
_ Histosol (Al)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-2
10YR 2/2
100
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy/Clayey-
2-8
10YR 4/2
80
7.5YR 4/6 20 C M
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
8-12
10YR 4/2
70
10YR 4/4 30 C M
Loamy/Clayey Distinct redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
`Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
? Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
? Redox Depressions (F8)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface (S7)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Marbrey-Jackson City/County: Durham Sampling Date: May 4, 2018
Applicant/Owner: Civil & Environmental Consultants State: NC Sampling Point: WG -2
Investigator(s): M. Wood, E. Morgan Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 1-3
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 36.038232 Long: -78.801213 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Ch - Chewacla NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No 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 X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
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)
_True Aquatic Plants (614)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
—Saturation (A3)
—Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (131)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_Iron Deposits (135)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water -Stained Leaves (139)
—Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
85 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 43 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
1. Ligustrum sinense
2. Rubus spp
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 15
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
1. Vitis rotundifolia
2.
3.
4.
5.
17
20 Yes FACU
10 Yes
30 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 6
5 Yes FAC
5 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 3 20% of total cover: 1
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
betula nigra
Sampling Point: WG -2
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 10 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 45 x 3 = 135
FACU species 90 x4= 360
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 135 (A) 495 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.67
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
-2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0
Hasoiute
uominant
maicatc
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
% Cover
Species?
Status
1.
Acernegundo
15
Yes
FAC
2.
Liquidambar styraciflua
10
Yes
FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
25
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
13 20% of total cover:
5
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
)
1.
Ostrya virginiana
20
Yes
FACU
2.
Ligustrum sinense
20
Yes
FACU
3.
Aesculus glabra
15
Yes
FACU
4.
Liquidambar styraclflua
15
Yes
FAC
5.
Liriodendron tulipifera
15
Yes
FACU
6.
7.
8.
9.
85 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 43 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m
1. Ligustrum sinense
2. Rubus spp
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 15
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10x10m )
1. Vitis rotundifolia
2.
3.
4.
5.
17
20 Yes FACU
10 Yes
30 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 6
5 Yes FAC
5 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 3 20% of total cover: 1
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
betula nigra
Sampling Point: WG -2
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 10 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 45 x 3 = 135
FACU species 90 x4= 360
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 135 (A) 495 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.67
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
-2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WG -2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
_ Histosol (Al)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-2
10YR 4/3
100
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy/Clayey-
2-6
10YR 4/3
80
7.5YR 4/6 20 C M
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
6-12
10YR 6/6
70
10YR 4/4 30 C M
Loamy/Clayey Distinct redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
`Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
? Redox Depressions (F8)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface (S7)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

Appendix C
Agent Authorization Form
JD Request Form
PJD Form

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO. PLAN NO. _ _ PARCEL ID: 0853-03-92-5108
STREET ADDRESS: 3115 Redwood Road
Durham, NC 27705
Please print: Jason K Marbrey
Property Owner:
Property Owner:
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
Joshua White, PG, PE of Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
(Contractor / Agent) (Name of consulting firm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
2614 Hillandale Road Durham, NC 27705
Telephone: 4 f I ` 73o 755'
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
Date: . � l�
Authorized Signature
Date:

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO. PLAN NO. PARCEL ID: 0853-03-03-1220
STREET ADDRESS:
3227 Redwood Road
Durham, NC 27705
Please print: Betty James Jackson
Property Owner:
Property Owner:
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
Joshua White, PG, PE of Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
(Contractor J Agent) (Name of consulting firm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and spedal conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
Telephone:
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
� Cts
Authorized SSignatu a Authorized Signature
Date: `] Date:

urisdictional Determination Reauest
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington district
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http://www.saw.usace.ar ny.mil/Missions/ReizulatoryPermitProgram/Contact/ConpVLocator.aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.
ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICES
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
INSTRUCTIONS:
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
General Number: 910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D — PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Version: May 2017 Page 1

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: 3115 Redwood Road
City, State:
Durham, NC
County: Durham County
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): 0863-03-03-1220 0853-03-92-5108
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name: Josh White
Mailing Address: 250 Old Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 250
Worthington, OH 43058
Telephone Number: 919-819-1996
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
Select one:
❑ I am the current property owner.
❑ I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant'
Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: Jason Marbrey / Betty Jackson
Mailing Address: 3115 Redwood / 3227 Redwood Road
Durham, NC 27704
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address:
1 Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Version: May 2017 Page 2

