US 33 (4)

r
a STA F u
3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
P/16 ?
AFC ?? @? ?
).51?? ?IG?U?tIiY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION X47"4111 1/0?
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
December 5, 2006
MEMO TO: Merger Team Members
FROM: Wayne Jacas, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Widening of NC 33 from US 64 Southeast of Tarboro to US 264 in
Greenville, Edgecombe/Pitt Counties, Federal Aid No.
MASTP-33 (3), WBS No. 34539.1.1, TIP Project No. R-3407
A Concurrence Meeting was held on August 24, 2006 in the Boardroom of the
Transportation Building in Raleigh. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss
and reach concurrence on Point 2. Attached for your record is a copy of the
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Merger Agreement.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 919-733-7844 x252 or
wjacas @dot.state.nc.us.
Attachments
Cc: William Wescott, USACE
Wayne Jacas, PDEA
Ron Lucas, FHWA
Chris Militsher, USEPA
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Ron Sechler, NMFS
Sean McKenna, DMF
Rob Ridings, DWQ
Brian Wrenn, DWQ
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Sarah McBride, SHPO
Gene Foxworth, Mid-East RPO
Chris Lukasina, Upper Coastal Plain RPO
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1543 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWI,'V.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Merger Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2 Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward (DSA)
Project Title: Widening of NC 33 from US 64 Southeast of Tarboro to US 264 in
Greenville, Edgecombe and Pitt Counties, TIP Project No. R-3407, WBS No. 34539.1.1,
Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-33 (3)
Alternatives to be carried forward: The environmental document will evaluate the
proposed alternatives as described in meeting information provided by NCDOT and
agreed to by the project team at its meeting held on August 24, 2006. The Merger team
agreed to a four-lane median divided facility with partial access control for the following
alternatives.
Alternative Comments
Section l
Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment
S mmetrical Alignment
Best Fit Alignment
Section 2
Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment
Symmetrical Alignment
ve" Best Fit Alignment
Section 3
Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment
Symmetrical Alignment
Best Fit Alignment
Section 4
Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment
Symmetrical Alignment
Avoidance Alignment
Best Fit Alignment
Section 5
Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment
Symmetrical Alignment
Y Best Fit Alignment
Section 6
Symmetrical Alignment
Best Fit Alignment With options
Section 7
1/ Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment
Symmetrical Alignment
?/ Best Fit Alignment
)Olt v i3 a 1 IJC DOT PDEA Y 91352?2,=-)-672e
oij r'l utl 252-3C6-3957 roc DIv r?KRI? r.ESHER
t - lids 2u 5 :.: 4a `dC ,? oDEq y 912523463967
Suction 404IIr'EPA Interagency N-lar;;ar At:ocwil'
Cu. ,cuarrenu Point No. « Detailed Study Alternatives Cum ied forward (RSA)
ltaL, TA9g Wideniag of NC 33 from US 64 Sautheast of Tuiboru w US 264 in
Greer,,. d1c, Edgecamb: and Fitt Caurncies, TIP Project No. Jt-3407. WBS No. 34539.1.1,
Fulcra. Aid Project No. NIASTP-33 (3)
Thr pri itz'team ' zs con corset with the det?ilcd scudy Jt:matmv canied forward ?Ls
des?riti :d an pap 1.
;NAMM &qg;.qcy
'x, .?- NCDOT
USACE
.iJr.? 4i?? - NCD?LQ,
12
NCDWQ
711
FHWA
US SPA
?.. USFA'S
s
SHPO
NNTS
• ` eel ?-y-- ? ?.--? NCIDW
NCWRC
2
DTI:
hJU. 1 _ DUB
t; J i rr?
2i1 I,
L/?-- ? c? r
i4-1 ?lf
.3"

// Q ?
7174 i"li 7?iHJ I'-1fl JrIH7?7 rl',U CJI..II.I +174171? ='il ilT
N. C. DEPAIt'l'i11EN'1' 01, '1'RANSPOIt"1'A'I'10N
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP '
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, DLDG.
?r btj 0.
FROM:
s
G
? REF. NO. OR ROOM, DLUG.
- p
CA
NQDo
? n?
Gca p
i
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ADOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
,. C. DEPAR'['iNIEN'c or I'RANSPOlZ7'A'FION
DATE
/
TRANSMITTAL SLIP I O ' v o
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, DLDG.
? 0? Dw &
FROM: RLF. NO. OR ROOM, GLDG.
W ?hne J aCcrS m614
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS
? NOTE AND SLE ME ADOUT THIS
? PLEASE ANSWER
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION
? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? PER YOUR REQUEST
? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? SIGNATURE
? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

4 ? ,
October 17, 2006
MEMO TO: Merger Team Members
FROM: Wayne Jacas, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analys ranch
SUBJECT: Widening of NC 33 from US 64 Southeast of Tarboro to US 264 in
Greenville, Edgecombe/Pitt Counties, Federal Aid No.
MASTP-33 (3), WBS No. 34539.1.1, TIP Project No. R-3407
CONCURRENCE MEETING MINUTES - Point 2
August 24, 2006
A Concurrence Meeting was held on August 24, 2006 in the Boardroom of the
Transportation Building in Raleigh. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss
and reach concurrence on Point 2. Those in attendance were:
Wayne Jacas
Charles R. Cox
Rob Hanson
Greg Thorpe
Tim Gardiner
Mary Pope Furr
Chris Rivenbark
Veronica Barnes
John Merritt
Don Moore
Mark Staley
Tom Stoddard
Jerry Snead
Tim Goins
Dean Noland
Julio B. Williams
Sandra Stepney
Bobby Lewis
Wendi Johnson
Chris Lukasina

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v?^
On, 0(J
?vos??. 20??Nps ?lFR X06'
F TRANSPORTATION T 9Ige
DEPARTMENT 0 1?vcti
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA-Community Studies
NCDOT-PDEA-HEU
NCDOT-PDEA-NEU
NCDOT-PDEA-NEU
NCDOT-PDEA-NEU
NCDOT-GEU
NCDOT-REU
NCDOT-TIP
NCDOT-Hydraulics
NCDOT-Roadway
NCDOT-Roadway
NCDOT-Roadway
NCDOT-Roadway
NCDOT-Division 4
NCDOT-Division 4
RPO-Upper Coastal Plain
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOTSTATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Rob Ridings
William Wescott
Brian Wrenn
Travis Wilson
Gary Jordan
Chris Militscher
Sarah McBride
Ron Lucas
DWQ
USACE
DWQ
NCWRC
USFWS
USEPA
SHPO
FHWA
Sean McKenna (DMF) and Ron Sechler (NMFS) also part of the merger team
were unable to attend.
Background Information:
The meeting began with a brief history of the project, referring to the merger
packet. A citizen information workshop was held in October 2004.
At that time, public support for the project was positive and supported the
widening and curve improvements along the project.
The last merger meeting was held on February 17, 2005. The merger team
concurred with the purpose and need. The P&N statement follows:
"The purpose of the project is to improve the safety and capacity of NC 33
between Tarboro and Greenville. The study corridor along NC 33 is 300 ft
above the centerline, which is widened out at locations of substandard
curves (maximum 600 ft), as referenced by aerial mapping dated
February 17, 2005."
Concurrence Point 2:
Current NCDOT Alternatives:
The project alternatives that NCDOT had developed so far were explained to
group. The project has been divided into seven sections:
¦ Section 1: US 64 in Tarboro to just 0.16 miles west of NC 42
¦ Section 2: Just 0.16 miles west of NC 42 to approximately 0.35 miles
east of NC 42
¦ Section 3: Approximately 0.35 miles east of NC 42 to approximately
0.3 miles west of SR 1608 (Thigpen Rd.)
¦ Section 4: Approximately 0.3 miles west of SR 1608 (Thigpen Rd.) to 0.4
miles east of SR 1409 (Penny Hill Rd.)
¦ Section 5: Approximately 0.4 miles east of SR 1409 (Penny Hill Rd.) to
approximately 0.33 miles west of NC 222
¦ Section 6: Approximately 0.33 miles west of NC 222 to approximately 0.46
miles east of NC 222
¦ Section 7: Approximately 0.46 miles east of NC 222 to US 264 in
Greenville
2
Sections 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 have 3 alternatives:
¦ Northern Alignment: Widen towards the north of the existing alignment
¦ Southern Alignment: Widen towards the south of the existing alignment
¦ Symmetrical Alignment: Widen symmetrically along the existing
alignment
Section 4 has 4 alternatives:
¦ Northern Alignment: Widen towards the north of the existing alignment
¦ Southern Alignment: Widen towards the south of the existing alignment
¦ Symmetrical Alignment: Widen symmetrically along the existing alignment
¦ Avoidance Alignment: Widen to the south on new location to avoid Penny
Hill Doctor's Office, which is eligible for the National Register.
Section 6 has 2 alternatives:
¦ Symmetrical Alignment: Widen symmetrically along the existing alignment
¦ Best Fit Alignment: Widen along the existing alignment to reduce most
impacts
All alternatives involve a 4-lane, 46-foot median-divided facility with shoulders
except for in the Belvoir area, which is reduced to 23-feet to minimize impacts.
The impacts for the alternatives are shown on the Preliminary Alternatives
Impact Table in the merger packet.
Resources within the Corridor:
Wayne Jacas listed several of the major resources within the project corridor.
The Penny Hill Doctor's Office is located just west of SR 1409 (Penny Hill Rd) in
the middle of the project. The Belvoir Fire Station located downtown Belvoir in
Section 6. A church located next to the Belvoir Manufacturing Corporation in
Section 6. The Belvoir Freewill Baptist Church located in beginning of Section 7.
Belvoir Elementary School is located towards the end of Section 7. Cemeteries
are located in Sections 1, 4 and 7. Bald Eagle habitat exists within the study
area and a bald eagle nest is located within 300 feet of the study area. Tar River
spinymussel habitat exists within the study area. A portion of the project is
located within the 100-year flood plain of the Tar River.
Section 4(f) Properties:
The Doctor Penny Hill Doctor's office is eligible for the National Register. The
Northern, Symmetrical, and Southern Alignment would result in a take of the
property. In order to completely avoid the Doctor's office the avoidance
alternative was created. However, the avoidance alternative would go further
into the 100-year flood way and require a floodway modification study.
3
Control of Access:
Chris Militsher asked why the project would have no control of access if part of
the purpose and need is safety. He also asked if a person would be given a
driveway permit from a subdivided lot. Wayne Jacas responded saying that
because there are already driveways accessing the roadway and its not new
location it would be up to the Division to control driveway access. Charles Cox
then followed up by saying that we are looking at widening and not new location
but we would look at limited/partial access control and work with the Division to
limit any new access. The Division agreed there should be partial control of
access.
Alternative Selections:
Charles Cox explained why NCDOT introduced a Best-fit alternative and broke
the project into multiple sections. He explained that symmetrical alignment used
as baseline for the northern and southern alignment but that symmetrical is more
problematic to construct. He then explained that a design for a best fit has not
yet been completed and hoped to come up with a best fit for each section from
this meeting by eliminating alignment alternatives section by section.
Section 1: Wayne Jacas recommended that the team move forward with a
Best-fit and a northern alignment because the northern alignment has 22
residential relocation versus 40 for the symmetrical alignment and 44 for the
southern alignment. The Northern alignment also has lower business
relocations and stream impacts. Sarah McBride asked whether there would
be any intersection work at the beginning of the project. Tim Goins
responded saying there will be no major work because we would be tapering
back down to match the existing alignment. Gary Jordan asked about the
Threatened and Endangered species. Wayne Jacas explained that NCDOT
is aware the bald eagle is present within the project limits and the other is the
Tar River spinnymussel. Gary Jordan asked NEU to contact him before we
go out to do a mussel survey because it might not be necessary to complete
one.
Merger Team agreed to a Northern Alignment and a Best-fit Alignment.
Section 2: Wayne Jacas recommended that the team move forward with the
northern, southern and best-fit alignments because the northern has
12 residential relocations, southern has 14 residential relocations, and
symmetrical has 17 residential relocations. Wetland impacts were not
significant with 0.31 acres for the northern alignment, 0 acre for the southern
alignment, and 0.08 acre for the symmetrical alignment. There are no stream
impacts with the alignments. Chris Militsher questioned why we need a
southern alignment with there being no significant differences in impacts
among the alignments: He suggested going with a northern and best-fit
alignment. Gary Jordan suggest we maintain the northern and southern
alignment because we don't know what the forest impacts are going to be as
of yet.
4
Brian Wrenn had a comment on the Buffer impacts on intermittent streams.
Wayne Jacas responded that they are all combined into one on the table
attached in Concurrence packet. Brian Wren said he would like to see the
intermittent stream impacts quantified on the table. Wendi Johnson said that
they weren't any forests in this section. Sarah McBride asked what we would
do if we run into an environmental justice issue. Charles Cox said our best-fit
alignment would address any environmental justice issue. Tim Gardener said
we should assume we are going to run into some environmental justice issue.
Chris Militsher told Sarah McBride we aren't necessary picking an alternative
that will have a disproportional effect. Tim Gardener also states that the
communities will be there but it doesn't necessary mean the impacts will meet
the criteria.
Merger Team agreed to a Northern Alignment and a Best-fit Alignment.
• Section 3: Wayne Jacas recommended that the team move forward with a
northern, southern and best-fit alignment because the northern has
1 residential relocation, southern and symmetrical has 0 residential
relocations. Wetland impacts has no significant differences with 1 acre for
the northern alignment, 1.75 acre for the southern alignment, and 1.36 acre
for the symmetrical alignment. The stream impacts are about the same with
each alignment. Hydraulics suggested we considered the northern alignment
because it moves the roadway further out of the 100-year floodway.
Merger Team agreed to a Northern Alignment and a Best-fit Alignment.
• Section 4: Wayne Jacas recommended that the team move forward with a
southern and best-fit alignment because the northern has 10 residential
relocations, southern has 5 residential relocations, avoidance has
6 residential relocations and symmetrical has 8 residential relocations. There
is 1 business relocation in the northern, southern, and symmetrical alignment..
The wetland impacts vary from 3.18 to 4.73 acres among the alignments.
The stream impacts vary from 525 to 682 feet among the alignments.
Chris Militsher asked whether or not the abandoned houses were included in
the residential relocation numbers. Wayne Jacas answered No because the
house was dilapidated and vacant. Gary Jordan asked how close is the
southern alignment to the Tar River. Wayne Jacas answered that it is
approximately 100 feet away from the river but says the avoidance alignment
is closer. Ron Lucas asked about the impacts to the Section 4f property.
Wayne stated that the northern and symmetrical alignment would result in the
take of the 4f property where as the southern alignment could avoid a take
but would affect the property. Wayne Jacas also said that we are looking at a
23-foot median in this section to reduce impact on the 4f property.
Ron Lucas suggested we keep the avoidance alignment. Wayne Jacas
stated that we would be contending with the Tar River. Chris Militsher stated
that the alignments are in the floodway. Hydraulics states we need to stay
out of the floodway and that we would need a floodway revision as we
encroached further into it. Chris Militsher stated that the merger team would
need to keep the northern alignment in because of the floodway issue.
5
Merger Team agreed to a Northern Alignment, Southern Alignment,
Avoidance Alignment and a Best-fit Alignment.
Section 5: Wayne Jacas recommended that the team move forward with a
southern and best-fit alignment because the low residential relocations and
wetland impacts. Chris Militsher asked whether the entire stream impacts is
from UT 10. Wayne Jacas responded the majority of it is and that the
difference in the impact is the impact to UT 10.
Merger Team agreed to a Southern Alignment and a Best-fit Alignment.
Section 6: Wayne Jacas explained that NCDOT only had one alternative in
this section which goes through the Belvoir community. Chris Militsher asked
what is the advantage of doing a symmetrical and a best-fit alignment.
Wayne Jacas answered we don't know as of yet because we don't have a
design as of yet but we can consider a 23-foot median instead of the
proposed 46-foot median. Chris Militsher suggested we look at more
alignments for this area because of the significant impacts to business and
fire rescue. Charles Cox suggested that we look at a best fit with options to
reduce impacts. Chris Militsher asked why we would need such a large
median in this area and do we foresee the need for more than four lanes
sometime in the near future. Chris Militsher also asked if we could go lower
than a 23-foot median in this section. Wayne Jacas responded saying that
the wider median is proposed to accommodate U-turn vehicles.
Merger Team agreed to a Best-fit Alignment with options.
Section 7: Wayne Jacas recommended that the team move forward with the
northern alignment and a best-fit alignment because it has the lower
residential relocation, avoids the Free Will Baptist Church, less than 0.5 acres
of wetlands, and the lowest stream impacts among the alignments. Sarah
McBride asked about the effects on the elementary school. Wayne Jacas
answered that the northern alignment would only affect the parking lot of the
school and the best-fit alignment would probably avoid the school as much as
possible while trying to avoid impacts to the mobile home community across
from the school.
Merger Team agreed to a Northern Alignment and a Best-fit Alignment.
Actions:
? The team decided to sign the concurrence form without having DMF and
NMFS at the meeting. The form and meeting minutes will be faxed over
to DMF and NMFS for signatures.
6
? The Merger team agreed that we are building a four-lane median divided
facility with partial access control with a reduced median in Section 4
and Section 6.
? Natural Environment unit is to contact Gary Jordan prior to survey for
the Tar River spinymussel.
? PD&EA will separate the impacts on intermittent streams on the Impact
Table.
? Roadway Design will move forward with the chosen alignments for each
section. The alignments are:
• Section 1: Northern and Best-fit Alignments
• Section 2: Northern and Best-fit Alignments
• Section 3: Northern and Best-fit Alignments
• Section 4: Northern, Southern, Avoidance, and Best-fit Alignments
• Section 5: Southern and Best-fit Alignments
• Section 6: Best-fit Alignments with options
• Section 7: Northern and Best-fit Alignments
Cc: Attendees
Sean McKenna, DMF
Ron Sechler, NMFS
7
to
?d ?-MO
3
O ?V
"os 41 °6'
?rva;??rr
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
December 5, 2006
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMO TO: Merger Team Members
FROM: Wayne Jacas, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Widening of NC 33 from US 64 Southeast of Tarboro to US 264 in
Greenville, Edgecombe/Pitt Counties, Federal Aid No.
MASTP-33 (3), WBS No. 34539.1.1, TIP Project No. R-3407
A Concurrence Meeting was held on August 24, 2006 in the Boardroom of the
Transportation Building in Raleigh. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss
and reach concurrence on Point 2. Attached for your record is a copy of the
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Merger Agreement.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 919-733-7844 x252 or
wjacas @ dot.state.nc.us.
Attachments
Cc: William Wescott, USACE
Wayne Jacas, PDEA
Ron Lucas, FHWA
Chris Militsher, USEPA
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Ron Sechler, NMFS
Sean McKenna, DMF
Rob Ridings, DWQ
Brian Wrenn, DWQ
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Sarah McBride, SHPO
Gene Foxworth, Mid-East RPO
Chris Lukasina, Upper Coastal Plain RPO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION DUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
, , W.
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Merger Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2 Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward (DSA)
Project Title: Widening of NC 33 from US 64 Southeast of Tarboro to US 264 in
Greenville, Edgecombe and Pitt Counties, TIP Project No. R-3407, WBS No. 34539.1.1,
Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-33 (3)
Alternatives to be carried forward: The environmental document will evaluate the
proposed alternatives as described in meeting information provided by NCDOT and
agreed to by the project team at its meeting held on August 24, 2006. The Merger team
agreed to a four-lane median divided facility with partial access control for the following
alternatives.
Alternative Comments
Section 1
Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment
Symmetrical Alignment
Best Fit Alignment
Section 2
Vol" Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment
S mmetrical Alignment
vl? Best Fit Alignment
Section 3
Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment
Symmetrical Alignment
Best Fit Alignment
Section 4
Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment
Symmetrical Alignment
Avoidance Alignment
Best Fit Alignment
Section 5
Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment
Symmetrical Alignment
Y Best Fit Alignment
Section 6
Symmetrical Alignment
Best Fit Alignment With options
Section 7
Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment
Symmetrical Alignment
Best Fit Alignment
I
i3: 13 HC DOT PDEA y 91252?-'.= B
- utf 25?-9Cb-?557 14C DIV r„R11+E R1SHE?
NC ; OT ;'D;;O M 912529=:53957
J ?, a
Suction 404/.NTPA Intemg2ncy rvlar e Aeroc an:
Cu. ,carren:a Point No. 2 Detzilad Study AlternatiYo; Cat-Acd forward ODSA)
2Nj?E, ILL. Wi4ening of NC 33 from US 64 Southeast of Truboro to US 264 in
Greca+. d1c, idgecomba and Pita Counties, TIP Project No. J; -3407, WBS No. 34539.1.1.
fedora. AidProjectNTo, MASTP-33 (3)
The pi ject team ?gas ca c=od witb the detailed study altemativice carried forward 4L
describ :d on pag, I.
11 ?ML LC' C-Y
NCDOT
'USACE
NCDIV
NCDWQ?_ _
FHWA
USEPA
r? USFWS
SHPO
100
• ??? ? NCpMF
NCWRC
2
N0. 31-3 F) U
it Jid
DATE
-t d r
r f
?f 7 I c r{
41 ?-2-dj 19
-ze I
'Ca i-? 7C?HJ I;.Jrl Jt-iH7Q rl ELI CJIeIF.I 07110-071_-C- C:- 'QT G;4.' :-
T
t ¢ S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
?~ V
0C 2
o
S R QUA 006
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION R "1, lz %C
h
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 17, 2006
MEMO TO: Merger Team Members
FROM: Wayne Jacas, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental SUBJECT: Widening of NC 33 from US 64 Southeast of Tarboro to US 264 in
Greenville, Edgecombe/Pitt Counties, Federal Aid No.
MASTP-33 (3), WBS No. 34539.1.1, TIP Project No. R-3407
CONCURRENCE MEETING MINUTES - Point 2
August 24, 2006
A Concurrence Meeting was held on August 24, 2006 in the Boardroom of the
Transportation Building in Raleigh. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss
and reach concurrence on Point 2. Those in attendance were:
Wayne Jacas
Charles R. Cox
Rob Hanson
Greg Thorpe
Tim Gardiner
Mary Pope Furr
Chris Rivenbark
Veronica Barnes
John Merritt
Don Moore
Mark Staley
Tom Stoddard
Jerry Snead
Tim Goins
Dean Noland
Julio B. Williams
Sandra Stepney
Bobby Lewis
Wendi Johnson
Chris Lukasina
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA-Community Studies
NCDOT-PDEA-HEU
NCDOT-PDEA-NEU
NCDOT-PDEA-NEU
NCDOT-PDEA-NEU
NCDOT-GEU
NCDOT-REU
NCDOT-TIP
NCDOT-Hydraulics
NCDOT-Roadway
NCDOT-Roadway
NCDOT-Roadway
NCDOT-Roadway
NCDOT-Division 4
NCDOT-Division 4
RPO-Upper Coastal Plain
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
1
Rob Ridings
William Wescott
Brian Wrenn
Travis Wilson
Gary Jordan
Chris Militscher
Sarah McBride
Ron Lucas
DWQ
USACE
DWQ
NCWRC
USFWS
USEPA
SHPO
FHWA
Sean McKenna (DMF) and Ron Sechler (NMFS) also part of the merger team
were unable to attend.
Backqround Information:
The meeting began with a brief history of the project, referring to the merger
packet. A citizen information workshop was held in October 2004.
At that time, public support for the project was positive and supported the
widening and curve improvements along the project.
The Iasi merger meeting was held on February 17, 2005. The merger team
concurred with the purpose and need. The P&N statement follows:
"The purpose of the project is to improve the safety and capacity of NC 33
between Tarboro and Greenville. The study corridor along NC 33 is 300 ft
above the centerline, which is widened out at locations of substandard
curves (maximum 600 ft), as referenced by aerial mapping dated
February 17, 2005."
Concurrence Point 2:
Current NCDOT Alternatives:
The project alternatives that NCDOT had developed so far were explained to
group. The project has been divided into seven sections:
¦ Section 1: US 64 in Tarboro to just 0.16 miles west of NC 42
¦ Section 2: Just 0.16 miles west of NC 42 to approximately 0.35 miles
east of NC 42
¦ Section 3: Approximately 0.35 miles east of NC 42 to approximately
0.3 miles west of SR 1608 (Thigpen Rd.)
¦ Section 4: Approximately 0.3 miles west of SR 1608 (Thigpen Rd.) to 0.4
miles east of SR 1409 (Penny Hill Rd.)
¦ Section 5: Approximately 0.4 miles east of SR 1409 (Penny Hill Rd.) to
approximately 0.33 miles west of NC 222
¦ Section 6: Approximately 0.33 miles west of NC 222 to approximately 0.46
miles east of NC 222
¦ Section 7: Approximately 0.46 miles east of NC 222 to US 264 in
Greenville
2

Sections 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 have 3 alternatives:
¦ Northern Alignment: Widen towards the north of the existing alignment
¦ Southern Alignment: Widen towards the south of the existing alignment
¦ Symmetrical Alignment: Widen symmetrically along the existing
alignment
Section 4 has 4 alternatives:
¦ Northern Alignment: Widen towards the north of the existing alignment
¦ Southern Alignment: Widen towards the south of the existing alignment
¦ Symmetrical Alignment: Widen symmetrically along the existing alignment
¦ Avoidance Alignment: Widen to the south on new location to avoid Penny
Hill Doctor's Office, which is eligible for the National Register.
Section 6 has 2 alternatives:
¦ Symmetrical Alignment: Widen symmetrically along the existing alignment
¦ Best Fit Alignment: Widen along the existing alignment to reduce most
impacts
All alternatives involve a 4-lane, 46-foot median-divided facility with shoulders
except for in the Belvoir area, which is reduced to 23-feet to minimize impacts.
The impacts for the alternatives are shown on the Preliminary Alternatives
Impact Table in the merger packet.
Resources within the Corridor:
Wayne Jacas listed several of the major resources within the project corridor.
The Penny Hill Doctor's Office is located just west of SR 1409 (Penny Hill Rd) in
the middle of the project. The Belvoir Fire Station located downtown Belvoir in
Section 6. A church located next to the Belvoir Manufacturing Corporation in
Section 6. The Belvoir Freewill Baptist Church located in beginning of Section 7.
Belvoir Elementary School is located towards the end of Section 7. Cemeteries
are located in Sections 1, 4 and 7. Bald Eagle habitat exists within the study
area and a bald eagle nest is located within 300 feet of the study area. Tar River
spinymussel habitat exists within the study area. A portion of the project is
located within the 100-year flood plain of the Tar River.
Section 4(f) Properties:
The Doctor Penny Hill Doctor's office is eligible for the National Register. The
Northern, Symmetrical, and Southern Alignment would result in a take of the
property. In order to completely avoid the Doctor's office the avoidance
alternative was created. However, the avoidance alternative would go further
into the 100-year flood way and require a floodway modification study.
3
r
Control of Access:
Chris Militsher asked why the project would have no control of access if part of
the purpose and need is safety. He also asked if a person would be given a
driveway permit from a subdivided lot. Wayne Jacas responded saying that
because there are already driveways accessing the roadway and its not new
location it would be up to the Division to control driveway access. Charles Cox
then followed up by saying that we are looking at widening and not new location
but we would look at limited/partial access control and work with the Division to
limit any new access. The Division agreed there should be partial control of
access.
Alternative Selections:
Charles Cox explained why NCDOT introduced a Best-fit alternative and broke
the project into multiple sections. He explained that symmetrical alignment used
as baseline for the northern and southern alignment but that symmetrical is more
problematic to construct. He then explained that a design for a best fit has not
yet been completed and hoped to come up with a best fit for each section from
this meeting by eliminating alignment alternatives section by section.
Section 1: Wayne Jacas recommended that the team move forward with a
Best-fit and a northern alignment because the northern alignment has 22
residential relocation versus 40 for the symmetrical alignment and 44 for the
southern alignment. The Northern alignment also has lower business
relocations and stream impacts. Sarah McBride asked whether there would
be any intersection work at the beginning of the project. Tim Goins
responded saying there will be no major work because we would be tapering
back down to match the existing alignment. Gary Jordan asked about the
Threatened and Endangered species. Wayne Jacas explained that NCDOT
is aware the bald eagle is present within the project limits and the other is the
Tar River spinnymussel. Gary Jordan asked NEU to contact him before we
go out to do a mussel survey because it might not be necessary to complete
one.
Merger Team agreed to a Northern Alignment and a Best-fit Alignment.
Section 2: Wayne Jacas recommended that the team move forward with the
northern, southern and best-fit alignments because the northern has
12 residential relocations, southern has 14 residential relocations, and
symmetrical has 17 residential relocations. Wetland impacts were not
significant with 0.31 acres for the northern alignment, 0 acre for the southern
alignment, and 0.08 acre for the symmetrical alignment. There are no stream
impacts with the alignments. Chris Militsher questioned why we need a
southern alignment with there being no significant differences in impacts
among the alignments. He suggested going with a northern and best-fit
alignment. Gary Jordan suggest we maintain the northern and southern
alignment because we don't know what the forest impacts are going to be as
of yet.
4
Brian Wrenn had a comment on the Buffer impacts on intermittent streams.
Wayne Jacas responded that they are all combined into one on the table
attached in Concurrence packet. Brian Wren said he would like to see the
intermittent stream impacts quantified on the table. Wendi Johnson said that
they weren't any forests in this section. Sarah McBride asked what we would
do if we run into an environmental justice issue. Charles Cox said our best-fit
alignment would address any environmental justice issue. Tim Gardener said
we should assume we are going to run into some environmental justice issue.
Chris Militsher told Sarah McBride we aren't necessary picking an alternative
that will have a disproportional effect. Tim Gardener also states that the
communities will be there but it doesn't necessary mean the impacts will meet
the criteria.
Merger Team agreed to a Northern Alignment and a Best-fit Alignment.
Section 3: Wayne Jacas recommended that the team move forward with a
northern, southern and best-fit alignment because the northern has
1 residential relocation, southern and symmetrical has 0 residential
relocations. Wetland impacts has no significant differences with 1 acre for
the northern alignment, 1.75 acre for the southern alignment, and 1.36 acre
for the symmetrical alignment. The stream impacts are about the same with
each alignment. Hydraulics suggested we considered the northern alignment
because it moves the roadway further out of the 100-year floodway.
Merger Team agreed to a Northern Alignment and a Best-fit Alignment.
Section 4: Wayne Jacas recommended that the team move forward with a
southern and best-fit alignment because the northern has 10 residential
relocations, southern has 5 residential relocations, avoidance has
6 residential relocations and symmetrical has 8 residential relocations. There
is 1 business relocation in the northern, southern, and symmetrical alignment..
The wetland impacts vary from 3.18 to 4.73 acres among the alignments.
The stream impacts vary from 525 to 682 feet among the alignments.
Chris Militsher asked whether or not the abandoned houses were included in
the residential relocation numbers. Wayne Jacas answered No because the
house was dilapidated and vacant. Gary Jordan asked how close is the
southern alignment to the Tar River. Wayne Jacas answered that it is
approximately 100 feet away from the river but says the avoidance alignment
is closer. Ron Lucas asked about the impacts to the Section 4f property.
Wayne stated that the northern and symmetrical alignment would result in the
take of the 4f property where as the southern alignment could avoid a take
but would affect the property. Wayne Jacas also said that we are looking at a
23-foot median in this section to reduce impact on the 4f property.
Ron Lucas suggested we keep the avoidance alignment. Wayne Jacas
stated that we would be contending with the Tar River. Chris Militsher stated
that the alignments are in the floodway. Hydraulics states we need to stay
out of the floodway and that we would need a floodway revision as we
encroached further into it. Chris Militsher stated that the merger team would
need to keep the northern alignment in because of the floodway issue.
Merger Team agreed to a Northern Alignment, Southern Alignment,
Avoidance Alignment and a Best-fit Alignment.
Section 5: Wayne Jacas recommended that the team move forward with a
southern and best-fit alignment because the low residential relocations and
wetland impacts. Chris Militsher asked whether the entire stream impacts is
from UT 10. Wayne Jacas responded the majority of it is and that the
difference in the impact is the impact to UT 10.
Merger Team agreed to a Southern Alignment and a Best-fit Alignment.
Section 6: Wayne Jacas explained that NCDOT only had one alternative in
this section which goes through the Belvoir community. Chris Militsher asked
what is the advantage of doing a symmetrical and a best-fit alignment.
Wayne Jacas answered we don't know as of yet because we don't have a
design as of yet but we can consider a 23-foot median instead of the
proposed 46-foot median. Chris Militsher suggested we look at more
alignments for this area because of the significant impacts to business and
fire rescue. Charles Cox suggested that we look at a best fit with options to
reduce impacts. Chris Militsher asked why we would need such a large
median in this area and do we foresee the need for more than four lanes
sometime in the near future. Chris Militsher also asked if we could go lower
than a 23-foot median in this section. Wayne Jacas responded saying that
the wider median is proposed to accommodate U-turn vehicles.
Merger Team agreed to a Best-fit Alignment with options.
Section 7: Wayne Jacas recommended that the team move forward with the
northern alignment and a best-fit alignment because it has the lower
residential relocation, avoids the Free Will Baptist Church, less than 0.5 acres
of wetlands, and the lowest stream impacts among the alignments. Sarah
McBride asked about the effects on the elementary school. Wayne Jacas
answered that the northern alignment would only affect the parking lot of the
school and the best-fit alignment would probably avoid the school as much as
possible while trying to avoid impacts to the mobile home community across
from the school.
Merger Team agreed to a Northern Alignment and a Best-fit Alignment.
Actions:
? The team decided to sign the concurrence form without having DMF and
NMFS at the meeting. The form and meeting minutes will be faxed over
to DMF and NMFS for signatures.
6
r'
? The Merger team agreed that we are building a four-lane median divided
facility with partial access control with a reduced median in Section 4
and Section 6.
? Natural Environment unit is to contact Gary Jordan prior to survey for
the Tar River spinymussel.
? PD&EA will separate the impacts on intermittent streams on the Impact
Table.
? Roadway Design will move forward with the chosen alignments for each
section. The alignments are:
• Section 1: Northern and Best-fit Alignments
• Section 2: Northern and Best-fit Alignments
• Section 3: Northern and Best-fit Alignments
• Section 4: Northern, Southern, Avoidance, and Best-fit Alignments
• Section 5: Southern and Best-fit Alignments
• Section 6: Best-fit Alignments with options
• Section 7: Northern and Best-fit Alignments
Cc: Attendees
Sean McKenna, DMF
Ron Sechler, NMFS
7

Section 404/NEPA Interagency Merger Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2 Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward (DSA)
Project Title: Widening of NC 33 from US 64 Southeast of Tarboro to US 264 in
Greenville, Edgecombe and Pitt Counties, TIP Project No. R-3407, WBS No. 34539.1.1,
Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-33 (3)
Alternatives to be carried forward: The environmental document will evaluate the
proposed alternatives as described in meeting information provided by NCDOT and
agreed to by the project team at its meeting held on August 24, 2006. In addition, the no-
build and alternate modes of transportation alternatives will be evaluated in the
environmental document.
Alternative Comments
Section 1
Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment
Symmetrical Alignment
Best Fit Alignment
Section 2
Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment
Symmetrical Alignment
Best Fit Alignment
Section 3
Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment
Symmetrical Alignment
Best Fit Alignment
Section 4
Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment
Symmetrical Alignment
Avoidance Alignment
Best Fit Alignment
Section 5
Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment
S mmetrical Alignment
Best Fit Alignment
Section 6
S mmetrical Alignment
Best Fit Alignment W c 1S 1/
Section 7
Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment
Symmetrical Alignment
Best Fit Alignment

Section 404/NEPA Interagency Merger Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2 Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward (DSA)
Project Title: Widening of NC 33 from US 64 Southeast of Tarboro to US 264 in
Greenville, Edgecombe and Pitt Counties, TIP Project No. R-3407, WBS No. 34539.1.1,
Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-33 (3)
The project team has concurred with the detailed study alternatives carried forward as
described on page 1.
NAME AGENCY DATE
NCDOT
USACE
NCDWQ
NCDWQ
FHWA
USEPA
USFWS
SHPO
NMFS
NCDMF
NCWRC
2
.t V U
AUG U
IVETLANDSANDYSTi taWATEAT! Y
R BRANCH

CONCURRENCE MEETING
INFORMATION PACKET
FOR YOUR REVIEW
PRIOR TO MEETING
ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 2006
PROJECT ENGINEER

R-34®7
Please bring this packet
to the meeting.
*
i
AGENDA
Eastern Concurrence 'Meeting
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Board Room, Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
1:00 PM to 3:00 PM - Wayne Jacas, Project Planning Engineer, NCDOT PDEA
TIP No. R-3407, NC 33 from US 64 near Tarboro to US 13/NC 11-903 in Greenville
Edgecombe and Pitt Counties, Divisions 2 and 4
Team Members:
William Wescott, USACE
Wayne Jacas, PDEA
Ron Lucas, FHWA
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Ron Sechler, NMFS
Rob Ridings and Brian Wrenn, DWQ
Sean McKenna, DMF
Travis Wilson, WRC
Sarah McBride, SHPO
Steve Sollod, DCM
Ann Whitley, Upper Coastal Plain RPO (non-signatory)
Gene Foxworth, Mid-East RPO (non-signatory)
NCDOT Technical Support Staff and Other Agency Staff:
Ricky Green, Division 4
Jerry Page, Division 4
Neil Lassiter, Division 2
Ed Eatmon, Division 2
Jimmy Goodnight, Roadway Design
Tim Goins, Roadway Design
Jerry Snead, Hydraulics
Jeff Garland, Congestion management
Travis Marshall, TPB
Njoroge Wainaina, Geotechnical
Shannon Lasater, Highways Admin. Office
Michael Turchy, NEU
Mary Pope Furr, HEU
Tim Gardiner HEU
Charles Cox, PDEA
Rob Hanson, PDEA
X The purpose of this meeting is to reach concurrence on CP 2.
NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting
Concurrence Point 2
TIP Project No. R-3407
Federal Aid No. MASTP-33 (3)
WBS Element 34539. 1.1
PROPOSED NC 33 WIDENING
FROM US 64 SOUTHEAST OF TARBORO TO US 264 IN GREENVILLE
EDGECOMBE AND PITT COUNTY
August 24, 2006
Transportation Building
Board Room (First Floor)
Purpose of Today's Meeting:
The purpose of this meeting is to submit information to the NEPA/404 Merger
Team in order to reach Concurrence Point 2 (alternatives to be carried forward for
detailed environmental studies). Concurrence on alternatives carried forward will
be requested.
Agenda for Meeting:
? Project Description/History
? Discussion of Alternatives
? Comments and Questions
Project Development Engineer: Wayne A. Jacas
[phone] ext. 252
[e-mail]
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
TIP Project R-3407 is programmed in the 2006-2012 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a widening of existing roadway to a
multilane facility from US 64 Southeast of Tarboro to US 264 in Greenville. All the
alternatives under consideration include the utilization of the existing facility. The
attached vicinity map (figure 1) shows the location of the project. The alternatives are all
20.5 miles in length.
A four-lane, median-divided roadway is proposed. It is anticipated approximately
200 feet of right of way will be required to accommodate this facility. No control of
access will be proposed for this project.
Studies are underway in accordance with the requirements set forth in the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. Right of way
acquisition is scheduled for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2011 and construction is
scheduled for FFY 2013. The total estimated cost for the proposed project is
$44,700,000, which includes $7,000,000 for right of way acquisition and $37,700,000 for
construction.
PURPOSE OF PROJECT (agreed upon at Concurrence Point 1)
A NEPA/404 Merger Team met and concurred on Concurrence Point 1 at a
meeting held on February 17, 2005. The Purpose and Need statement was agreed upon
and the study area was defined. The team agreed to the following:
"The purpose of the project is to improve the safety and capacity of NC 33 between
Tarboro and Greenville. The study corridor along NC 33 is 300 ft above the
centerline, which is widened out at locations of substandard curves (maximum
600 ft), as referenced by aerial mapping dated February 17, 2005."
CONCURRENCE POINT 2
DETAILED STUDY - ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
The proposed project is divided into 7 sections as described below.
a) Section 1: from US 64 in Tarboro to just west of NC 42. This section would be
widened to 4 lanes with a 46-foot median.
b) Section 2: from just west of NC 42 to approximately 0.35 miles east of NC 42.
This section would be widened to 4 lanes with a 46-foot median.
c) Section 3: from approximately 0.35 miles east of NC 42 to approximately
0.3 miles west of SR 1608 (Thigpen Rd.). This section would be widened to
4 lanes with a 46-foot median.
2
d) Section 4: from approximately 0.3 miles west of SR 1608 (Thigpen Rd.) to 0.4
miles east of SR 1409 (Penny Hill Rd.). This section would be widened to 4 lanes
with a 46-foot median.
e) Section 5: from approximately 0.4 miles east of SR 1409 (Penny Hill Rd.) to
approximately 0.33 miles west of NC 222. This section would be widened to
4 lanes with a 46-foot median.
f) Section 6: from approximately 0.33 miles west of NC 222 to approximately 0.46
miles east of NC 222. This section would be widened to 4 lanes with a 23-foot
median.
g) Section 7: from approximately 0.46 miles east of NC 222 to US 264 in Greenville.
This section would be widened to 4 lanes with a 46-foot median.
The following widening alternatives are under consideration for detailed study:
o Northern Alternative - This alternative would widen to the north utilizing the
existing roadway.
o Southern Alternative - This alternative would widen to the south utilizing the
existing roadway.
o Symmetrical Alternative - This alternative would widen along the existing roadway.
o Avoidance Alternative - This alternative was created only for section 4. It would
widen along the existing roadway and new location to avoid Penny Hill Doctor's
Office, which is eligible for the National Register.
CITIZENS' INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
A Citizens' Informational Workshop was held October 21, 2004 in the Belvoir .
Elementary School's Media Center. Approximately 41 citizens were in attendance, and
public support for the project was positive. Comments from the workshop were largely
in support for the widening and curve improvements along the project.
(

M'
0
r
°

W
Cn
U)
c
w
-
w

-

°1
1
-
cn

D z

m

CD (D
c
-
u (D
CD
CD
r N n
o
00
00 a
CD m o•
m

•

"0

°

°

° 0

m
CD a CD

n
C

0
C Al O•

? W C

- - ?

CD (D

n
0
r
m

70
0 o c
3 D
n C
C D
D
°
° C
D
o C
D
° .? CD
° u
o
0
w' CD
3 n : ?
°
n
(
a
c 3
CD
m
o c
a
9
m a
- ,
-n c
°n -n r
m
--
C CD
D ?°
7c
m
D
o c n
o
T a L(n
nn CD (D
CD -0 i N m w w Z o =3 o a "0 ? n CD CD o •-•
0 0 o
p D
w '

?