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION'A
By signing below, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-
site investigations, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
Josh White
Print Name
Capacity: ❑ Owner R1
❑✓ Authorized Agents
-
Date
Sign
E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST: (Check as many as applicable)
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources under Corps authority.
❑✓ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting
4�1-ocess.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my pen -nit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
H
A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
❑ I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
Other: For future permitting of an aquatic water quality, habitat creation, and
sediment reduction project.
For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
5 Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
Version: May 2017 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
❑✓ I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminarX JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United States"on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional "waters of
the United States". PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
"preliminary" in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United
States" are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other "affected
party" (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).
❑ I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G. ALL REQUESTS
❑ Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.
❑ Size of Property or Review Area 18 acres.
❑ The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
Version: May 2017 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude:
Longitude
36.040226
-78.799179
0 A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than 11x17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
■ North Arrow
■ Graphical Scale
■ Boundary of Review Area
■ Date
■ Location of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
■ Jurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
■ Jurisdictional non -wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non -Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
■ Isolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non -
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non -Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non jurisdictional (i.e.
"Isolated", "No Significant Nexus", or "Upland Feature"). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
■ Wetland and non -wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non -wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
✓❑ Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled "Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations" to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards. http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Re ug latory-Permit-
Pro gram/Jurisdiction/
Version: May 2017 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
✓❑ Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
• PJDs, please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form' and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
• AJDs, please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form'
✓1 Vicinity Map
Aerial Photograph
lv USGS Topographic Map
Soil Survey Map
F] Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
Landscape Photos (if taken)
NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
❑✓ NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
❑ Other Assessment Forms
' www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/relzulatorregdocs/JD/RGL 08-02 App A Prelim_ JD_ Form_fillable.pdf
' Please see http://www.saw.usace.ariny.mil/Missions/Re ug latoiy-Permit-Proaram/Jurisdiction/
Principal Purpose: The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine
whether there are any aquatic resources within the project area subject to federal jurisdiction under the regulatory
authorities referenced above.
Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local
government agencies, and the public, and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by federal
law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public on the District's website
and on the Headquarters USAGE website.
Disclosure: Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the
request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be issued.
Version: May 2017 Page 6

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 5/29/2018
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Josh White
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Durham City: Durham
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.: 36.040226 Long.: -78.799179
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17
Name of nearest waterbody: Panther Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non -wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource "may be"
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
See
Attached
List

Aquatic resources in the review area which "may be" subiect to regulatory jurisdiction.
Site Number
Latitude
Longitude
Estimated amount of
aquatic resource in
review area (If & ac)
Type of
aquatic
resource
Geographic
authority to which
the aquatic resource
"ma be" subject
Panther Creek
36.038522
-78.801886
3,047 linear feet
Non -wetland
Section 404
SA
36.041555
-78.796908
290 linear feet
Non -wetland
Section 404
SB
36.040747
-78.799031
125 linear feet
Non -wetland
Section 404
SC
36.040448
-78.799559
228 linear feet
Non -wetland
Section 404
SD -P
36.039674
-78.797983
192 linear feet
Non -wetland
Section 404
SD -I
36.039604
-78.797998
26 linear feet
Non -wetland
Section 404
SE
36.038332
-78.801558
111 linear feet
Non -wetland
Section 404
WA
36.040894
-78.795658
0.056 acres
Wetland
Section 404
WB
36.041281
-78.797151
0.188 acres
Wetland
Section 404
WC
36.040456
-78.799566
0.002 acres
Wetland
Section 404
WD
36.039834
-78.800501
0.034 acres
Wetland
Section 404
WE
36.039457
-78.800241
0.083 acres
Wetland
Section 404
WF
36.039958
-78.798112
0.017 acres
Wetland
Section 404
WG
36.038275
-78.801581
0.022 acres
Wetland
Section 404

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

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:
❑■ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ 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.
F U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24,000 Northeast Durham
0 Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey, Citation: 197- soil Survey of Durham County, NC
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
1
State/local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is:
❑ Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
.(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
❑ Previous determination (s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member
completing PJD
�r�and date of
person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.