°
-•
0
0 a
° a
a
0
C
D CD
_? 0
0
-
0
CD 0
CD
cn
cn

c f 0
y cp
cn
D 'D
Sv
(n
-0
T
-o
CD
m cn
w
N
a)
..

w
° ccn
D ° o
:3
(n
y
0
c0i
m
co'
?
o'
°
CD n ° n m - N ° ° ° a

0 a 0 °
°
o
' r
m m N O ? N O m m m m O O o W N N O O O z
? ? C
D G
j
Cn

co
C
O
N
O
o
o
W
m
m
N
o
m
o
?
•A
N
O
o
0 CD

?
?
..A
co
?
? ?
/?
Cn ?
CA
? C
C
< 1
.?
r
J
W N W W m m W o ?
co
? ? ? N 0 _
.
c0 w O ? ? Cn Cn O ? O N o 0 o

w
0

W
w
-
m
m
a r
O ?
cli a] 0 0 o o o m o m o o N o o o o zr
? ? J ? ? '
'^^
V' ,
,^^
V I ? co
J

N
W z o W m m m r0 O

? co
?
O o 0 O
o 0 o m
o
?
cn
Cn w 0 m
? o o 0 O 0 O
-4
m s.
54,

o
m
m
m
m
m r
O ?
a] co 0 0 0 O o m
?
c
m o m
? o O o o o o
-f-
? ? co ? n .

co m O 0 O O O m co m m 0 co O O o -+ O O o o

?
? C$)
pp
O
?
?
(n
?
cD
j
Cn N

co
m 1
?
m
m -?
m r
O 7- °
o
c co W o o ? 0 0 m
? N o o 0 0 o O o 0 w
? ? ' ^
C f) N Cn ? ? w ; ? co

Cn
W 1 O o W m m O m O O o 0 o o o 0

w
0
CA)

m

m
2

-'
?
co m N o i j O O m m j m -1 -y
O o o O o
? ? Ln co ? ? '
^
V/ '
^
[n ? = CD

Cf)

-t
m
co

rn
CD

O

1

V

0

O

coo

m ?

m r

O

v,

0

0

0

0

?F^.
? ? N W ? ? (n ? <
< D
(
( N

1 0
"
m
U) N J o
o

m -Ph
co co
o
o
0 -<
m
w
o
0
0
0
N °i 0 o Cn U) 3

m co -P. o o o cd co m m o W o o 0 o o 0 o a

n
W
m
a
(a
CD
0
O
3
a
L. CD
c su
00
CDa
n
0
c
7
k
Iz
K

M
CD
O
(a
O
C
N
CA
.A
Cl)
O
C
CD
:v
cr
0
0
r-P
0
C
N
N
CA
A
7
CCD
CD
C
CD
m
I
W
.Db
0
v
m
D
CD
N
V
CD
m

5'
0
r M
w
-n m
O
cn z
w
73
CD m CD r w O °Q p CD n n j N

c 0
CD CL
0
w
(n
m p =r
N w C
_ O ? O r
0 o m
0 n W a CD
(n c: n a CD .? -M cn CD
=r C7
w
C/)
m
o D
w m Q< N m cn m 3 n cn -? T u co (D c°_ m o S o
C7 "0 cn (D O CI) "O 7 O =3 O CD
a ?j 0 -0 N CD CD S w O_
-0 D w `n `n c?i (n v, a w a
" W cA n ° o co En N N ?_ CD
O W CD (n N O tit C!J -v 'D 'C/)
0
CD
U)

m

(n

w

O
w
(n m
r

D

5

co

y

w

?.

n

co

cn

o

a
w m m
`? cn co' > > N E N Q cn w
a cn

m W 1 1 -I -? m m -? r
O 1 m m O ? O O N ? O O O O

0 w
0
c 0
co W m
03 O - co a o W m m m m O Q7 o w 0 o O O O
=r
O (n co
W
(n
(A
-?
?p
0
7
V/
m m ? 0
co co
(JD

o

b
1

o

o

03

co

/
/om?

/
/om?

o

m

o

w

v,

o

o

0

o
. V/ VI

W m o 0
O O O O O 0 N O O (D o -+ o o
0 o cn
0
U)

C

m r
O
co co N)
O
O
O m !m
n ?
%n
O
o
N
ul
1
1
O
1
z
00 V/ V/

0-
OJ m -+ O O O N O O -+ O) W 1 O j
o
0 0 w

r
co co 1 O O O m m O O 1 O N
0 0 O

Z/?
0
w
w
rr??
(w
Oo
? mac ?
,Q^. N
^W T
O ?. _•
0 ?
V N
L fD c
o
CD w -1
n c o N
a 2
o
. El
0 0
0? U) 0
U) 0
S ? -?
CD
7
(D
I?

END PROJECT ti
Torboro?`'n ?d
4 1`
n' Oil ? 64
a =° ,3ww
•.i ladng? .,
a -,'IOW SF-ft
f-d
L I •Dopn.tpr?+ .? '.
; ow
' BEGIN PROJECT. .
?R +
266
n _
,:.
., .. ic
A
Rurdolph tand'ng
33
1266 '- pi
i¢: V ft•_ ..J •' ..
•..r?PO7f 13 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT i - t2 Greernille U
OF TRANSPORTATION •,? y' ' ' :r., c r„e u r
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH ,12?n 1
NC 33 from US 264 in Greenville
to US 64 in Tarboro, Pitt and Edgecombe Cos. ` 2 `
State Project 8.1221701, F.A. Project MASTP43(3)
T1P Project No. R-3407
O O
N
O
O

0
-n
; V1 V1 Z
x c °m
n
r
a
m m
;0
4A O ~ m iAA z
-j Ph rn
z

O? Z
n Z
t- f r
NO O
O r- Z Z
Z z z
w
O A?~
Z

r
f •\
c
N §

-_? O p
CNm
MD a 0 z
5:T
NCOZ

O
m
m 70
NC
?mc Z z
m°oo?
z V)z n gip?>?
Ed
N
m O
m0L'i
m w Z°

m
-I w
Z6 m
z -i m N N >
N -,

A p FMo
? to° m
?
r
K
o
o m
o _
m 0

'I
?V arm
ter' ??
v
io
r
P
1 ?
0
21
10,
, v
N
00
g < O O r
'n rn
om E a
m m s m
O y n 2 2 Z
01 r O
g r-
0 acs
r ;
2 Z
0 ti 1
O 2
O -?
rl a
0
''r r
C
V
v
O p p
CNZ rn O -n 0
NOZN„
N - C I G7
z z
O ?m0 3:a
C_ m 0,2
D 74 T
_ N O
z-In F 0
(/1 G7
O L'i O
m mmuj m
m w m -c
Z. Z
tD ? FMO ? m
r- CO
0 mo =

7%?
SR

/qo&

C

0
0 4
N
O
O

- (A (A
? ? m
n
a
po m x m
2 29
2 O
r)
? r r r
D C7 ? `
a ?V ??:,
N p

CD
O r 2 2
i?V ~
Z
O -?

V) i y

NCO
N) O?(A a?x
"

o
L
„ r, zz
z
0 Sc
m D
i C7 42T y ° ro

?o
N o
o
a
m ?I m?W z
7?.m .

W r?O rn
o moo
m o =

f i
D
m
7r
m
m
A
m
--i
0
z
O O ?-
O i i _ .

N N Z
< O O

r
m 1-1 t
-?
m
N a m
O m i ; A
-4 m m
Z
O `
r e d
`
i
n Z 2
a ?. t'•
p a ? ?
z z C

00
Fi 1 - -
O 1
,
"'
,

c
C x
I
r?
I,! A

?
.tom p
O
CNZ
N -"

mmDOZ
?
7?"N
S o
C Z -'
m
x _
0 Z Z z
a, m
D mrr?
` -n 0
7

O
S N

?C7 4.

?Z
N
=
70 O
X 0 L
TI D
A Z 0
f
M
-? I m
W
m
Z?m Zy m

N??' So
74
;a °° v m
r
O
O
m0?
o m
O

f
1

i I .
ri
I ?
OF \NATF9 micnav r. tasiey, uoverrior
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
`O? QG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
C0 r Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
5
D - na
April 1, 2005
William Mullin
Dr. J.H. Carter III & Associates, Inc.
PO Box 891
Southern Pines, NC 28388
Subject: Proposed Widening of NC 33 in Edgecombe and Pitt County, R-3407
On-Site Determination for Applicability to the Clean Water Act and the Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules
Dear Mr. Mullin:
On March 8, 2005, Brian Wrenn conducted an on-site determination to review five stream features within
the study area for the referenced project for applicability to the Clean Water Act and the Tar-Pamlico
Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0259). The features are labeled on the attached maps initialed by Brian
Wrenn on March 8, 2005.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) determinations for the features are presented in Table 1. Two of
the five stream features were determined to be intermittent or perennial and subject to the Clean Water
Act and the Tar-Pamlico buffer rules. Stream feature UT 15 was determined to be perennial and subject
to the buffer rules from the most upstream point at NC 33 to a point outside of the R-3407 corridor to the
southwest (see Map 1). Stream feature UT 17 was determined to be perennial and subject to the buffer
rules from the most upstream point at NC 33 to a point outside of the R-3407 corridor to the southwest
(see Map 1).
Table 1. - Stream determinations and buffer applicability for streams within the R-3407 torrid
Stream Feature ID Stream Determination Buffer Applicability
UT 1 Ephemeral Not Subject
UT 15 Perennial Subject
UT 17 Perennial Subject
UT 19 E hemeral Not Subject
UT 20 Ephemeral Not Subject
or.
These on-site determinations shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or
affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that a
surface water exists and that it is subject to the mitigation rules may request a determination by the
Director. A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o
John Dorney, DWQ Wetlands/401 Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650. Individuals
that dispute a determination by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" a surface water
from the mitigation rules may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date
that you receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not
start until the affected party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision.
DWQ recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party
appeals are made in a timely manner. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to
Chanter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 67I?Mail
_ ne.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Mr. Mullin
March 23, 2005
Page 2
Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing within 60 days.
This letter only addresses the applicability to the Clean Water Act and the Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rule
requirements and does not approve any activity within Waters of the United States or Waters -of the State.
If you have any additional questions or require additional information please call Brian Wrenn at (919)
733-5715.
Singly,
s?2
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Attachment: Map 1
cc: Nicole Thomson, DWQ Transportation Permitting Unit, Central Office
File Copy
Central Files
w v
CD/
- -3,,-)6 17 -Svc 33

-- a
U

C?4,1ccU
(? J
SOT .
4z) k

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
oT CF
?4?9 vf`
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
January 14, 2005
MEMORANDUM TO: R-3407 Merger Team: G J ( f
Bill Biddlecome - USACE
John Hennessy - NCDENR-DWQ f
Sean McKenna - NCDENR-DMF
Travis Wilson - NCWRC
Gary Jordan - USFWS
Ron Lucas - FHWA i ;
Renee Gledhill-Earley - SHPO ?/ 1 Z y1. ?' C ''
Chris Militscher - EPA
Ron Sechler - NMFS 1 ' 1 ?l
Cathy Brittingham - Coastal Area Management (CAMA)
Eric Midkiff - NCDOT PDEA
Jimmy Goodnight - NCDOT-Roadway
Tim Goins - NCDOT-Roadway
Tim Gardiner - NCDOT OHE
Ann Whitley - Upper Coastal Plain RPO
Gene Foxworth - Mid-East RPO
Jim Trogdon, PE - Division 4 Engineer
Neil Lassiter, PE - Division 2 Engineer
Theresa A. Wyatt, PE - NCDOT Asst. State Highway Administrator
Teresa Hart, PE - NCDOT PDEA Project Development Manager
Elena Talanker, Central Planning Group - NCDOT Transportation
Planning Branch
FROM: Jackie Obediente, Project Development Engineer
SUBJECT: Concurrence Meeting for TIP Project TIP - R-3407, safety and capacity improvements to
NC 33 between Tarboro and Greenville, Pitt and Edgecombe Counties, State Project
8.1221701, WBS Project No. 34539.1.1, F.A. Project No. MASTP-33(3)
A concurrence meeting has been scheduled for Thursday February 17, 2005 . You will be
notified of the time at a later date. The meeting will be held in the Board Room in the Transportation
Building, 1 South Wilmington St., Raleigh. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss and reach concurrence
Point 1, Purpose and Need.
The information packet is enclosed. Please review this material prior to the meeting. If you have
any questions, please contact me at [phone] x228 or [e-mail].
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW. DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
PURPOSE AND NEED
TIP PROJECT R-3407
NC 33 from US 64 in Tarboro to
US 264 in Greenville
State Project 8.1221701
F.A. Project MASTP-33(3)
WBS Project No. 34539.1.1
Pitt and Edgecombe Counties
Divisions 2 and 4
Or TR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MERGER TEAM MEETING
February 17, 2005
PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT R-3407
A. General Description of Proposed Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to perform safety and
capacity improvements to NC 33 between Tarboro and Greenville. See Figure 1 for a map
of the location. The length of the project is approximately 20.5 miles. The NC 2004-2010
Transportation Improvement Plan has funded a multi-lane facility.
B. Project Purpose
The purpose of this project is to improve the safety, capacity, an co 'vi of
NC 33 between Tarboro and Greenville. Motorists need an improved and s g speed
connector between Tarboro and Green ille that would reduce congestion problems along
NC 33 and provide a more efficient ro to between the two towns.
11 -t LA-)
C. Project Need r u_u?
p v (,t...,
Issues with the existing facility are suiiunarized into 4 different categories: Safety, C
Capacity, Connectivity, and Community Concerns: Qk
1) Safety
a) Accident Rates
( I /Z' I I? I z)s
Exposure Type NC 33 from US 264 t 1999-2001 Statewide 1999-2001 Division
US 64 in Pitt and Crash Rates for 2-lane Crash Rates for 2-lane
Edgecombe Counties Rural North Carolina Rural North Carolina
Routes Routes (Division 2,
Division 4
Total Crash Rate 223.63 186.06 152.92, 186.75
Fatal Crash Rate 1.28 2.41 2.03, 2.46
Non-Fatal Crash Rate 90.73 79.80 61.00, 82.59
Night Crash Rate 92.01 61.64 61.64, 69.64
Wet Crash Rate 52.39 32.03 26.26, 32.62
The existing section of NC 33 can be classified as a 2-lane Undivided Rural North
Carolina Route. According to the crash rates for NC 33 described above, the
Total, Non-Fatal, Night, and Wet Crash Rates are higher than the 1999-2001
Statewide Crash Rates for similar facilities. This suggests that there are currently
safety and operational deficiencies for this section of NC 33 in Pitt and
Edgecombe Counties.
After combining the results for the roadway sections described above, the largest
percentage of reported crashes occurred within six predominant crash types:
Crash Type Number of Crashes Percent of Total
- Rear End 34 19.4%
- Animal 33 18.8%
- Fixed Object 31 17.7%
- Ran Off Road 26 14.8%
- Left Turn 23 13.1%
- Angle 17 9.7%
1) Concentration of Accidents
At the SR 1417 intersection in Pitt County, there were 13 total crashes.
This total included eight "Rear End" crashes, two "Ran Off Road"
crashes, and two "Fixed Object" crashes.
At the SR 1402 intersection in Pitt County, there were 8 total crashes.
This total included six "Rear End" crashes and one "Ran Off Road"
crash.
- SR 1469 approaches NC 33 from the southwest and forms a T-
intersection in Pitt County. Approximately 100ft to the north of the
SR 1469 intersection is the "four-legged" intersection of NC 222-SR
1400. There were eight crashes near the two intersections. This total
included five "Angle" crashes.
- At the NC 42 intersection in Edgecombe County, there were eight total
crashes. This total included six "Angle" crashes.
- Two general areas along the project had a high concentration of
"Animal" crashes. Four "Animal" crashes occurred between SR 1444
and NC 222 in Pitt County, and ten "Animal" crashes occurred
between SR 1605 and the Pitt County Line in Edgecombe County.
b) Substandard Curves
Substandard curves are located throughout various areas along the project.
Realigning these curves will help to reduce the accident potential along NC 33.
c) Narrow Pavement Width
NC 33 is currently two-lanes, with a pavement width that ranges between 20ft-
24ft wide. Upgrading the roadway to AASHTO standards will help to reduce the
accident potential.
d) Narrow shoulders
Currently, there are between 4ft and 8ft grass shoulders along NC 33. Adding
paved shoulders will help to reduce the potential for accidents along the roadway.
Because the section between NC 42 and SR 1401 is part of a designated North
Carolina Bicycling Highway, NC-2 Mountains-to-Sea, 4ft paved shoulders is
recommended to accommodate bicycles.
e) Skewed Intersections
Several skewed intersections are located along the project which contribute to
poor sight distance. This can be corrected by adjusting the geometry of these
skewed intersections to increase sight distance. This will help to reduce "Angle"
crashes and other intersection-related crashes.
2) Capacity
a) Mainline Capacity Analysis:
A mainline capacity analysis for the design year traffic for the year 2030 was
performed for this project. The year 2030 traffic ranges from 6,600 vehicles per
day (vpd) in Tarboro to 22,100 vpd in Greenville. From US 64 in Tarboro to
Barrus Construction Road in Greenville, which is an 18.9 mile segment, the level
of service (LOS) is projected to be LOS D. From Barrus Construction Road to
US 264, which is a 1.6 mile segment, the LOS is projected to be LOS E. These are
considered unacceptable LOS, and capacity improvements to the roadway are
warra
3) Connectivity -
a) Residents of Tarboro are depended on important services offered in
Greenville, including medical services, workcenters, education, and
transportation. NC 33 is the main connection between Tarboro and Greenville
b) A more efficient connection is needed between Tarboro and Greenville to
provide for faster access to emergency services, such as the Pitt Memorial
Hospital, which is located in Greenville. Delays occur due to the frequent
occurrence of slow-moving farming equipment that causes drivers to decrease
their speed, and/or increase their accident potential when trying to pass and
avoid oncoming traffic.
c) Greenville is a major industrial and economic center for Eastern North
Carolina, and a major draw for those living in Tarboro and Edgecombe
County. Key destinations in Greenville include East Carolina University and
Medical Center, the Pitt Memorial Hospital, and the Pitt-Greenville Airport
4) Community Concerns
Based on comments received from the Citizen's Informational Workshop, which
was held October 21, 2004, the major concerns about the existing facility include:
- several dangerous curves along the roadway and slow-moving farming
equipment that causes traffic delays
some commented that they would rather have the facility be widened
to a 4-lane facility now, so that they wouldn't have to be disturbed
again in the future
a few citizens mentioned that their homes were destroyed during
hurricane Floyd in 1999 and they have re-built their homes and were
concerned that this road project would impact their homes again
4
END PROJECT
"v ecom II
' .yll,; ? Community Collsgell'
64

w
-y
F? /•,
Y
lee /
/ z x W-1- Pond
33
.10
` :xx
BEGIN PROJECT,
13
Ce.uer IIuM l.endiny ?%*
e?
? Ronddph LondN,p \, '?
s.e";.. o,e r«7?.? a ?`y .
' ,0
,3 .`
•., NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT i Greerrville
OF TRANSPORTATION ?E"ce,ec-U
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
113
NC 33 from US 264 in Greenville
to US 64 in Tarboro, Pitt and Edgecombe Cos. f,.?` f 1
State Project 8.1221701, F.A. Project MASTP-33(3) ?A 5 Y4`"Q-l a ?I a-n ??
TIP Project No. R-3407
FIGURE 1
Legend
• Natural Heritage Occur Sites
j Public School Locations
surface water intakes

DOT Bridges

National Wetlands Inventory Lines
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
- Archaeological Sites Polygon
State-Owned Complexes
Water Supply Watersheds
. A?
xtf??)
TIP Project R-3407
NC 33 from US 64 in Tarboro to
US 264 in Greenville
I
i
Figure 2, Shee71of ]

• Natural Heritage Occur Sites
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
j Public School Locations
Surface Water Intakes
DOT Bridges
National Wetlands Inventory Lines
- Archaeological Sites Polygon
State-Owned Complexes
Water Supply Watersheds
TIP Project R-3407
NC 33 from US 64 in Tarboro to
US 264 in Greenville
i
Figure 2, Sheet 2 of 2
DR. J.H. CARTER III & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Environmental Consultants
P.O. Box 891 * Southern Pines, N.C. 28388
[phone] * Fax [phone]
[e-mail] Q10, 0010?3?tiS
26 January 2005
Mr. Tom Steffens
N.C Division of Water Quality
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Mr. Steffens:
JAN 2 7 2005

Our company is working on a highway improvement project for the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT). The project involves widening N.C. Highway 33 between Tarboro and
Greenville in Edgecombe and Pitt Counties. We have delineated the jurisdictional waters, including
wetlands within the proposed project corridor defined by NCDOT and we are seeking verification of
our stream calls and wetland delineations. Enclosed you will find maps and data sheets for wetlands
and streams within the proposed project corridor.
Please review this information and let me know when you would be able to meet me onsite to
verify these streams/wetlands.
FR(711EW125
k9
JAN 3 i 1005
4.ANDS AND STGR6t ArER BRANCH

Since el
William Mullin
Wetland Biologist
Endangered Species Surveys 9 Environmental Assessments • Land Management 9 Wetlands Mapping and Pemlitting
Table 1. Physical characteristics of streams within the study area.
Stream No. Stream Name NCDWQ Average Wet Average Wet Benthic Best Usage
i1lap ID/ Seasonality Stream Channel Channel Substrate Classification
Index Width in feet Depth Composition
No. inches
1
Cromwell Canal/
Cromwell Canal
28-82
17
28
silt sand
C; NSW
Perennial
2 UT to Cromwell 28-82* 6.5 24 silt sand C; NSW*
UTl/Pcrennial Canal
3 UT to Cromwell 28-82* 25 25 silty sand C; NSW*
UT2/ Perennial Canal
4
UT3/ Perennial UT to Tar River 28-80* 23 26 silty sand C; NSW*;
5
UT4/ Perennial UT to Tar River 28-80* 19 22 silty sand C; NSW*
6
UT5/ Perennial UT to Tar River 28-80* 18 22 silty sand C; NSW*
7
Checks Mill Creek/ Cheeks Mill 28
-85
72
36 cobble, sand
C;NS?''
Perennial Creek and silt
8
UT6/ Perennial UT to Tar River 28-80* 39 24 silty sand C; NSW*
9 UT to Tar River 28-80* 22 28 silty sand C; NSW*
UT7/ Perennial
10
UT8/ Perennial UT to Tar River 28-80* 16 24 lily sand C; NSW*
11
UT9/ Perennial UT to Tar River 28-84* 16 15 silty sand WS-IV; NSW*
12 cobble
sand
Conetoe Creek/ Conetoe Creek 28-87(2) 95 48 ,
and silt WS-IV; NSW
Perennial
13 UT to Conetoe 28-87 15 24 silt, sand and WS-IV; NSW *
UT 10/ Perennial Creek 2)* gravel
14 UT to Conetoe 28-87 20 28 silty sand
y WS-IV; NSW *
UT1 I/ Perennial Creek 2)*
15 UT to Conetoe 28-87 20 24 silty sand
y WS-IV; NSW *
UT 12/ Perennial Creek (2)*
16
UT 13/ Perennial UT to Tar River 28-84* 29 28 silty sand WS-IV; NSW*
17
UT14/ Perennial UT to Tar River 28-84* 20 28 silty sand WS-IV; NSW*
18 UT to Johnson's

UT 151 Perennial
Mill Run 28-91 * 16 24 silty sand WS-IV; NSW *
19 UT to Johnson's 28-91* 33 28 silty sand WS-IV; NSW *
UT 16/ Perennial Mill Run
20 UT to Johnson's

UT17/ Perennial
Mill Run 28-91 * 17 24 silty sand WS-IV; NSW *
21 UT to Johnson's

UT 18/ Perennial
Mill Run 28-91* 25 24 silty sand WS-IV; NSW *
22 UT to Johnson's 28-91* 15 24 silty sand WS-IV; NSW *
UT19/ Intermittent Mill Run
23 UT to Johnson's

UT20/ Intermittent
Mill Run 28-91* 15 24 silty sand WS-IV; NSW *
* Unnamed tributaries (UT) carry the same surface water classification as the water body into which they drain.
Table 2. Anticipated impacts to surface waters based on study area.
Stream No. Stream Name NCDwQ USACE Estimated Linear
Map ID/ Stream Classification Stream Quality Stream Impact
Seasonality Score Assessment Score Feet
1
Cromwell Canal/
Cromwell Canal
35.75
57.5
300
Perennial

5 UT to Cromwell 3.50 24.5 150
nnial
U / P Canal
3 UT to Cromwell 39.75 62.00 678
UT2/ Perennial Canal
4 UT to Tar River 25.5 25.5 567
UT3/ Perennial
5 UT to Tar River 28.75 36.00 1,108
UT4/ Perennial
6
UT5/ Perennial UT to Tar River 26.75 57.00 446
7
Checks Mill Creek/ Checks Mill
49.00
81.50
616
Creek
Perennial
8 UT to Tar River 42.00 62.00 554
UT6/ Perennial
9 UT to Tar River 32.5 40.50 300
UT7/ Perennial
10
UT to Tar River
24.5
33.50
300
UT8/ Perennial
11 UT to Tar River 30.25 34.35 300
UT9/ Perennial
12
Conetoe Creek/ Conetoe Creek 48.00 89.00 300
Perennial
13 UT to Conetoe 29.75 46.50 1,331
UT10/Perennial Creek
14 UT to Conctoe 25.50 35.5 300
UT11/ Perennial Creek
15 UT to Conctoe 29.25 41.50 300
UT 12/ Perennial Creek
16
UT to Tar River
34.25
41.00
300
UT 131 Perennial
17 UT to Tar River 27.75 63.00 300
UT14/ Perennial
18 \ UT to Johnson's 18.75 43.00 150
UT 5/ Pcr? mial Mill Run
19 UT to Johnson's 32.75 45.50 300
UT 16/ Perennial Mill Run
20 l UT to Johnson's 20.25 31.00 150
UT 7/ Perei vial Mill Run
UT to Johnson's 31
75 45.50 300
UT18/ rcnnial Mill Run .
22 1 UT to Johnson's 18.00 30.50 300
UT1 YI crnut cnt Mill Run
23 UT to Johnson's
6.00 31.00 300
UT / Intl ittcnt Mill Run
TOTAL NA NA NA 9,650
Table 3. Anticipated impacts to wetlands based on the study area.
Wetland Complex
Identification Cowardin
Classification Impacts in
Acres NCDWQ
Wetlands
Ratin Score
A PFO 1 C 0.6 47
D PFO1C 0.1 30
I PFO1C 0.5 57
L PFO 1 Y 1.2 70
N PFO1 C 0.1 40
O PFO1 C 1.6 48
P PEM 0.5 16
PFO1 C 2.5 71
ST PFO1 C 4.5 56
U PFO1 C 1.2 75
X PFO 1 C /PEM 2.0 43
AC PFO 1 C 2.0 82
AR FD 2.3 58
AS FF 0.3 24
TOTAL NA 19.4 NA

END PROJECT

•4••w lJRwJ 'Edpocombo
L1 Community College
?' -
- - -
r -
rboro1

of 1. - •1 _
_

Y ...
t
i
I.
e
I
d ? Itl?l

Lane trg

i - .? Old Sparta

FTT

1 r%
? 1 t
oe ` (l f
• F
c f
?;Rcckr ?;?-.
Mount
•=? C' E• C q{MlD E A
w 1
w
,•
ow
W. nsk wt !and • :'? • I

1
rg ,+l
I lii,. t

Duwo. lnnainq - . L .

/

1

f

/
:

/

f
/
7 f 1 t\\`,i11
y s -v
1
1
I
I
s
a
4
I
I
.?T..1 I
- 1
:,f a
''?6feer?111t1 ? ? ? -

}- ?a BEGIN PROJECT !
..v! j

<0>
Conly VA Landing ' .
{. (•
l

JQ
"01 . .2e?

-
Randolph Londmp
Orvwn s Old Ferry . ]] r
:
261 '.. .,..•.??
_ ...
.«..r?',
L

i

13

J[aslCnrolino Unn.rst?
113 It
.764At
FIGURE 1
A

11
W + G
??? 3,000 1,500 0 3,000 Feet
5
L I:i
i
W
3,000 1,500 0 3,000 Feet
s
i
A v
v
S
?4
W \,_ / E
S
a, 6
Feet
N
W+E
S
Feet
jI
N
W + E
S
Feet
N 1
W + t 2,500 1,250 0 2,500 Feet
s
w
N
W + H
S

Feet

NCDWQ Stream Clasi leadon Form
ProjectName:,015" 33 VCWT River Basin:Tar'p4-,,. County: cdyArvk4e Evaluator:
DWQ ProjeotNumber: Nearest Named Stream: erutowdla-l Latitude: 3S:f55o1579° SiSnattlre:
Date: l d -ig- eye- USCiS QUAD: ord s,rxfo? Longitude: ?7,Sa4/y3 ° , roDat?ottona: ayfs«y ?3
*PLEASE WOTE: If ewlnator and landelgnst ggne tNa/ thoJirrat?e li a is M-M i'e d&Ufy d en trra e?'jl i, iwt b na naawary,
Also, (fix the irurpwf#sslenalJxdgetwwd ofthe ewleMor. eke fixonr k e sean,waie ftb andnot a ntod(/Jrd Nrprnr/ibraM--tbJa
rolln8 grte?n slsolihl Not ie. nssd* .
primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)

9) Is a Continuous Bed dt Bank Present? (p ' 1 2 3
NNATE? l/Bed •__? i ......d p.. i&-hhw I _d n7mo! rshiumity nm xn.ps)
10) Is a 2 rd-Wr Or Gmater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARYGEOMORPHOLOGYMDICATOR POINTS;
11, Hydrologm Absent Weak Moderate Strone
.Y¦ V,Vi. ?
1) is Thera A Groundwater
wi^%,gntwntt,ar&w prmmt7 1 2 3
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
SECONDAiRYGEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: . `_
1
S) Is Thera An Active (Or Relic) /->\
3) Does Topography Indicate A ??
Natural t>?Qe Wav? 0 (S J1 1.5
MUMAR V IUDROLOGY INDICATOR
4) Is Water In Channel And X48 Hrs. Since 0, .5 1 1 5
Last Known Rain? (wom ffpjwh dkmdln #9,4 -
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry (ro A ,
1) Are Fish Present?
reak Moderate Stroi
.5 1 1.5
7) Is Filamentous Aign present? IE -- - 1.5
9) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACL
Mostly UPL
(" NOM If Total Abnna OjAll Plante In Snuambed 2 1 .75 ? 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Step MESS SA V ftme 1.
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Primarv + Secondaryl s (If Greater Than Or Equal To LQ Points Ti
Stream Is Al Least Intermittent)
Notes:
2
pv `-
NCDWQ Stream G9aeaiileation form
UT S
Project Name: 14,*,waf33 LC K River Basin: Ta r - At,-- County: 00,--# Bvaluator: Q , All k
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Sim, Latitude: 3.5-6`b`V?° Signature' )
Date: 10- /4 - ° `I USGS QUAD: G r"%u: llc NW Longitude: 77. dJ7$ VA/° Looatiou/ Mecdons: l.W w 33g
*PLEASE NOTE: Ifew "wreakn&wuer tltietAYe/Iwtanas a ?aie ,lliaiarseoftb4/lrrsr4Na eKA?
Afro, yYn the bestProfwx1oxNJNiesiwwgfdw, # daWw, the fasaw k e nsif sills Alai exd Not a srodyW "WWatnarss-,f *
retlsg SWIM d affm not be need*
Primary Field_Indlestors: (Circle One Number Per Line)
2) Is The USDA Texture In
S) is There An Active (Or Relic) m
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 ' 1 2 U
'•
10) Is a 2 Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated _. w
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR
11, Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is Thera A Groundwater f
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICA TOR
H, Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter n
PRIMARY DIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: (_
3) Does Topography Indicate A ,r--`% _ .
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 j 15
#5 pdowo)
5) is There Water In Channel During Dry 0
.5 1 15
/'?..?.12.7.._.. /1_ i..
SECOtAkYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:-S:-_
IY : f Absent- k Moderate
Strona
1) Are Fish Present? p
21 Arw A.nnhih.e..n D-..-69 /19-1 -S 1 13
8) Are Wetland Plants In Stmambed? SA- V
Mostly UPL
(" NOTE: If Total Antics OfAll Plants to Streanbed 2
As Noted Above SkJo This Step L -ice A V Prment+)SECONDAR Y BIOLOGY INDICA TOR POI.
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondarv) =
Stream Is Al Least Intermittent)
Notes:
(If Greater Than Or Equal To L2 Points 7
1)
dy OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FAC
1 C75
.5
0 p
2
UT 11
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: (C 00, N.?ti4?33 River Basin: 7-•z - County: Evaluator: V 'llf,
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: iA4i ??;y Latitude: 35.6'766a5ba Signature:
Date: 10 USGS QUAD: Longitude: 77 36J7,;to Location/Directions: iy54OW d
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
11\ T_ TM- TTQTI A 1r__+-. Tn Q+--1-A
Is There A Hanklull bench Yresent'l u i %..?
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
* d Bank Caused Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity en Score=O*)
10) Is a 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS:
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is There A Groundwater
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POI1IS: _
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic) n _
3) Does Topography Indicate A ,
U. Hydrolo2y Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5
SECONDAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS:
1.5
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondarv) = s20? c2 (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream I.
At Least Intermittent)
Notes:
2
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed7 SAV Mostly OBL Most CW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Ski This Ste LESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
P UT 19
bc'' NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: IBC OO'_r River Basin: j a& - Pay,., County: Pi ? Evaluator: o I llf'o - 6I1IL-1
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Latitude: 3S Signature: &5gegqo ""q(") A-
Date: USGS QUAD: -((e V? Longitude: r77, 153 731" Location/Directions: NCy*Fk geluoo t sAco/
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system Ft4Vw
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Ab t Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 1 2 3
'IN T.. 'rL- T TQTI A T....?....e T« Q?«e„«. U-A
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 33
(*NOTE: d k CausedBy Ditching And 97THOUTSInuosiu 71 r =0*
10) Is a 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 1,1= '- -
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater G2
Flow/Discharge Present? ? 02 1 2 3
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: c5
III. Biology Absent Weak . Moderate Stron
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 _ 0
PRIMARY BIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS.
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
;J_
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINT __S?
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic) ,^
3) Does Topography Indicate A -
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since (0) .5 1 1.5
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 ) .5
SECONDARY.HYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:_ 3
1) Are Fish Present?
.5
1.5
1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostl FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(' NOTE: IfTotal Absence OjAll Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 0 0
As Noted Above Skin This Sten UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS. 0,
TOTAL POINTS(Primary + Secondary) = 6
I ' (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream 1
At Least Intermittent)
Notes:
2
UT 20
f ?'. NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: ?djhn 3 3 W40" River Basin: -Ph--.. County: P, W Evaluator: 4/,A,,,
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: ?.+??+ SAW Latitude: ?S ?CMg o Signature:
,5S11 Lrf Location/Directions: /k# y„y tb;
Date: 10-(q-04 USGS QUAD: C,,,,W, Longitude: -2-7
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if bh h
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system Mi///
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1% To Tl.a TTQTIA Tavfi,ra Tn Q+rPnmlipil
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 Gl)
("NOTE ed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is a 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated -?
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS:
II Hydrolozy Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater /,-
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 5 1 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Stronp.
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 01 .5 1 1.5
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry .5 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=1.5 Nn=0
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary)
_
At Least Intermittent)
6'- (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream
Notes: :5 O, 5 901 15 leaf I
ts) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mo CU Mostly UPL
NOTE. If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0
As Nnted Ahnve.QG;n Thrc .cton nnn F.ec .ce v n--*%
NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
?I CANAL-
NCDWQ Stream Classifleatton Form
Project Name:k4j 33WooT River Bain: tar-A+m Comty:645ecgv,bt Bvahntor•1j,'Pi&MA M011141
DWQ ProjectNumbdr. Neerest Named Stream: Cr-wwe//dwJLdWde:IS-°S 1'7.34 s;pawrc: V*,,u
Date: to-tg'oN USGS QUAD: d 0- Sjlrf,tw LonQimde: 77° a r' N).a? ens: ow y; y?,,? 33
*PLEASE NOTE: i(/sw1s?iuwtran?w?rsr,iwrlAw?tArepwr?niraeawraattclY,rre4/baleworeoy,
Afro, Ala fJrs ear pnq//Jra$wKewt gllYss eaofwafor, dis flarar b. w.wuts dJtelr.Na,ra w sr?iq,d?
?r a?+?.rlwr?trOs wa+*
Primary Reid Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
.. r_ we._ tTQT?'T?irAfww in Rhw?ni?wd
M
9) Is a Conthowas Hal & Bank Present? - - 0 1 2
10) Is a 2"0 Onder Or Grater Channel (As Indicted
PRIMARYGROMORPHOLOGYINDICA7VR POIM:Icl
PRIMAR Y BIOLO GY INDICA T FOR
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
3) Does TopoSaphy Indicate A
SECONDARYGROMORPHOLOGYINDICrl TOR POINTS:
U, Aydralm Absent Weak Moderate strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Lut Year's) Loallitter ?-,
1
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
L1, Hydrolm R Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is 'Mae A Groundwater
F uldw¦eL"m present? 0 1 2 -1e3
PRIMARYHYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
4) Is
Water In Channel And a48 His. Sines 0 .5 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? t-OWTE.-ffam
5) is There Water In Channel Dosing Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Or In Omwing,ftoog ri Soils Present In Bildw Of Channel (Or Ih H,
s
SECOMIL OYMMROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
1) Are Fish Present? 0
1.5
2) Are Amphibians Ptesent? A 1.5
3) Are AguaticTurtles Present? cw
.4) Are Q3yflah Emma /;. 1 .5 1.5
6) Are Iroit slim 09
Prment?
8) Are Wetland Plante In Stroandised? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU
Mostly UPL
(° NOTE) Y7b/a1 Ah*W# OfA11 PIdw a•ls bYnem&d 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA7'OR POINTS: q,DZ
TOTAL POINTS tPrimxyv + Secondary) a (If Greater Than Or Equal To ,2 Points Thi
Stream Is Al Least Intermlttesrt)
Notes:
c?
,

2
0 T2
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
rl?
Project Name: Ptghvl 33 NC/br River Basin: Ta(- Ptk-,, County: Cileca,, c. Evaluator: OiA,,, /e?1v??;?
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream:eir*,4 C.wJLatitude: 35:$g3T5RQ° Signature:
ax--44-
Date: /b-lq^oq USGS QUAD: OIL $li ,,k Longitude: 77 5',-4 aS7 Location/Directions: l ,, "y 33
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form Is not necessary. Also, if
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified. natural stream-this rating system
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomor holo Absent W 64k Moderate Strong
1) IIs There A Riffle. Pool Sequence? 0 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
t*NOTB: [fBed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is a 2 Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
H. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater 01
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS.
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
Present In Strea ed 1.5 0
2 Is Sediment O Plants r Debris Present? 0 5 1,5
3 Are rack Lines resent? 0 1 1
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 I. _ ;iw-; d
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostl FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(*NOTE. YTotal Absence OjAll Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As t d b ve Skip t U E V Present*).
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + -Secondary) = 9 7 -(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream
At Least Intermittent)
Notes:
v
Co?,f?.??'ol?S w
S?S? ?"'6?r ?re?
2
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: rL
UT3
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: River Basin: `rav - Pa,. County: ; d. c-,L Evaluator: W flip ,,
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: E-" mWer.kLatitude: 35 787dd10 ? Signature: 44,
Date: 10- l'0 -0 USGS QUAD: O Longitude:-?? E35/7,,'??o Location/Directions:
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. At, if
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modyled.natural stream--this rating system cross.
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
D '-LA -4) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
VInnA-1a;n Araean47
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
(WOTE. ffBed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Seore'0*)
10) Is a 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tono Man And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 No=O/ ?i lam' S _ ?? cu f ?o d?'su?
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOL 0 GY INDICA TOR POINTS:
Mq
11. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 U Z
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 3
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
A?SU-iVA
3) Does Topography Indicate A i
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter _
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since
Last Known a?n? Mm gpitch Indicates
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry
0 .5 1 1.5
0 .5 1
SECONDAR YHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
1\ A__ Tl__t
O) X%1V rv occ,uiu rianiS in wreamoeal SAV Mostly OBL Mos CW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE. If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skin This Sten UNLESS SAYPresent*)SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS..3 S
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) _ (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream
At Least Intermittent)
Notes: 04 4w oil
Cc
ury
co Cf/ NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: tJ River Basin: -t iL - pa w, County: t7fi?c cc, ?
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: C'"4 Ai/ 4+4I atitude: 3S.7143-00'o
Evaluator: ti/0"Aull',t,
Signature: W-14k
Date: 10-M-04 USGS QUAD: O Q Longitude: 77.53 y156e Location/Directions: 14,544733 "1 Wy
"•ss
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if
in the best professional Judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modilled natural stream-,this rating system
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain? 3
3 Are Natural Levees Present? 3
4 Is The Channel Sinuous? 3
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
(*NOTM-IfBed& Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity 7hen Score-Q*)
10) Is a 2° Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY-INDICATOR POINTS:
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 5 l 1 i 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
PRIMARYSIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: '-N
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)

5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
s- -
iq
II. Hydrolo2V Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry
Iq .
TOTAL POINTS (primary + Secondarv) (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream b
At Least Intermittent)
Notes:
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: G - S
a) Are wetland Plants in Streambed7 SAV Mostly OBL Mos CW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skin This Step UNLESS SAV Present*)
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS.
ftw?
UT5
C i NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: 4.j WV 3 3 pC L' )oT River Basin: Ta-r - PdA -- County: F42 a%ht- Evaluator: Ark Itbt so
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: C"1441 CMdLatitude: 35 ?7f6gXe Signature:
UVA14?-
Date: p-lZ -Cy USGS QUAD: p Longitude: 777 6"31101q& Location/Directions: Ayi f ?3 ;'il ve "Y
PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, y
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream---this rating system
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There ARiffle-Pool Sequence? 0 TIT- 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present?
10) Is a 2' Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
H. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater r
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 ( ? _
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:'-
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? .5 1 1.5
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 1 1.5
3) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.-
OINTS.
4 Are Bivalves Present? 0 2 3
4)
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter -Afg 1
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5
SECONDAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (primary + Secondary) = ? b -75 (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream 1
At Least Intermittent)
Notes:
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL MosCW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(" NOTE: IfTotal Absence OjAll Plants In Streambed 2 1 75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip Thts Step UNLESS SAV Present"')
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: .7
CHEELS
ILL
1` ?-E E k
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: D'S3 Vc00-
River Basin: -r?-r -Pal County: Evaluator: (,J J/i4. AV4 J.J DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Al. c Latitude: 35 761_761c( Signature:
i,,krccf,?
`( n -r Q-ve-
Date: 10 -I"q USGS QUAD: DId Sr" Longitude: 7,7 S? &C ?7Location/Directions: P; ll"cole4 N 33 o ,
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Str
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence?' 0 1 2 3
21 Tc Thr TTCT)A Texture In Streamhed
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 U a i
(*NOTE: ffBed& k Caused By Ditching And KTHOUT Sinuosity n or = •
10) Is a 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 3
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic) l?
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 5 1
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 3
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter ?e
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 5
SECONDAR Y BIOL OGY INDICA TOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) _ -? (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is
At Least Intermittent)
Notes:
2
oI .-uc vv cmum riants in 3treamneu t SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: V Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skiv This Sten UNI_F_V.V .SAV Procant*)
U T Co
J Form
NCDWQ Stream Classification
Project Name: 0,16133 PCD 1 River Basin: lpr - pan-r County: A+ Evaluator:
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream:4a4 A-Iletwk Latitude: 35.-61c(131 Signature:
Date: 10 -1 g- 6q USGS QUAD: 0 Longitude: -7 2 S 101371 Location/Directions: Nwy?J ?s..4 10
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if ,, tee
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomor holo Absent woarjl? Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 l? 2 3
91 To Th. T TQTI A Tovh- In 4Z*rP7m1%PrJ
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 (J3
* Bank Caused L!v in And HUMOUT Sinuosity Then Score=O*)
10) Is a 2° Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tooo Man And/Or In Field) Present? Qres=3 N -0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:/_
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater ??
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 1 31
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 3
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS.
a9. S
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
3) Does Topography Indicate A r 1
II. Hydrolot?y Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 .5
Last Known Rain? E• I itch ndi at d n 9 Above ki This Step And # Below*
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:"
1) Are Fish Present?
.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mos y FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: YTotal Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Present*)SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) _ (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is
At Least Intermittent)
SJtm? 3dr-k.?--
Notes:
2
UT T
Y /Z NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: P 3? jV 33 VfPT River Basin: -raw- -(%w. County: pi7Y_
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: C,,1,Lv1 .e Crok Latitude: 3S WY1?7?7
Evaluator: 01 RSA
Signature: 41, *
Date: ti)-15-4 USGS QUAD: f, Ak4 Longitude: 77 S667751 Location/Directions:p? 335A
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form Is not necessaryAlso, if N 11
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 3
21 Ta ThP TTQTIA TPVfiirP Tn VtrPamherl
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
(*NOTE: IfBed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0•)
10) Is a 2fB Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tom Man And/Or In Field Present? Yes=3 No 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: ('?
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater r ??
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 C3/
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 3
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
a.t
a3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic) IK_1
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage WU? 0 1 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: l
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:

TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) = 3 a. s (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream b
At Least Intermittent)
Notes:
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter _
u) Are wetland Plants in 5treambed7 SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(*NOTE: YTotal Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip Als Step UNLESS SA V Present*).
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 3,5
C° U i 8
C/- NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: la 11?W j 33 or-DDT River Basin: 'TA-f' p4.w. County: Pi 11 Evaluator: aunNo/ ? iV)
,41
yoc5o Signature:
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: CMt40" 4 Latitude: 3S-
o
Date: USGS QUAD: r?kit,A Longitude:?? 565W$ Location/Directions: 4, w'Y133 f(O
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if
in the best professional Judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
(*NOTE: If Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is a 2"d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated i
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
PRIMARYBIOL0GYINDICATOR POINTS:
k.
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
17. S
3) Does Topography Indicate A ?--? -

II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
1
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? N E Dit h Indicated In 9 Above ki This to nd #5 Below*
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1
SECONDARYIIYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS.
1.5
1) Are Fish Present?
1
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV "I? ostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skin 711s Step UNLESS SAV Present*)SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS.-_1.5_
TOTAL POINTS (primary + Secondary) _ (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is
At Least Intermittent)
Notes: - ge&- P,W

J1??n?b? how Cv i )u- vats,
Ag/?r OT 9
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: kk-&?-,4"4 R River Basin: I-A, -A---- County: Aj-H' Evaluator: ??
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Latitude: Signature:
Date: USGS QUAD: Longitude: Location/Directions: J
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not neces ry.
Also, if in the best professional f udgement of the evaluator, the featureh a man-made ditch and not a mod(/led natural stream-this
rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed "
Different From Surrounding Terrain? 0 1 3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? -6) 1 2 3
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 e 2 3
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Tl _ _
9) is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 ' 1 2
•
10) Is a 2 Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA
II Hvdroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
.y
II Hvdroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strong a
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
?i
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5
Last Known Rain? ('NOTE, UDitch Indicated In #9 Above Skin This Stev And #S B
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5
I.?
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU
Mostly UPL
(' NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 I 7 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Sty UNLESS SAV Present').
SECONDAR Y BIOLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS: 3=
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) = 30,x{ (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The
Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
Notes:
2
III. Bioloey Absent Weak Moderate Strong

NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: 44wi 33 NODT River Basin: Ttr-Pt?--
DWQ Project Number:
County: P Ot
Nearest Named Stream: 60W k. Latitude: 3s. N3703a
COQETDE
CaEEIL
Evaluator: Vole.. X"UV)
Signature: V *A,
Date: I p-r b ' 04 U5GS QUAD:(,-U,00#e 0(J Longitude:_77. q806 Location/Directions: (rnm&
?r
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 2
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 U ?1
(*NOTE: IfBed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is a 2"a Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated ?-?
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOkPOINTS:
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater ?
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 (3!1
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:_ 3
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS. el. S.
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. _
H. Hydroloey Absent Weak Moderate Stronp_
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5
SECONDARYIIYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: %
to
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is
At Least Intermittent)
Notes: kr .-? ?to-Q, Cr.A-
-AA 1?? ?- ??Y? rZu
M) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed7 SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Ste UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
klc
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system
should not be used*
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
UT 1D
MbT River Basin: T"r- X11- County: O i' Evaluator: P'u aG
Nearest Named Stream:,, ~ ,.c creek Latitude: 35-7117677' Signature: ?r
Date: lt)'Ip-ou USGS QUAD:6rw.vl1,o 4A) Longitude: 77. y760915 Location/Directions:5otA ?( 'kt'0,4
Project Name: #.'74 ivv 33
DWQ Project Number:
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 V 2
(*NOTE: It Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is a 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated ? -?
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharye Present? 0 1 2 ( 3?
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: -3
PRIMARY BIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
tic
3) Does Topography Indicate A ?
II. Hydrolo2y Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 .5
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut 7 Yes 1 No=0
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: "?.
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) _ (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is
At Least Intermittent)
Notes:
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed7 SAV Mosel BL Mostb?&ACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(" NOTE. If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 ' 55 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Present*)
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: S.75
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: NG DOT ' 4133 River Basin: 7140-kA County: Pit
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Cowl ,t crwkLatitude:
U-T ? I
Evaluator: 41l/??at,, I?/4
Signature: f/GI ,- Av A
Date: I o-)T-01 USGS QUAD: ?f ??ui(It UW Longitude: 7 7• V76 060o Location/Directions:43hvy 33 -40ri• ? ?IM7
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomor holo Abs t Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain? 0 1 02 3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? eCQ 1 2 3
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 t17 2 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
("`NOTE; IfBed & Bank C used By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0.)
10) Is a 2° Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated /P'-1
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATO)Z'?POINTS:_ PS
H. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 3
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: .5
i(. 5
10
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS. 0
3) Does Topography Indicate A ???
II. Hydroloty Absent Weak Moderate Strout
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 5Last Rain? Dlt d' at n Above t n # Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 .5
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: ! p
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) _ (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is
At Least Intermittent)
Notes: Ag 4e q - cl, wA ??j yrrk?h .
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed7 SAV Mostly OBL Mostl FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS.-_Z-25
UT I2-
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
?O
Project Name: N001- 01J? 33 River Basin: -rG,r-paw County: Evaluator: 0i g'ta
DWQ Project Number: V Nearest Named Stream: Cd/te4A 04 Latitude: 3,!?. 70,6 g03? Signature: i k- Ur
Date: /p USGS QUAD: G, ,, _l?e ?w Longitude: 7"7, y??4? 0 Location/Directions: /A; 4733 yd4 /4*,w
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. A so, if
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modifled.natural stream-this rating system
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Il Te ThP TTOMA TPxfiirP Tn RtrPamhrd
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
(*NOTE: ILBed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is a 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR-POINTS: l
H. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater
PRIMAR Y HYDR OL 0 G Y INDICA TOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic) /-'%
PRIMARY SIOL0GYINDICATOR POINTS. _(D_
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 C5) 1 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 5
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
Present In Stresmhend? 1 c i
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 5 1.5
3 Are'Wrack Lines Present? 0 .5
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 05
Last Rai MOTE: it n d o #9 Above Az :p t And #5 Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? es=1 No-0
SECONDAR Y HYDR OL 0 GY INDICA TOR POINTS._a_?_
III. Bioloey Absent Weak Mnd"ate I.Rtrnna
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 .57 ri-2 1.5 4
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streamoea7 SAV Mostly OBL Mostly^CW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants in Streambed 2 1 75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skin This Step UNLESS SA VPresent*).
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS. AVPTr-
TOTAL POINTS(Primary + Secondary) = aj.,PS (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is
At Least Intermittent)
Notes:
2

UT 13
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
4 ?
Project Name:V606f' O''74i733 River Basin: I'ar- A? County: P/'ff Evaluator: 04114k, /?1! lilt
DWQ Project Number: Q Nearest Named Stream:CoW/'e- Latitude: 3S, 703 &S9 ° Signature: 4,44
Date: USGS QUAD: 6f z v;JJt UJ Longitude: 77 4Sg5069° Location/Directions: A, 4vf 33
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modijled natural stream-this rating system
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 07 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 d2 2 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic) rl
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 L3? ?c
(*NOTE: jf4ed & Bark Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is a 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: (9'
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater ,l=Z,
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: _3
PRIMAR Y BIOL O GY INDICA TOR
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 .5 t" 1 / 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 1 • S
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter ?.
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.
Last Known Rain? CNOTE• YDitch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #S Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 ilk
SECONDARYIIYDROL0GYINDICATOR POINTS.
1) Are Fish Present? 0 .5 1 .5
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0 5 a -) 1.5
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is
At Least Intermittent)
Notes:
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Most1 ACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of Al! Plants In Streambed 2 1 (.75 5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAY Present*).
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS.S ,24q
U-T q
P NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: #W_ A?wI 33 River Basin: f Ll,
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: cdxt?t
County: 0,
Latitude: 3 .6?y31 Z o
Evaluator: W'taw% 144
Signature: vtkt
Date: (o~(Y"pc( USGS QUAD: &""01e VQ Longitude:77.1?SA5790 LocationMirections:A?Wvj 33 mi* Wk'rdr
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified. natural stream---this rating system
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
n% T_ TL_ TTCTI A T,...a...... T. Ca«.... U...7
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 (/
(*NOTE: IfBed & Bank Caused By DitchtngAnd WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score-P)
10) Is a 2 Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is There A Groundwater nC)
PRIMAR Y HYDR OL 0 G Y INDICA TOR POINTS:
PRIMARY EIOLOGYINDICATOR
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POII0TS5
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic) /D
3) Does Topography Indicate A ;:!7_ -
II. Hydrolozy Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 0
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1:5
last Rai (WOTE: it h Indicated In 9 A ki i Ste An S Belo
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:

TOTAL POINTS (primary + Secondary) _ 7 (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is
At Least Intermittent)
Notes:
S) .ire Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostl . CW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence OJAll Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Ski This Ste NLE S AV Present*).
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: -7
UT 1(0
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: j)cw7- !l w? River Basin: Tom- ? ? County: Pill- Evaluator: 14 ? 111.,.` 111,
DWQ Project Number: p Nearest Named Stream: E, Latitude: 3 $6 `7% 1 q01 Signature:
9 n?i N kin
Date: (O/lq//r f USGS QUAD: Gftemv J? VV Longitude:-)') y33q6y.?- Location/Directions:A 3D
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
21 To ThP TT.QTIA TPyfiirr Tn Rtrnamheri
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 i Sr
('NOTE: If Bed & Bank Caused B Di Ching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is a 2° Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATO'"OINTS:1_
H. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 3
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: _3
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS.
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
3) i)oes _i opograpny inatcate A i -:)
II. Hydrolo2y Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter I
D.e-+ T.. Qke.. «.te,in I c . ..
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1
Last Known Rai MTE: tc n l at d n #9 Above i Th to And #5 1
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1
SECONDARY,HYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS- 1-/,,C5
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is
At Least Intermittent)
Notes:
2
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed7 SAV Mostly OBL MoACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(*NOTE. If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARYSIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
J?A UT 18
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: chi #,'?I U River Basin: -1,, -pa,,_ County: P/"#-- Evaluator: l,/; ??' Jlly?l,?
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: 7bks&w,#1.4 Latitude: 3,567R 1167e' Signature:
A.-
Date: fo-- I1-0 USGS QUAD: 6/14w„ A VW Longitude: 77,ya5'1,,50T0 Location/Directions:
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
'7l To ThP TTCTIA TP.Yfilre. Tn Rtrenmhed
8 Is There A BanKtuu bencn rresentt u t z
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3
tWOM 1Qd & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0")
10) Is a 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICAT6R-0INTS: /7
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: _'3
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic) i-_,, -
PRIMARYEIOL0GYINDICATOR POINTS: _l?5
3) Does lbpography intricate A

H. Hydroloey Absent Weak Moderate Strona
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter %?,
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 (1.5;
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS.
1) Are Fish Present? 0
TOTAL POINTS (primary + Secondary) (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is
At Least Intermittent)
Notes:
2
b are iron Uxlcllzin Bacteria/Fun us Present? .5 1 1.5
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 5 1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mos ?CW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: IfTotal Absence OjAll Plants In Streambed 2 1 I /Y .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Ste UNLESS AV Present*). SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: -7
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets
USACE AID#-

DWQ # Sits #
,. __- -- ---.
(indicate on attached map)
IzoM ul EU. C A NA(.-
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: IU ' DC1 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: ( 0 -too - 0 4. Time of evaluation: 4 10 a.w.
5. Name of stream: nriu?uttY? (?.,.n. 6. River basin: rar - pw1M
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order . vV% kNOrr d„e 40 hee.vY
9. Length of reach evaluated: 3W 10. County: ?4? r?r?Y,YJ?Q.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3.S. `3Of& ? ° Al Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -77&,2!y7o'9 'CJ
Method location determined (circle): GP
p US- opo She Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS COfferG
Other 411 ace .
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attac map identifying stream(s) location): Al.* oq-
A/8 QQ f
14. Proposed channel work (if any):__ -- lloa Q i Aea„e,.,, pnn i et-r
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit:- R ?l
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters )4 Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? ('" NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: __Q / _44Aa d.
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?(I?NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: ?% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial ,60/o Agricultural
% Forested _% Cleared / Logged -S-% Other /1.v,/ dtr,oo S
22. Bankfull width: ay 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): gA&.g ,-_
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):? Comments: ---__rr Ucl/ C,r. Na C ; IUS(O i,d?O-Q2t_Qa
Evaluator's Signature I & Date 10-116-Oct
This channel evaluation rm s intended o used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
A/-3 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CtDmWE
C-1 4M qL

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = ax points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
5
2 Evidence of past human alteration

extensive alteration= 0• no alteration= max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5
O
3 Riparian zone

no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5
3
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical dischaeges

extensive discharges = 0• no d schax es = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4
5 Groundwater discharge

`
no discharge = 0• springs, seeps, wetlands etc. = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-4
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain

no flood lain = 0• extensive floodoJain = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-2
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access

(deeply entrenched - 0• frequent floodin - max , oints 0-5 0-4 0-2
a
8 Presence of ad jtlcent Wetlands

no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-2
3
9 Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-3 Q
10 Sediment input

extensive deposition= 0; little or no sedimen = max points. 0-5 0-4 0-4
11 Size & diversity of channel bed suBstirate * 0
4

fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse saes = max oints

., - 0-5
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0
5
(deeply incised - 0• stable bed & banks =. max oints - S
13 Presence of major bank failures

severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5
y

14 Root depth and density on banks
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points) 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial impact =0• no evidence a max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 Q
16 Presence of riffle-pooVripple-pool complexes

no riffles/riles or pools = 0• well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6
- S
17 Habitat complexity

little or no habitat m 0• fre wen varied habitats = max points) 0-6 0-6 0-6
a
18 Canopy coverage over streambed

no shading vegetation 0• continuous canopy _ max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5
•?
19 Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure :4 max
A
0 - 4
0 - 4
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
no evidence - 0• common numerous s = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5
3
21 Presence of amphibians

no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4
v
22 Presence of fish
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max oints
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4
L23 Evidence of wildlife use
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence= max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5
3
Total Points Possible 1'p0 100 l00

TOTAL SCORE alsry 7?.C
" These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
UT
USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # C indicate on attached map)
1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following Information for the stream reach under assessment: M
1. Applicant's name:(. DOr 2. Evaluator's name: 4 ML ? /'/y&I,
3. Date of 16,rgnoLl.
Name of stream: U n&,W
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:
4. Time of evaluation: $: -30,t,.-
6. River basin: 1'.,r - ?Q k-
8. Stream order: S?
10. County: FJ1grC 1.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
o
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3S, q ?6 /S ;790 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 7 7.
Method location determined (circle): ® CFC?o Shee Ortho (Aerial) Photo/01S Other G OtherY/,n& C _ t
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): S
i vt -f SVC& 4& AJC f a ed O
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit: K
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES l_% If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 0 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (M NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: --D/o Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 5S% Agricultural
Yo Forested _% Cleared / Logged Other ( M,-*J K%? )
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 0'2!/
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -,Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: X Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there arre'obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): r Comments:
Evaluator's Signature `(1 h -111AI/ Date 10-11-6'1
This channel evaluation for ntended to a used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
I Q-1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
UT
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

no flow or saturation = 0• •stron flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0, no alteration = max points)

3 Riparian zone
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0
4

extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points) - 3
5 Groundwater discharge `

U
no discharge = 0• springs, sops wetlands etc. = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-4 0
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain

no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-2
Entrenchment / floodplain access

p"
(deeply entrenched = 0• f uent flooding = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-2 O
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2
Q
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity

extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-3
10 Sediment input

extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4
l l Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
/
fine homogenous = 0. large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

>
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
S
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks

no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-5
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

substantial impact =0- no evidence = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-5 O
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6
17 Habitat complexity

little or no habitat = 0• frequent varied habitats = max points) 0-6 0-6 0-6
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
?
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points) • S
19 Substrate embeddedness *
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max NA 0-4 0-4
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

no evidence = 0• comma numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5
O

O 21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4 O
no evidence = 0• comma numerous types = max points)

O 22 Presence offish 0-4 0-4 0-4
O
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
a
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
iiese cuaracLensncs are not assessea in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
FiH 4.U T2
DWQ # Site 006 (indicate on attached map)
FE-11 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: /
1. Applicant's name: PC ?-r 2. Evaluator's name: a.Ileea 41 pvd h
3. Date of evaluation: 10- vq 4. Time of evaluation: w a.,
5. Name of stream: Un na,...? 6. River basin: 7 a r - Na
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: Ay
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
8. Stream order: V vW'low?x due ±2 Aw,,-,AJA/ d h
10. County: ??1 es co he.-
12. Subdivision name (if any
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 350-3221 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -7 7 ?S2 a7 7
Method location determined (circle): 0 t o5heet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS (tither G Other /1rGQ
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): U*?t?
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: &u -
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Mt /d -
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters X Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES N If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES O 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
/ _5_01o Forested _% Cleared / Logged % Other
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality. ' d i A i A
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 10 - fQ 0-
This channel evaluation form s Intended to a used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form Is subject to USACE approval and does not Imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
C.) 1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

#
CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
coastal Piedmont Mountain

I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream (^
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow - max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
J

2 Evidence of past human alteration
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5

3 Riparian zone
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 4
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points

U
5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
0*
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access

p"
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding - max points)
0-5
0-4
0-2 3

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points 0-6 0-4 0-2
9 Channel sinuosity

extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-3 '
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
,2 .
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
I I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel Incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
E, no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-5 '
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6
E
01 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat - 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

no evidence = 0; common numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5

21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
O no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
22 Presence of flab 0-4 0-4 0-4
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max oints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence - max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) a-
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ#
U T3
Site #C Cf(indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
M
Provide the following Information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: s cpdr 2. Evaluator's name: tut AIi fth3 AUII'11.1
3. Date of evaluation: to-IS-01 4. Time of evaluation: /0;00.q"-
5. Name of stream: 6. River basin: I-air - 1pct w.
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: I Sf: - {lao vr1 g i9i ct ua, -
9. Length of reach evaluated: Sd / 10. County: C a?y?vv??
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): IS 75 ZA290? Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -7 7
Method location determined (circle): a (5osheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): 4 G
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: 1M1-ld
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Al i / J-
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? Q)NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 01 3681*1
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: /o ° Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
_:5E:% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _ % Other ( M-- -1? i• . J-
22. Bankfull width: a ,l 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 36
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight K Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): d ? • Com

Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is Intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
U T.?
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow - max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
2 Evidence of past human alteration

extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5
3 - Riparian zone

no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5
'
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4
5 Groundwater discharge

no discharge - 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-4
I
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain

y,
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points) 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 '
?p Entrenchment / floodplain access
p (deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-2
S Presence of adjacent wetlands

no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-2
Q
9 Channel sinuosity

extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-3
I
10 Sediment input
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4
C
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11

fine homogenous - 0• large, diverse sizes - max points) NA* 0-4 0-5
?
12 Evidence of channel Incision or widening

(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
3
13 Presence of major bank failures

severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5
14 Root depth and density on banks

E.,
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-5
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5

substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
U
U
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6
C7.
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points) J
18 Canopy coverage over streambed

no shading vegetation = 0• continuous cano = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
/
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
id
= 0• 0-4 0-5 0-5
no ev
ence
common numerous types - max points)
21 Presence of amphibians

O

no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4
l
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4
no evidence = 0• common numerous types - max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use

no evidence = 0• abundant evidence - max oints 0-6 0-5 0-5
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) a s.
i nese cnaracterisucs are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ #,
UTy
Site # indicate on attached map)
FE-1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: 0001- 2. Evaluator's name: 011/64,,
3. Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation: ?0:3a
5. Name of stream: (LVIA,,j 6. River basin: T-ay' - At w.
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: 10 - Did 41A*14 -
f
9. Length of reach evaluated: q ;e? 10. County: E4sr11.LA
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
0
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): I .S. , 6y3. 0 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 7 !Z K ?SK r
Method location determined (circle): GP renearby heel Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Ot r GI Other ,//uta C?? L1
13. Location of reach under evaluation (no roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): 44"y 3?
5c01y'C C re 4S C f CU Q+A JAZILIiP NA14
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Q,'
15. Recent weather conditions: A- M
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hy/? -
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _xNutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (P If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial o Agricultural
r S'% Forested _% Cleared / Logged __?L_% Other (_fiv')( riCvL )
22. Bankfull width: Y q 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form Is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

UT
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
# CHARACTE
ISTICS
R SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
1 no flow or saturation = 0••stron flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5 O
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)

5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain - max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j
0-6
0-4
0-2 Q
no wetlands = 0• large ad
acent wetlands = max points)

9 Channel sinuosity
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
I
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
>+ (deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
H no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
Q
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
('
S
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
Habitat com
lexit .
17 p
y 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5

?.?
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness
NA
0-4
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
C7 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
I
O no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max oints
04
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4 I
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence - 0• abundant evidence - max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
3/9
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
UT5
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # 4/4 (indicate on attached map)
17M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
2. Evaluator''' name: 0t 4di.,
1. Applicant's name: NC Dal-
3. Date of evaluation: /O - /A- 04 4. Time of evaluation: /O ?yS
5. Name of stream: (-f?t1 a.MU 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: S. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: I 10. County: clq! cay-L,
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
• o
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -7 •S It A
Method location detennined (circle): (. S op Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GS Other `f
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): oek
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit: %
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters D` Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YE NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ,YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial ?W% Agricultural
% Forested _% Cleared / Logged ?% Other( hf,XW cTv-t )
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 7V a?
24. Channel slope down center of stream: k Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight t4.-Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion, Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality. 1?7
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is Intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
4/K urs
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE SC
RE
# CHARACTERISTICS O
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation= 0;-strong flow= max oints
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 . Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
a'
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent tloodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 3
y no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2
a' (deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

j 0-6 0-4 0-2
S?
acent wetlands = max oints
no wetlands = 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
S
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
?

?.
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points) J
F'
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
a
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5 ?
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points) J
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
no shadin vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
3
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
O no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
a
O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
3
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max oinis
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
NEEk-s MILL
19 J=-
USACE AID# - DWQ # Site #-7'= (indicate on attached majp t
M-1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET dhft?
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:-- A/C D0-r 2. Evaluator's name: All",
3. Date of evaluation: /0 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: C4ee- kS Aft C'rwk- 6. River basin: --t ar -
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: ?L r?N d ?(fCuS;?e I`?C ,1n 4ZI-e,
r
9. Length of reach evaluated: goo 10. County: e feGOKc4_//4# A9c,H?I
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3 O Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 7-7O O
Method location determined (circle): yPS Top heel Ortho (Aerial) Photo/G1S Other GI Other
13?Location of reach under evaluation (n nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): 5110 Iff `l1 o i o azse, 7&. a & 4&ks M? ?l d? d-J J'GtX Ar, R i/a,L ? j?_ An,i., z V U Slr.. An
14. Proposed channel work (if
15. Recent weather conditions
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 4 Q
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters \ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES) NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: IC.tO.c.-
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? Li)) NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: S% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial a% Agricultural
_5" % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _i:5% Other( ?Za Lk )
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank),:-?
24. Channel slope down cen 1r of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) ,Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Scorf (from reverse): Comments: ?t ,rev echd? 2 lir kale,
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation oYrn is Intended-to a used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
VAU --
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CNEE
HILL
C1ZEEk-
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 - Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
S Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
I I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0
5 0-4 0-5
?
12 (deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points) -

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
?? severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max points)
i 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
a
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5 3
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
3
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)

l 13 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5

L
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0
4 0-5 0-5
L r
20 no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points) -
>(
C7 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
O no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
''l
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max oints

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
_ O i Cp
USACE AID# DWQ # Site #-kA (indicate on attached map)
Provide the following Information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name: 1
3. Date of evaluation: /d -/ 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: h h 6. River basin,
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 3001 10. County: Pik
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
n o
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Crg3 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 7 VQg
Method location determined (circle): 10 &1o heet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/G1S Other& Other Ad W "00
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):. !/ 3
l?Ov i i .Oe?
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Imi ?t><'
16. Site conditions at time of visit: A4;
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters V Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? 6 NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: e,,Lal.19.L-
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (i NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? X20 NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _Y-% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial ?% Agricultural
?% Forested _% Cleared / Logged % Other ( ULQ¢ )
22. Bankfull width: ? 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature hA X?fA ? Date ' 0`'"
This channel evaluation form Is h tended?e . ed only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
FIM-1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
DT to
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE COR
# CHARACTERISTICS E
S
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max points)

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 - Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
j
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
d no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max oints
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2
3
S
p" (deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points) .
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2
acent wetlands = max oints
no wetlands = 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max oints
I0 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
3
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
I I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
/
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
E"
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
< no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0
3 0-5 0-6
16 no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points) -
d 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5 /
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddeduess NA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0
4 0-5 0-5
3
20 no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points) -

21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
O no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)

O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max oints

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
V/7
I UT
?-
USACE AID#
DWQ#
IFT-11 STREAM QUALITY
Site # *(indicate on attached map)
ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following Information for the stream reach under assessment: l
I _ Annliennt's name: Ix i? l 2. Evaluator's name: ui lkeLt4n Ai lkl,
3. Date of evaluation: 10-(6-0,4 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: ULA40,4? 6. River basin: -,i r- P t,"
DA J 7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: Di eua... - 04.4 J4i hmd'pv? J-44
Pf-l?-
9. Length of reach evaluated: 300 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3 S . ?i ?S ILongitude (ex. -77.556611): Method location determined (circle): Pearby heet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS C GI 13. Location of reach under evaluatroads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): 3
14. Prop6sed channel work (if any):_
15. Recent weather conditions: M
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the aluation point? (?q NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:GtAp't-
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? &? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: - 1? % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _-?-% Other ( Hf tlsx -- )
22. Bankfull width: C?,)- 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 29 , s o "
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ,Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): ?`? • Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date f 0
This channel evaluation form is inten a to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
VZ1
UT 4
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0•-strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
O
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max oints
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
2
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
?
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2 '-
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2

J
p (deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2
acent wetlands = max oints
no wetlands = 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive deposition-- 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
3
>4 (deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
,F"'*
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
479
? severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max points)
90
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5 n
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
'
O no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)

O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ #.
UT8
Site #04(indicate on attached map)
CM STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET A on..
Provide the following Information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Dc/V / 2. Evaluator's name: 0i?lio
3. Date of evaluation: ` (8 4. Time of evaluation: /n. oU?e.,....
5. Name of stream: u A VIA %k t6 6. River basin: Ate'
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: - oNCPrfwtw' Dom- -
9. Length of reach evaluated: 1 10. County: A*.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
[' v / a
n
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 43!? .W 1700) Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 77• S 6Z ?k
Method location determined (circle): P (oJy Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/G1S Othe ,?o Other - &0 Ar-m t_ oti?
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Wi dt
15. Recent weather conditions: M: IJ "
16. Site conditions at time of visit: K 1A -
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 04.
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? Y NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial g2% Agricultural
41, % Forested _% Cleared / Logged --?-% Other (_ i& )
22. Bankfull width: 6 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):-?V
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight ? Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality. ?
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature /?_?Mr Date /0-/8-0/(
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
_ UTS
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0• stron flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
O
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 - Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
I
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2

I
a" (deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
3
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
3
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max points)
f?
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
H no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5 O
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points
00
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5 I
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 ?
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points) .J

21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
J
O no evidence = 0; common numerous types = max points)

22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max oints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 3
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
L-0 Q 6 TOE
DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
FIM-1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: b C QO 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation: r?
5. Name of stream: cSGt.Q fi&e Crime 6. River basin: TM' -/04.?,
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: ti0o /
8. Stream order:
10. County: A
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
? ? Longitude (ex.-77.556GI1): 7T /,q 7ODT?
Latitude (ex. 34.8723 12); 35x/1-71 73°
Method location determined (circle): ,P) ;fopo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS OthS Other/Into L±, o
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_0-nQ Mme
c rqk -1
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Ai /J
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hi'r
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters *>/, Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: .5-1 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial AS7% Agricultural
„5?% Forested _% Cleared / Logged &Y_% Other ( )
01 22. Bankfull width: q5 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): l/P
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) k Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends ? Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments: a v fie. C4,
Evaluator's Signature d,,. 61?11,?- Date 10 -(?',)(-I
This channel evaluation form is nten a to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
hU/Ru/rt/
Col,? EroE
LP-C E_ V,
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points)

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points) s
3 - Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0
5 0
4 0
4
4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) - - - ?

5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 (a
y, no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
p' (deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points) J
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
3
? (deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max points) J
CA
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5

3
H no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
S?
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5 s
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max oints

19 Substrate embeddedness
NA

0-4

0-4
dee 1 embedded = 0• loose structure = max

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4 /

O
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points) I

22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max oints

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) S
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ #_
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment.
1. Applicant's name: UIDOT
3. Date of evaluation: 10-f6-04
5. Name of stream: &h nAk•sl
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:
2. Evaluator's name: wli A1'ai7
4. Time of evaluation: ,-XP 4.
6. River basin: -I-Ar - Akn,-,
8. Stream order: Dl?i, ke -k h , "ka c4ekih .
10. County: PI-6-
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
e o
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 9<,2117(d-7 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): '7.1. 7/ Al-i ,/
Method location determined (circle): PS ? heet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other 1 Other All Ar4e C.yW44&t-c
13. Location of reach under evaluatta note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Ju norYt 10e ?G' rSer7(in She," 5M M4?AOLA-_4711k
14. Proposed channel work (if any): I?i
15. Recent weather conditions: M1f 1J - 14
16. Site conditions at time of visit: IM,'
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters X Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (9 If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? CYf? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (!DE ? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial ?% Agricultural
j % Forested _% Cleared /Logged S % Other (.ti. xo.00S )
22. Bankfull width: X 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ? Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I 0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight A Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality. C
Total Score (from reverse): J Comments:
Evaluator's Signature I ^y ? Date 10 -N -'04
This channel evaluation form is Intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
/??/ OT 10
Site #'111.*indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
UT 10
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation - 0•.stron flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 . Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
l
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
?
S
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points) o
,
6 Presence of adjacent fioodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 a
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 ??
(deeply entrenched - 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2

acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0• large ad /
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
/
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
a
extensive deposition-- 0• little or no sediment = max points)
I 1 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
dee 1 incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max oints
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
a
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5 I
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-devclo ed = max points)
F 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
a
little or no habitat - 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5 I S
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
f
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream Invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
S
3
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max oints -
U 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4

O
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points) ,
a
O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0- 6
0- 5
0- 5
3
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 46,
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
UT II
USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site #"indicate on attached map)
FIM-1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Ag no f 2. Evaluator's name: a
3. Date of evaluation: 09-Oq 4. Time of evaluation: %J0
5. Name of stream: (I h AdAW1 . 6. River basin: Ar - P&"
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream orde/r:? 7,
9. Length of reach evaluated: / 10. County: f i
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.8723 12): 3S•-22 0 Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): (!g?P opo sect Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other Otherr >6.x?
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):agi?
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: _A
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES V If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ( OE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?(]?j3t NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: __S-% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial IS% Agricultural
% Forested _% Cleared / Logged % Other ( MaeC U9e4 )
22. Bankfull width: w r 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): ;Z6 "
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: _ K Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): % J Comments:
Evaluator's Signature uate
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
At Ix Al
UT 11
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE CORE
# CHARACTERISTICS S
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
S
no flow or saturation = 0• stron flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 - Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
J
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
a
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent iloodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2
a (deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
1
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive de osition= 0• little or no sediment = max points) s
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
/
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0
5 0-4 0-5
>4 12 (deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points) - '

13 Presence of major bank failures
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max points
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
!, S
E, no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5 I
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
I
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
a
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream Invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
O no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)

22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4

U
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 3 ?.
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
UT 12
USACE AID# DWQ # Site #"v(indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -?-jo
Provide the following Information for the stream reach under assessment: /
1. Applicant's name: Ax D? 2. Evaluator's name: QI l 4 k, AI1/h
3. Date of evaluation: 10-11,0q 4. Time of evaluation: (1: ;}0
5. Name of stream: t Wk%At I 6. River basin: TIW - P& w.
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: aK d ? ><<. gy 12.4cL.-.4 ro?-
I
9. Length of reach evaluated: 300 10. County: t
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): /
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): J e 20&C1W&3 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -7 -7,!6 511Y0 3
Method location determined (circle): & o heet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS h r Other Aft Atte Cyof??
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)b? ?3
i
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Ibtr Id
16. Site conditions at time of visit: h, ? d
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters X Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 6) If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? Y NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? C9 NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: -% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial% Agricultural
?% Forested _% Cleared / Logged -5 % Other ( m 4fj &C"-
22. ?/S c??,r? Q? ?
Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ,Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) .-.Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>101/6)
25. Channel sinuosity: __Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous _Brpided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 an 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): ' Comments: ?Jk
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation fo is Inten e o be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
NN/Au
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
OT 11
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal. Piedmont Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
I no flow or saturation - 0••stron flow - max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
O
extensive alteration - 0• no alteration - max oints
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer - 0• conti ous wide buffer - max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
4 extensive discharges - 0• no discharges - max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
no discharge - 0• s rin s sees wetlands etc. - max points)
V
04 Presence of adjacent floodplaln
0-4
0-4
0-2
D
W 6 no flood lain - 0• extensive flood lain - max points)

Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 Q
a+ (deeply entrenched - 0• frequent floodin - max points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2
Q
8 no wetlands - 0• lar a ad•acent wetlands - max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization - 0• natural meander - max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive deposition- 0• little or no sediment - max oints
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
I I fine homo enous - 0• large, diverse sizes - max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
3
?
12 (deeply incised - 0• stable bed & banks - max oints ,
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
a severe erosion - 0• no erosion stable banks - max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
a
no visible roots - 0• dense roots throw hout - max points)
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
GI
15 substantial impact -0• no evidence - max points
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools - 0• well-developed - max oints
E 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat - 0• frcquent? varied habitats - max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
no shading ve etation - 0• continuous canopy - max points)
I9 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded - 0• loose structure - max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
3
no evidence - 0• common numerous types - max points)

21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
G no evidence - 0• common numerous types - max points)
O 22 Presence of flab 0-4 0-4 0-4
3
no evidence - 0• common numerous types - max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence - 0• abundant evidence - max points)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
--
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) :::i /'
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#,
4W
UT 13
DWQ # Site #104indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following Information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:
3. Date of evaluation: 0- H-011
5. Name of stream: (iA 4e10e ,l
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 300

2. Evaluator's name: ot1&? zl)n
4. Time of evaluation: 10.',00
6. River basin: -T? r - Pill it,
8. Stream order: ahd heavy OW,14 Vg5&e,,. -
10. County: Alf
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): J3? 703 1259 a Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -77. S?SA? 9 0
_?
Method location determined (circle): P opo heet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/G1S Other Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (not earby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):&l JLaj?
14. Proposed channel work (if any): 0
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 41, d -
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters 1? Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 0 If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? lffiP NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: -jC % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial% Agricultural
O/o Forested _% Cleared / Logged ? A Other ( M, K 0SR.>F )
22. Bankfull width: -2c7 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): c;261
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): q1. Comments:
Evaluator's Signature - Date to-11- 0*'
This channel evaluation fo Intends o e used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requitement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
Aoo r? U T 13
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
1 no flow or saturation - 0:-strong flow - max points)
Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
2 extensive alteration - 0• no alteration - max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
O
no buffer - 0• conti ous wide buffer - max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
4 extensive discharges - 0• no discharges - max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
no discharge - 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. - max points)
U Presence of adjacent lioodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2 I
W 6 no flood Isis - 0• extensive flood lain - max points)

Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2
a+ 7 (deeply entrenched - 0• f -e uent floodin - max points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2
l0 5
8 no wetlands - 0• large adjacent wetlands - max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization - 0• natural meander - max oints
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
I
extensive deposition- 0• little or no sediment - max points)
1 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
# fine homogenous - 0• large, diverse sizes - max points)
Evidence of channel Incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
L
12 (deeply incised - 0• stable bed & banks - max points
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
a severe erosion - 0• no erosion stable banks - max points)
Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
14 no visible roots - 0• dense roots throughout - max points)

W Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
J
15 substantial impact -0• no evidence - max points)
Presence of riffle-pool/rtpple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
16 no riffles/ripples or pools - 0• well-developed - max oints
F 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
t
*
little or no habitat - 0• frequent, varied habitats - max points)
l Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
18 no shading vegetation - 0• continuous canopy - max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
/
(deeply embedded - 0• loose structure - max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
3
20 no evidence - 0• common numerous types - max points)

21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
C no evidence - 0• common numerous types - max points)
04
22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4
0 no evidence - 0• common numerous types - max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0- 6
0- 5
0- 5
3
no evidence - 0• abundant evidence - max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100

TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) I
I
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
Av UT I q
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
M
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:-, J)C WT 2. Evaluator's name: i'? -- h
3. Date of evaluation: 1 Q - N . A 4. Time of evaluation: (111(0
5. Name of stream: UN A4. 6. River basin: Tar' Pa P,%
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: 4h
9. Length of reach evaluated: -,?pU 10. County: pr`7
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
/ (? ?
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3<.6q ` 31Ho Longitude (ex. -77.556611): o
Method location determined (circle): op heet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Othe GI Other 3
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach ma identifying stream(s) location): iu fia r-4u,4
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: M
16. Site conditions at time of visit: N A
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES el?l If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 'EEq NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: ?% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial ?% Agricultural
?% Forested _% Cleared /Logged _S % Other ( MIS V? eL- )
22. Bankfull width: 1?0 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature 11- Date'
This channel evaluation orm is Intended t6 le used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not Imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
?-_ DT 1 Ll
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
1 no flow or saturation - kstron flow - max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
I
extensive alteration - 0• no alteration - max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 55
no buffer - 0• conti ous wide buffer - max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
4 extensive discharges - 0• no dischar es - max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
3
no discharge - 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. - max oints
V
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2 n

p( S
rn no flood lain - 0• extensive flood lain - max points)

Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2
94 (deeply entrenched - 0• frequent floodin - max points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2
?
li no wetlands - 0• lar a adjacent wetlands - max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 O'S
extensive channelization - 0; natural meander - max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
3
extensive deposition- 0; little or no sediment - max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous - 0• large, diverse sizes - max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
12 (deeply incised - 0• stable bed & banks - max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
a severe erosion - 0• no erosion stable banks - max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
a
no visible roots - 0• dense roots throw hout - max points)

rn Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
15 substantial impact -0, no evidence - max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
I
no riffles/ripples or pools - 0• well-developed - max points)
E 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habi'at - 0• freuen varied habitats - max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
U
/
no shadin vegetation - 0• continuous cans - max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded - 0• loose structure - max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
20 no evidence - 0• common numerous types - max oints
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
O no evidence - 0• common numerous types - max points)
04
22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 3
0 no evidence - 0• common numerous types - max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5

. S
no evidence - 0• abundant evidence - max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100

TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) r
h 3
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site #A (indicate on attached map)
FE-3 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: h)C adr 2. Evaluator's name: G ?l /i40% A
3. Date of evaluation: -0 4. Time of evaluation: fI, 3O
5. Name of stream: 6. River basin: ?a r - AD C?,
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: [r
9. Length of reach evaluated: ? 00
10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
a
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): ??-1 Lam! o Longitude (ex. -77.556rd
Method location determined (circle): PS opo heet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Othe ther'da -T
eam(s) location):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (n earby roads and landmarks and attach mfying str
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
?a -
16. Site conditions at time of visit: All'
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: rr,,-Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters K Nutrient Sensitive Waters ___Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ?p If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES (9 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: ,,i5?% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial ?> % Agricultural
-i?-X, Forested _% Cleared / Logged ,S% Other ( A 4f UE9-f )
22. Bankfull width: 4, 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):--21/ "
-
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ? Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I 0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous _Brpided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form 1 intended to be used y as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not Imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
A?
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of now / persistent pools In stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
I no flow or saturation - 0;-strong flow - max points)
Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
2 extensive alteration - 0• no alteration - max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer - max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
a
4 extensive discharges - 0• no discharges - max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
S
no discharge - 0• springs, seeps, wetlands etc. - max points)

6 Presence of adjacent tloodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2 1

G
no flood lain - 0• extensive flood lain - max points) o

Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2
a (deeply entrenched - 0• frequent flooding - max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

j 0-6 0-4 0-2
1
acent wetlands - max points)
no wetlands - 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization - 0• natural meander - max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
07
extensive deposition- 0• little or no sediment - max points)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
./
11 fine homogenous - 0• large, diverse sizes - max oints
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
3 S
12 (deeply incised - 0• stable bed & banks - max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
a severe erosion - 0• no erosion stable banks - max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout - max points)
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
15 substantial impact -0• no evidence - max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
I
no riffles/ripples or pools - 0• well-developed - max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
I
little or no habitat - 0• frequent varied habitats - max oints
Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
18 no shading vo etation - 0• continuous canopy - max points)
19 Substrate embeddeduess NA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded - 0• loose structure - max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
20 no evidence - 0• common numerous types - max points)

O
21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence - 0• common numerous types - max points)
04
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4
no evidence - 0• common numerous types - max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence - 0• abundant evidence - max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
UT 1(P
USACE AID# A" DWQ # Site #10ndicate on attached map)
107 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following Information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: M )c D 2. Evaluator's name: Atta Ullu
3. Date of evaluation: 0 - (q - OT- 4. Time of evaluation: /.2 OD
5. Name of stream: UA A &.J 6. River basin: 1-D
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: - ttta yt/ c??1?c?Ly /N Atl#4_
9. Length of reach evaluated: Im 10. County: PiI
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
?
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35. ???o l9?- Longitude (ex. -77.556611): `7-1 D
Method location determined (circle): P Topoet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note near y roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): -3
15. Recent weather conditions: ?4; U
16. Site conditions at time of visit: M, ?l
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ?If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (YW NO
21. Estimated watershed land use:% Residential
Forested
r
22. Bankfull width:
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%)
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
_% Commercial _% Industrial ia% Agricultural
_% Cleared / Logged -5-./.Other( ???? 0Sc.c )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): -2S i1
-Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous _Brpided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature k& It N I Date 10- 11 ?01
only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
This channel evaluation form is I en MEW)IJ tikrm
gathering the data required by the United State A y Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form Is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
?W I K -- UT 1(p
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation - kstron flow - max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
3
extensive alteration - 0* no alteration - max points)
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5
no buffer - 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
a
extensive discharges - 0• no discharges - max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
f 5`
no discharge - 0• springs, seeps, wetlands etc. - max points)

6 Presence of adjacent tloodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
/_
no flood lain - 0• extensive flood lain - max points)

Entrenchment / floodplaln access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2
a+ (deeply entrenched - 0• frequent flooding - max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2
/
54
acent wetlands - max points)
no wetlands - 0• large ad '
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
?.
extensive channelization - 0• natural meander - max points)
10 Sediment Input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2 s
extensive deposition- 0• little or no sediment - max points)
I I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous - 0.large, diverse sizes - max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
s
3
ya 12 (deeply incised - 0• stable bed & banks - max oints ,
?i 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 n - 5
a severe erosion - 0• no erosion stable banks - max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 4A
no visible roots - 0• dense roots throughout - max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
substantial impact -0• no evidence - max oints
16 Presence of riffle-peoUripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools - 0• well-developed - max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
02
little or no habitat - 0' frequent varied habitats - max points)
I g Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
a
no shading vegetation - 0• continuous canopy - max oints
19 Substrate embeddeduess NA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded - 0• loose structure - max
20 Presence of stream Invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
no evidence - 0• common numerous types - max points)

21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
C no evidence - 0• common numerous types - max points)
O 22 Presence of flab 0-4 0-4 0-4
3
no evidence - 0• common, numerous types - max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 ' j
no evidence - 0• abundant evidence - max points)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 5
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ #
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment.
1. Applicant's name: _VC V
3. Date of evaluation: C( -p Aq
rla yt,?>
5. Name of stream: 00
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: n0
2. Evaluator's name: 4/c %f;r
4. Time of evaluation: i 1 ! 30
6. River basin: 1- ' - 640,-,
8. Stream order: 11-k-L. ?
10. County: A-Ir
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
s
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): S 6 0-600 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): `7`7. 0,37 a Q
Method location determined (circle): 60 ? Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other& Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
-A (IL A L, J
14. Proposed channel work (if any): ` 1, /Q
15. Recent weather conditions: M
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters '4, Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ( If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
21. Estimated watershed land use:% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial% Agricultural
Forested _% Cleared / Logged __S% Other ( Nti Y t l./? )
c
22. Bankfull width: L7 / 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): cX(
24. Channel slope down center of stream: /Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I 0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends Frequent meander -Very sinuous _Brpided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ? 11 , A Ul d ' Date
This channel evaluation form Intended to d only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals In
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not Imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
UT 1?-
Site #'f--- (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ,
UT 1+
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of now / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
1 no flow or saturation - 0••stron flow - max points)
Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
2 extensive alteration - 0• no alteration - max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
4 extensive discharges - 0• no dischar es - max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
no dischar e - 0• s rin a sees wetlands etc. = max points)
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
6 no flood lain - 0• extensive flood lain - max oints

Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2
a+ (deeply entrenched - 0• frequent flooding - max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

j 0-6 0-4 0-2
v
acent wetlands - max points)
no wetlands = 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization - 0; natural meander - max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive deposition- 0• little or no sediment - max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous - 0• large, diverse sizes - max points)
Evidence of channel Incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
12 (deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks - max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
a severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks - max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
2
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout - max oints
impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
15 substantial impact -0• no evidence - max points)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
16 no riffles/ripples or pools - 0• well-developed - max oints
F 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
(little or no habitat - 0• frequent, varied habitats - max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
no shadin ve etation - 0• continuous canopy - max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded - 0• loose structure - max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
>+ no evidence - 0• common numerous types - max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
O
O no evidence - 0; common numerous types - max points)
04
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4
no evidence - 0• common numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence - 0• abundant evidence - max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
UT
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: PC 2. Evaluator's name: Am" 00ti?
3. Date of evaluation: - ( 4. Time of evaluation: / : yU
5. Name of stream: U U 444.- , 6. River basin: -tv ? - PC(,..,
7. Approximate drainage area: S. Stream order: 1 /"-* a?j - j)jic?,.
i
9. Length of reach evaluated: 3 00 10. County: Al
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3:5 - G 791(b Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -7 -7. qo): j SO
Method location determined (circle): GP Topo eet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Otheg61?S* Other
13. Location of reach under evaluat . (note dear y roads and landmarks and attach mWidentifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: U
16. Site conditions at time
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters X Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES O? If yes, estimate the water surface are
19. Does channel appeat'on USGS quad map?' X10 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES)NO
21. Estimated watershed land use:% Residential _% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
?/o Forested _% Cleared / Logged Other . U )
22. Bankfull width:C 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): -2
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _t:?Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity:Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous _Brpided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ( Id, 4(A4 N Date ? ( 7 C/
This channel evaluation form i en ed to be us only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
AZA = UT IB
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools In stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation - 0••stron flow - max points)
Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5
2 extensive alteration a 0• no alteration - max ointe
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 0
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
4 extensive discharges - 0• no dischar es - max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
I
no discharge - 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
V
6 Presence of adjacent fioodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
no flood lain - 0• extensive flood lain - max points)

Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2
a (deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2
acent wetlands - max oints
no wetlands - 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
extensive channelization - 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment Input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive deposition- 0• little or no sediment - max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous - 0• large, diverse sizes - max oints
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
12 (deeply incised a 0• stable bed & banks - max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
L
a severe erosion - 0• no erosion stable banks - max oints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
2
no visible roots - 0• dense roots throughout = max points)

Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 6-2
15 substantial impact =0• no evidence - max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pooltripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
f
no riffles/ripples or pools - 0• well-developed @ max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat - 0• frequent varied habitats = max oints
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
no shadin vo etation - 0• continuous canopy a max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded - 0• loose structure - max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
20 no evidence - 0• common numerous types - max points)

G
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
no evidence - 0• common numerous types a max points)

22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4
0 no evidence - 0• common numerous s = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence - max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ#
UT 19
Site #AOUindicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: PC 17o 2. Evaluator's name: L' Id 'tt.- AWL-
3. Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation: 9.00
5. Name of stream: Uvt V 8:IM ? 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: /
9. Length of reach evaluated: 3oo 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Q? O
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 6 (; S a._?- a Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -7 Method location determined (circle): G? o o eet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Oth r?S Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
5464/4 a, 66.119C Ell
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
Forested _% Cleared /Logged % Other( ?!e UPS -)
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank)::2? 11i
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -&-Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous _Brpided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature zi,91, Ail Date
This channel evaluation form is In ended to e u ed only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals In
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not Imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
Alec
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
OT 19
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
I no flow or saturation - 0• strong flow - max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration - 0• no alteration - max oints
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer - 0• contiguous, wide buffer - max points)
Evidence of nutrlient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
4 extensive discharges - 0• no discharges - max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
U
no discharge - 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. - max points)
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
W 6 no flood lain - 0• extensive flood lain - max points)

Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2
a+ (deeply entrenched - Or frequent flooding - max oints
Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2
8 no wetlands - 0• large adjacent wetlands - max oints
Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
9 extensive channelization - 0• natural meander - max points)
10 Sediment Input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive deposition- 0° little or no sediment - max points)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
/
I I fine homogenous - 0- large, diverse sizes - max points)
Evidence of channel Incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
12 (deeply incised - 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
S
d 13 severe erosion - 0• no erosion stable banks - max points)
Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
3
14 no visible roots = 0• dense roots throw bout - max points)

Impact by agOi ulture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
15 substantial impact -04 no evidence a max points)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
D
16 no riffles/ripples or pools - 0• well-developed - max points)
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
little or no habitat - 0• fbequent, varied habitats - max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
no shading vegetation - 0• continuous canopy - max points)
Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
19 (deeply embedded - 0• loose structure - max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
O
20 no evidence - 0• conunon numerous types - max points)

21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
C no evidence - 0• conunon numerous types - max points)

22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4
0 no evidence - 0• common, numerous types - max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence - 0• abundant evidence - max points)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
UT za
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # L (indicate on attached map)
QE
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
M
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: kaby, 2. Evaluator's name: 7/????z,,,,? ??l.
3. Date of evaluation: /0- / Q 4. Time of evaluation: .?: To
' fh
5. Name of stream: UPL A ?? .. 6. River basin: -f-at
7. Approximate drainage area: c 8. Stream order: ?S?
9. Length of reach evaluated: ?dd 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312. : 3 S{, r NN,1 G Longitude (ex. -77.556611): /O 6
Method location determined (circle): Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Othe GI Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (no a nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): 64 UZ,* a 11m Z-3!
15. Recent weather conditions: n4-IrY
16. Site conditions at time of visit: K1r Id/
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters .Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (1-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES & If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? Q NO
21. Estimated watershed land use:% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial U% Agricultural
Forested _% Cleared / Logged ?% Other ( /Lti 0 - )
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous _Brpided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ?41 Date / (9 ( ( ? C/
This channel evaluation form isU?tended to be usffi only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals In
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
UT 20
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools In stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
I no flow or saturation - 0;-strong flow - max points)
Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
2 extensive alteration - 0• no alteration - max oints
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
O
no buffer - 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
S
4 extensive discharges - 0• no discharges - max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
no discharge - 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. - max points)
Presence of adjacent fioodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
6 no flood lain - 0• extensive flood lain - max points)

7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2
A. (deeply entrenched - 0. frequent flooding = max oints
Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2
8 no wetlands - 0• lar a adjacent wetlands - max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 I/
extensive channelization a 0• natural meander - max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive deposition- 0• little or no sediment - max points)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
11 fine homo enous - 0 large, diverse sizes - max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
S
12 dee ? incised = 0• stable bed & banks - max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
S'
a severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks - max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)

Cn Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
15 substantial impact -0, no evidence - max points)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
v
16 no riffles/ri les or pools - 0• well-developed - max oints
E'
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
d

t
* little or no habitat - 0• frequent varied habitats - max points)

l 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
3
no shading vegetation - 0• continuous canopy - max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded - 0• loose structure - max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
U
20 no evidence - 0• common numerous types - max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
O no evidence - 0• common numerous types - max points)
a

0

22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
O
no evidence - 0• common numerous types - max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
no evidence - 0• abundant evidence - max points)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 3
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
NCDWQ Wetlands Rating Worksheet
Project name
County f co?r
Name of ev uator
Wetland location
? on pond or lake
(won perennial stream
? on intermittant stream
? within interstream divide
? other
r?•P?a,v.
Soil series
? predominantly organic - humus,
muck, or peat
? predominantly mineral - non-sandy
redominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
? steep topography
[ditched or channelized
? total riparian wetland width > 100 feet
Wetland type•(select one)*
Fourth Vcnion
IN ET A
Ydth o h /trlowh feet
Date / v - -- d
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope,
or radius)
? forested/natural vegetation ',>O %
? agriculture, urban/suburban -75--%
? impervious surface y6,%
Dominant vegetation
(2) rv ?L.
(3) ?['I L
Flooding and wetness
Semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
? seasonally flooded-or inundated
? intermittantly flooded or temporary
surface water
? no evidence of flooding or surface
water
? Pine savanna ? Bog forest
? Bottomland hardwood forest ? Freshwatcr marsh ? Bog/fen•
0 Headwater forest ? Estuarine fringe forest ? Seep r
C
? Swamp forest p Ephemeral wetland ?
G3?Other
? Wet flat ? Carolina Bay J
? Pocosin
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
weight q(
o
R Water storage x 4.00 =
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization x 4.00 = 0 Metland Score
T Pollutant removals x 5.00 = _
?
I Wildlife habitat x 2.00 = -
T --
N Aquatic life value ?- x 4.00 = _
G Recieation/Education x 1.00 =
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within %z mile upstreamr upslope, or radius.
WETLANDS RATING WORKSHEET
Fourth Vcniori
W ?_7 T
Project name C
County
Name of evaluator
Wetland location
? on pond or lake
? on perennial stream
? on intermittant stream
? within interstream divide
[3,'other
DTV ItYa L
Soil series 1)
fdth 0 N 161owh feet
Date /v- - d
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope,
or radius)
? forested/natural vegetation dc) %
? agriculture, urban/suburban e??-%
? impervious surface _1?7_ %
? predominantly organic -humus,
muck, or peat
? predominantly mineral - non-sandy
redominantly sandy
Dominant vegetation
(1) - ?'J
(2) /J
(3)
Flooding and wetness
Semipermanently to permanently
Hydraulic factors flooded or inundated
? seasonally flooded or inundated
? st p topography ? intermittantly flooded or temporary
ditched or channelized surface water
? total riparian wetland width > 100 feet ? no evidence of flooding or surface
water
Wetland type *(select one)*
0 Bottomland hardwood forest
? Headwater forest
0 Swamp forest
? Wet flat
0 Pocosin
*The rating system cannot be
0 Pine savanna
? Freshwater marsh
? Estuarine fringe forest
0 Ephemeral wetland
0 Carolina Bay
to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
? Bog forest
? Bog/fen•
? Scep
010thcr 41 A
C
R Water storage I
A Bank/Shorcline stabilization
T Pollutant removals
I Wildlifehabitat a
N Aquatic life value • 3
G Recreation/Education
ti00
x 4 4..00 =
x 4.00 = Metland Score
x 5.00 = 5 J
x 2.00 =
x 4.00 =
x 1.00
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within ''/z mile upstreamr upslope, or radius.
WETLANDS RATING WORKSHEET
s
Project name ML
County
Name of evaluator
Wetland location
? on pond or lake
F3'on perennial stream
? on intermit tant stream
? within interstream divide
? other
Soil series
? predominantly organic -humus,
muck, or peat
? predominantly mineral - non-sandy
redominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
? steep topography
01diitched or channelized
? total riparian wetland width > 100 feet
Wetland type (select one)*
? Bottomland hardwood forest
? Headwater forest
? Swamp forest
0 Wet flat
0 Pocosin
WETLANDS RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Vcrsiori
ET ?
Nearest road
Wetland area unl(rtowr acres WetlanU dth u41t'rIuwh feet
7 Date / v - -- 0
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope,
or radius)
? forested/natural vegetation d?9 %
? agriculture, urban/suburban -7-5- %
? impervious surface <-O/--
Dominant vegetation
---
(1)154/e?L
(2) MOIL. tt,,
(3) i- L
Floodling and wetness
r Semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
? seasonally flooded or inundated
? intermittantly flooded or temporary
surface water
? no evidence of flooding or surface
water
0 Pine savanna
? Freshwater marsh
? Estuarine fringe forest
? Ephemeral wetland
0 Carolina Bay
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or braclash marshes or stream channels.
:w
? Bog forest
? Bog/fen.
? Seep
9-'Other
iveight
R Water storage Z x 4.00 =
A BanVShorcline stabilization r' x 4.00 Metlmtd Score
T Pollutant removals x 5.00 = O
7-
1 Wildlifc.habitat x 2.00 = '
N Aquatic life value x 4.00 =
G Recreation/Education x 1.00 =
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and> 10% nonpoint disturbance within ''/z mile upstreamr upslope, or radius.

WETLANDS RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Version
project name _ MC
County
Name of evaluator
Wetland location
? on pond or lake
8'on perennial stream
? on intermittent stream
? within interstream divide
? other
Dominant vegetation
Soil series
1A1 ?T L
I Nearest road '(
Wetland area u iXnowr acres Wetland w dth u4161vwh feet
Date /v- -d
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope,
or radius)
? forested/natural vegetation -? 0_%
[J agriculture, urban/suburban -;?S %
? impervious surface _?_%
? predominantly organic - humus,
muck, or peat
? predominantly mineral - non-sandy
redominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
? steep topography
E] ditched or channelized
0-total riparian wetland width > 100 feet
Wetland type (select one)*
(2)
(3) ?aocl? rwe /la?
Flooo'.ing and wetness
Semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
seas oo a or tnun a e
? intermittantly flooded or temporary
surface water
? no evidence of flooding or surface
water
? Bottomland hardwood forest ?
? Pine savanna
Freshwater marsh ?
? Bog forest
Bog/fen.
? Headwater forest ? Estuarine fringe forest ? Seep
-Swamp forest ? Ephemeral wetland ? Other
? Wet flat ? Carolina Bay
0 Pocosin
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.

R
A
T
Wafer storage 3
Bank/Shoreline stabilization
Pollutant removals weight
x 4.00
x 4.00
x 5.00 =

Metland Score
-ZQ
I Wildlife.habitat x 2.00
N Aquatic life value x 4.00 =
G Recreation/Education x 1.00
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within %z mile upstreamr upslope, or radius.
V
Project name
County
Name of evaluator
Wetland location
WETLANDS RATING WORKSHEET
Fourth Version
W ET N
Nearest road 0i), 1"W
Wetland area ujKgowr acres Wetlan dth tj4Ir)owh feet
. Date /0- - d
? on pond or lake
? on perennial stream
? on intermittant stream
? within interstream divide
?' other ?t 0 • njp,
c-?
Soil series
? predominantly organic -humus,
muck, or peat
? predominantly mineral - non-sandy
redominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
? steep topography
['ditched or channelized
? total riparian wetland width > 100 feet
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope,
or radius)
? forested/natural vegetation a,O %
? agriculture, urban /suburban __1521o
? impervious surface 0/40
Dominant vegetation
(1)
(2) c.
(3) ti`s v
Flooding and wetness
? Semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
? intermittantly flooded or temporary
surface water
? no evidence of flooding or surface
water
Wetland type *(select one)*
0 Pine savanna ? Bog forest
? Bottomland hardwood forest
0 Freshwater marsh ? Bogifen.
? Headwater forest
0 Estuarine fringe forest ? S?Ccp
0 Swamp forest
0 Ephemeral wetland 3-10'thcr "?e' kJ
?
? Wet flat
0
i
P Carolina Bay
J ?-?^-
ocos
n
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.

R
Water storage
x iveighl
4.00 =
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization x 4.00 = _ fYetland Score
T Pollutant removals x 5.00 = f t
I Wildlife.habitat x 2.00 =
N Aquatic life value x 4.00 = _
'G Rccieation/Education x 1.00 =
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within %: mile upstreamr upslope, or radius.
0
Project name NIL
County
Name of evaluator
Wetland location
? on pond or lake
['on perennial stream
? on intermittant stream
? within interstream divide
? other
Soil series 2 ? - Pbr)? a_
WETLANDS RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Version
c Nearest road
Wetland area vn1(no,?r acres Wet] arid w dth UN 161owh feet
Io IF (-1 Date /v- - d
? predominantly organic -humus,
muck, or peat
predominantly mineral - non-sandy
redominantly sandy
u
C?
gyp,
Hydraulic factors
? steep topography
rip ,[ litched or channelized
al d 'd h> inn feet
? Semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
E seasonally flooded or inundated
? intermittantly flooded or temporary
surface water
? no evidence of floodin or surface

?u?{`' [?]ctotal npanan we an w t t _ g
' N water
CA?k b lllzd
Wetland type (select one)*
? Bottomland hardwood forest
0 Headwater forest
? Swamp forest
? Wet flat
? Pocosin
? Pine savanna
0 Freshwater marsh
0 Estuarine fringe forest
0 Ephemeral wetland
? Carolina Bay
? Bog forest
0 Bog/fen.
0 Seep
3__Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or bracldsh marshes or stream channels.
weight
R Water storage x 4.00 =
A BanVShorcline stabilization 3 x 4.00 = Metland Score
T Pollutant removals x 5.00
I Wildlife.habitat x 2.00 =
N Aquatic life value x 4.00 = g
G Recreation/Education x 1.00 =
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope,
or radius)
? forested/natural vegetation _
[J agriculture, urban/suburban
? impervious surface %
Dominant vegetation
)ed
11
(2) 110 (3) /

Flooding and wetness
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within Y7 mile upstreamr upslope, or radius.
WETLANDS RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Vcniori
Project name _M C
County
Name of evaluator
Wetland location
? on pond or lake
? on perennial stream
? on intermittant stream
? within interstream divide
[y'other c cuAu - PO_kkM&'_
Soil series PU
c Nearest road -?J, ;Lt
Wetland area un K?towv\ acres Wetland w dth o h /trlowh feet
1 Date / v , - CJ
? predominantly organic -humus,
muck, or peat
? predominantly mineral - non-sandy
redominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
? steep topography
E] ditched or channelized
? total riparian wetland width > 100 feet
Wetland type (select one)*
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope,
or radius)
? forested/natural vegetation a0 %
? agriculture, urban/suburban 70 %
? impervious surface S %
Dominant vegetation
(1) oS
(2)
(3) oa
Floo6ling and wetness
? Semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
? seasonally flooded or inundated
[]-intermittantly flooded or temporary
surface water
? no evidence of flooding or surface
water
? Pine savanna ? Bog forest
? Bottomland hardwood forest
11 Freshwater marsh ? Bog/fcn.
11
? Headwater forest
Swamp forest ? Estumrine fringe forest ? 5ce
&
? Ephemeral wetland Other c c??
? Wet flat
? Carolina Bay
? Pocosin
Me rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
weight
R Water storage 1 x 4.00 =
A 0 x
Bank/Shoreline stabilization 4.00 = U Metland Score
t
T Pollutant removals f x 5.00
I Wildlife.habitat x 2.00
N Aquatic life value J_ x 4.00
G Recreation/Education I x 1.00
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and> 10% nonpoint disturbance within''/: mile upstreamr upslope, or radius.
Q
WETLANDS RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Version
1N E i Q
Project name _f ?J l
County
Name of evaluator
Wetland location
? n pond or lake
['f on perennial stream
? on intermittant stream
? within interstream divide
? other
Soil series 16'? v tr,t r0
Nearest road .d S
Wetland area unK?towr acres Wetlan dth 04161owh feet
Date / v - - d
? predominantly organic -humus,
muck, or peat
? predominantly mineral - non-sandy
ff-redominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
? steep topography
[ditched or channelized
? total riparian wetland width > 100 feet
Wetland type *(select one)*
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope,
or radius)
? forested/natural vegetation ab %
agriculture, urban/suburban 70 %
? impervious surface =?_ %
Dominant vegetation
(1) ?2tt f Y' v lam,
(2)
(3) 5k)J V .
Flooo!ing and wetness
? Semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
El/iseasonally flooded or inundated
? intermittantly flooded or temporary
surface water
? no evidence of flooding or surface
water
? Pine savanna ? Bog forest
? Bottomland hardwood forest
? Freshwater marsh ? Bog/fen.
? Headwater forest
? Estuarine fringe forest ? Seep
? Swamp forest
? Ephemeral wetland M- Other S fr y c_."uX
11 Wet flat
? Mina Day
Wet fl
? Pocosin
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or braclash marshes or stream channels.

? weight
R Water storage
x 4.00 =
A Bank/Shorcline stabilization x 4.00 = 2 Welland Scare
T Pollutant removals x 5.00 =
I Wildlife.habitat x 2.00 = g
N Aquatic life value . x 4.00 =
G Recreation/Education r?- x 1.00 =
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within %: mile upstreamy upsloPe, or radius.
5/-r
Project name ?C
County
Name of evaluator
Wetland location
WETLANDS RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Vcrsiori
ILA my Ai"J'I"11 W L r S/T
CJ- Nearest road
r !
Wetland area tit,lolowr acres Wetland w dth 04161owh feet
Old li Date
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope,
or radius)
? on pond or lake
[2-on perennial stream
? on intermittent stream
? within interstream divide
? other
Soil series
? predominantly organic - humus,
muck, or peat
? predominantly mineral - non-sandy
ff-irre-dominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
? steep topography
[ditched or channelized
? total riparian wetland width > 100 feet
Wetland type *(select one)*
0 Bottomland hardwood forest
? Headwater forest
EYSwamp forest
? wet flat
? Pocosin
? forested/natural vegetation •...?????777Q %
? agriculture, urban/suburban %
? impervious surface r
Dominant vegetation
(2) C?la? hY?
(3) IIP f???
Flood'.ing and wetness
? Pine savanna
0 Freshwater marsh
? Estuarine fringe forest
? Ephemeral wetland
? Carolina Bay
? Semipermanently to permanently
_flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
? intermittantly flooded or temporary
surface water
? no evidence of flooding or surface
water
? Bog forest
0 Bog/fen.
? Seep
0 Other

*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
ti00
R Water storage ? x 4 4..00 =
A BwWShorclinc stabilization
T Pollutant removals A_
I Wildlife.habitat
N Aquatic life value
G Recreation/Education
x 4.00 = Mettardd Score
x 5.00 = -- 10
x 2.00 = _
.x 4.00 =
x 1.00 =
*Add 1 point if insensitive watershed and> 10% nonpoint disturbance within %z mile upstreamr upslope, or radius.
U WETLANDS RATING WORKSHEET Fourth version
WET U
Project name ? ( Nearest road ?? County Wetland area Vn,k#1ow^ acres Wetimi w dth val /filowtl feet
Name of evaluator ` * Date / v -1,6 -- c7
Wetland location
d/,On n pond or lake
perennial stream
? on intermittant stream
? within interstream divide
? other
Soil series
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope,
or radius)
? forested/mtural vegetation %
? agriculture, urban/suburban %
? impervious surface %
Dominant vegetation
? predominantly organic - humus,
muck, or peat
? predominantly mineral - non-sandy
redominantly sandy
Hydraulic f tors
steep topography
M. ditched or channelized
? total riparian wetland width > 100 feet
Wetland type (select one)*
El Bottomland hardwood forest
? Headwater forest
0 Swamp forest
0 Wet flat
? Pocosin
0 Pine savanna
0 Freshwater marsh
0 Estuarine fringe forest
0 Ephemeral wetland
? Carolina Bay
(1) ?eL)mr.??
(2) .r6LA-'
(3) IIOC../
Flooding and wetness
? Semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
?asonally flooded or inundated
? intermittantly flooded or temporary
surface water
? no evidence of flooding or surface
water
? Bog forest
? Bog/fen.
? Seep
? Other
..w
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
ti00
R Water storage ? x 4 4..00 =
A Bank/Shorcline stabilization
T Pollutant removals
I Wildlife.habitat L
N Aquatic life value
G Rw=tion/Education
x 4.00 = Metland Score
x 5.00
x 2.00 =
x 4.00
x 1.00 =
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and> 10% nonpoint disturbance within 'h mile upstreamr upslope, or radius.

Project name M
County Pi k -_
Name of evaluator
Wetland location
WETLANDS RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Vmiori
I W ET X
` c Nearest road c/
1
?71 la
Wetland area unl(now? acres Wetland-frith uc1 klowh feet,
d
I", n1114" Date
? on pond or lake
(3--on perennial stream
? on intermittant stream
? within interstream divide
? other
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope,
or radius)
? forested/natural vegetation 40 %
[J agriculture, urban/suburban 70 %
? impervious surface %
Dominant vegetation
Soil series
? predominantly organic -humus,
muck, or peat
? predominantly mineral - non-sandy
redominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
? steep topography
[] ditched or channelized
OCotal riparian wetland width > 100 feet
Wetland type (select one)*
(1)
(2)
(3) ?Pa? 7"lsi ??
Flooding and wetness
? Semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
? intermittantly flooded or temporary
surface water
? no evidence of flooding or surface
water
? Bottomland hardwood forest ?
? Pine savanna
Freshwater marsh ? Bog forest
? Bog/fen.
? Headwater forest
0 Swamp forest ?
? Estuarine fringe forest
hemeral wetland
E ? Secp
Smarr
Un ?r i'
B-'Other ofX
[`]('Wet flat p y
_
? Carolina Bay
? Pocosin
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
iveight
R Water storage x 4,00 =
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization v` x 4.00 = Netland Score
T Pollutant removals x 5,00 = T 3

I Wildlife habitat x 2.00 = _
N Aquatic life value c x 4.00 =
G Recrcation/Education x 1.00 = . 01- *Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within ''/z mile upstreamr upslope, or radius.

R(Ao
Project name
county
Name of eva]
Wetland location
? on pond or lake
won perennial stream
? on intermit tant stream
? within interstream divide
? other
Soil series b - J?' ? ? CCL"'?4
? predominantly organic - humus,
muck, or peat
? predominantly mineral - non-sandy
FE,redominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
? steep topography
2-ditched or channelized
? total riparian wetland width > 100 feet
Wetland type (select one)*
Fourth version
W ?T AL
fdth y N /t/luwh k feet
Date /v -m)- dV
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope,
or radius)
? forested/natural vegetation .20 %
FD g iculture, urban/suburban =/o
? impervious surface _%
Dominant vegetation
(2) X6'4 L
(3) ?-tck r r ,,,,
Flooding and wetness
emipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
? seasonally flooded or inundated
? intermittantly flooded or temporary
surface water
? no evidence of flooding or surface
water
? Pine savanna ? Bog forest
? Bottomland hardwood forest ? Freshwater marsh ? Bog/fen.
?
? Headwater forest
Swamp forest ? Estuarine fringe forest ? Seep
d iI
h
C?O
0 Ephemeral wetland p
cr
t
? Wet flat ? Carolina Bay r,?t:,? cr S 6.t',n1( rIA,
?O
di
0 Pocosin V
e
?? Pik
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.

3 iveight
R Water storage x 4.00 =
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization q x 4.00 = Mettand Score
T Pollutant removals s x 5.00
I Wildlife.habitat x 2.00
N Aquatic life value x 4.00 to
G Recreation/Education x 1.00
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within %: mile upstreamr upslope, or radius.
?rl /r>.?.,cQ Qto d e?rh? P""
? (,ltp c? ?rc F 1 ?!? r,? i ,_ c rcc u
A t w?u 1
WETLANDS RATING WORKSHEET

Project name NI C
County
Name of evaluator
Wetland location
WETLANDS RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Vcssion.
I (.U ET ? IZ
WV/ '3,3 ` Nearest road c?
?1 1? T
Wetland area tunl(?towr acres Wetla id width oN l(,Iowh feet
Date / v - - d
? on pond or lake
Olon perennial stream
? on intermittant stream
? within interstream divide
? other
Soil series
? predominantly organic -humus,
muck, or peat
? predominantly mineral - non-sandy
ff- redominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
? steep topography
Q ditched or channelized
[D/total riparian wetland width > 100 feet
Wetland type•(select one)*
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope,
or radius)
? forested/natural vegetation %
? agriculture, urban/suburban 76%
? imlierv ous surface ,L%
Dominant vegetation
(1)
C?,??
(2) Sl6 led
(3) [A Ao
Flooding and wetness
? Semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
? intermittantly flooded or temporary
surface water
? no evidence of flooding or surface
water
D
Pine savanna
? Bog forest
Bottomland hardwood forest ? Freshwater marsh D Bog/fen. .
? Headwater forest D Estuarine fringe forest ? Seep
? Swamp forest ? Ephemeral wetland D Other
? Wet flat D Carolina Bay
0 Pocosin
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or bracldsh marshes or stream channels.

R
Water storage weight
x 4.00 =
_
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization x 4.00 = Metlan
d Score
T Pollutant removals x 5.00 = n
Z D
?LS?
I Wildlife.babitat x 2.00 = _
In
N Aquatic life value x 4.00 = _
G Recreation/Education x 1.00 =
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within''/: mile upstreamr upslope, or radius.
R5
Project name ) L
County
Name of evaluator
Wetland location
? on pond or lake
© on perennial stream
? on intermittant stream
? within interstream divide
? other
Soil series
? predominantly organic - humus,
muck, or peat
? predominantly mineral - non-sandy
b-irr-edominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
? ste p topography
ffi"d-itched or channelized
? total riparian wetland width > 100 feet
Wetland type (select one)*
Fourth Vccsion
WET AS
fdth v N 1(,lowh feet
Date /v- - d
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope,
or radius)
? forested/natural vegetation c)d %
? agriculture, urban/suburban -25_%
E] imlierv ous surface _ %
Dominant vegetation
(2)
(3)
Flood'.ing and wetness
? Semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
? intermittantly flooded or temporary
surface water
? no evidence of flooding or surface
water
? Pine savanna ? Bog forest
? Bottomland hardwood forest ? Freshwater marsh ? Bog/fen. ,
?
El Headwater forest
Swamp forest 11
El Estuarine fringe forest
Ephemeral wetland ? S
Other
? Wet flat
?
Carolina Bay
11 Pocosin I
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
weight
R Water storage x 4.00 =
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization 4 x 4.00 = TYetland Score
T Pollutant removals -? 7- x 5.00 = S a
I Wildlife.habitat / x 2.00 = '
N Aquatic life value x 4.00 =
G Recreation/Education x 1.00 = 1-
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within %: mile upstreamr upslope, or radius.
WETLANDS RATING WORKSHEET
USACE Wetland Data Sheets
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: Wetland Date: _
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County:
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: A-8 State:_
A. Do normal circumstances e*st on this site? ? Yes
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) _ _ _- __•_- _ ? Yes
C. Is the area a potential Problem Areal --_ _ ? Yes
(If needed, explain on reverse)
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
? No
Q No
No
Vt:Ut 1 AI IUN
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM INDICATOR
1. Sensitive fern - Onoclea sensibilis Herb FACW
2. Soft rush - Juncus effusus Herb FACW+
3. bluestern - Adrapogon glomeratus Herb FACW+
Smartweed - Polygorwm hydropiperoides Herb OBL
5. Poison ivy - Toxicodendron radicans Vine FAC
6. Munson's grape - Vitis rotundifolia Vine FAC
7.
6.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 100%
Remarks:
uvnon1 nr_v
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs X Inundated
Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
- X Drift Lines
Field Observations X Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water 15 (in,) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Sail (in,) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
_ Water Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_
-Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Wehadkee silt loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic Hapludults Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Texture, Concentrations,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5 10 YR 2/2 sandy loam
5-16 10 YR 4/1 sandy clay loam
Hydric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content
_ Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 Yes ? No Is this Sampling Point within 0 Yes ? No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? 0 Yes ? No
arks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID:
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: _
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: A -8
upland Date: 18-Oct-04
County: Pitt
State: NC
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? El Yes ? No
-------------------------------
B. Is. this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes No
• ..................
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? ? Yes No
•--------------------------------------
(if needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Sweet aura - Liduidambar stvraciflua
Loblolly pine - Pinus taeda
Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia
Poison ivy - Toxicodendron radicans
Dogfennel - Eupatorium capillifolium
1.
4.
5.
6.
STRATUM
Tree
Tree/shrub
Vine
Vine
Herb
INDICATOR
FAC+
FAC
FAC
FAC
FACU
rce3nt of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 80%
mvmmni nr;v
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs Inundated
_ Other _
-Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations _
_ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in,) _Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
-Water Stained Leaves
-Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
L- I
5OIL5
Map Unit Name: Wehadkee silt loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic Hapludults Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Texture, Concentrations,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-10 10 YR 5/4 sandy loam
10 -16 10 YR 5/4 10% 10 YR 5/6 sandy loam
Hydric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
_Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
_ Concretions
-High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? ? Yes [21 No Is this Sampling Point within ? Yes Q No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? ? Yes Q No
(Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: Wetland Date: 18-Oct-04
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County: Pitt
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: D-2 State: NC
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? El Yes
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? El Yes
.......................................
(If needed, explain on reverse)
? No
No
No
V LUL 1
MINANT PLANT SPEGIES:
Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua
Loblolly pine - Pinus taeda
Duckweed - Lemna species
Smartweed - Polygonum hydropiperoides
0.
1.
3.
STRATUM
Tree
Tree
Herb
Herb
cent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - )
-1-
INDICATOR
FAC+
FAC
OBL
OBL
100% 11
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs X Inundated
-Other 7 saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_
Drift Lines
Field Observations X Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water 9 (in,) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in,) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
_ Water Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Portsmouth loam Drainage Class: Very poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic paleaquults Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Texture, Concentrations,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Molst) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6 10 YR 3/2 sandy loam
6-16 10 YR 4/2 10 YR 4/4 sandy loam
tric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
marks:
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? 2 Yes ? No Is this Sampling Point within Yes ? No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? El Yes ? No
(Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: upland Date: _
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County:
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: D-2 State:_
A. Do normal circumstances exist on Ihis site? ___ _ __ _ 0 Yes
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Altypical Situation) _ El Yes
C. Is the area a potential Problem Araia? --------------------------------------- El Yes
(If needed, explain on reverse)
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
? No
El No
El No
IOMINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM
Soy - Glycine species Herb
Loblolly pine - Pinus taeda Tree/shrub
Winged sumac - Rhus copallinum Shrub
Red cedar - Jurniperus virginiana Tree
Sweet gum - Liqiuidambar styraciflua Tree
Morning glory - Ipomoea purpurea Herb
o.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
2ercent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ):
temarks:
FAC
NI
FACU-
FAC+
FACU
33% II
uvnonl nr_v
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guaege Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs -Inundated
Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
No Recorded Data Available: -Water Marks
- -Drift Lines
Field Observations -Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in,) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
-Water Stained Leaves
-Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_
-Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Portsmouth loam Drainage Class: Ve poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic paleaquults Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast
0-16 10 YR 5/4
iric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
-Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Texture, Concentrations,
Structure, etc.
sandy loam
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
Wt 1 LANU Ut I LKMINAI 1UN
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ? Yes E No
Wetland Hydrology Present? ? Yes No Is this Sampling Point within ? Yes El No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? ? Yes No
(Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: Wetland Date: _
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County:
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: 1 - 9 State:_
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? El Yes
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? ? Yes
(If needed, explain on reverse)
? No
El No
Q No
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM INDICATOR
1. Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraci(Iua Tree FAC+
2. Loblolly pine - Pinus taeda Tree FAC
3. Touch me not - Impatiens capensis Herb FACW
Sassafras - Sassafras albidum Tree FACU
5. Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
6.
7. Smartweed - Polygonum hydropiperoides Herb OBL
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 86%
Remarks:
uvnoni nrv
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs X Inundated
Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
- X Drift Lines
Field Observations X Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water 10 (in,) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in,) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
_ Water Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
5UIL5
Map Unit Name: Portsmouth loam Drainage Class: Very poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic paleaquults Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast-
0-6 10 YR 3/2
6-16 10 YR 4/2 10 YR 5/4
iric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
narks:
Texture, Concentrations,
Structure, etc.
sandy loam
sandy clay loam
_ Concretions
-High Organic Content
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
LAND Ut I tKMINAI IUN
)phytic Vegetation Present? El Yes [:1 No
and Hydrology Present? ? Yes ? No Is this Sampling Point within ? Yes ? No
a Wetland?
c Soils Present? P] Yes ? No
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: upland Date: 18-Oct-04
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County: Pitt
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: 1-9 State: NC
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? 21 Yes ? No
-------------------------------
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes No
•------------------
? Yes E No
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? .......................................
(if needed, explain on reverse)
Vt(at I A I IUN
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM INDICATOR
1. Red maple - Acer rubrum Tree FAC
2. Loblolly pine - Pinus taeda Tree FAC
3. Black cherry - Prunus serotinia Tree FACU
Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
5. Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+
6. Sassafras - Sassafras albidum Tree FACU
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 66%
HYDRnLnnY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
-Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
-Drift Lines
Field Observations _ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in,) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
-Water Stained Leaves
-Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
Map Unit Name: Portsmouth loam Drainage Class: Very poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic paleaquults Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast
0-3 10 YR 3/3
3-16 10 YR 5/4
iric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
-Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
narks:
Texture, Concentrations,
Structure, etc.
sandy loam
sandy loam
_ Concretions
-High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? El Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? ? Yes E No Is this Sampling Point within ? Yes P No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? ? Yes No
Remarks:
1 11
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway33 Community ID: Wetland Date: _
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County:
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: L-2 State:_
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? Yes
-------------------------------
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes
•------------------
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? ? Yes
(If needed, explain on reverse)
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
? No
No
No
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM INDICATI
1. Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+
2. Loblolly pine - Pinus taeda Tree FAC
3. Touch me not - Impatiens capensis Herb FACW
a. Red maple - Acer rubrum Tree FAC
5. Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
6. Chainfern - Woodwardia areolata Herb OBL
7.
6.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 100%
Remarks:
uvnon1 nnv
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs -Inundated
Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
- -Drift Lines
Field Observations _ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: 10 (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil 2 (in,) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
X Water Stained Leaves
X Local soil survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
SOILS
drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic paleaquults Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast
0-4 10 YR 3/2
4-16 10 YR 5/2 5% 10 YR 5/4
lric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Texture, Concentrations,
Structure, etc.
sandy loam
sandy clay loam
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? R Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ? No Is this Sampling Point within 0 Yes ? No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? 0 Yes ? No
(Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID:
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: L-2
upland Date: _
County:
State:
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? 0 Yes ? No
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes No
-•----------------
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? El 2 •------------------•------------------- Yes No
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
MINANT PLANT SPECIES:
Red maple - Acer rubrum
Loblolly pine - Pinus taeda
Japanese honeysuckle - Lonicera japonica
Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia
Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua
Water oak - Quercus nigra
STRATUM
Shrub INDICATOR
FAC
Tree FAC
Vine FAC-
Vine FAC
Tree/shrub FAC+
Shrub FAC

5.
of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 83%
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
_ Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
-Drift Lines
Field Observations _ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in,) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
-Water Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
L-- I
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Portsmouth loam Drainage Class: Very poor) drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic paleaquults Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast
0-4 10 YR 3/3
4-16 10 YR 4/3
Hydric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:
Texture, Concentrations,
Structure, etc.
sandy loam
sandy loam
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
1 LANU Ut I LKMINAI IUN
rophytic Vegetation Present? El Yes ? No
:land Hydrology Present? ? Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within ? Yes E No
a Wetland?
ric Soils Present? ? Yes R No
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: Wetland Date: _
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County:
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: N-2 State:_
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? 0 Yes
-------------------------------
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? El Yes
-
(If needed, explain on reverse)
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
? No
No
0 No

DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM INDICAT
1. Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+
2. Loblolly pine - Pinus taeda Tree FAC
3. Chainfern - Woodwardia areolata Herb OBL
a. Red maple - Acer rubrum Tree FAC
5. Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
- _ Drift Lines
Field Observations _ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil surface (in,) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
X Water Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
Map Unit Name: Tarboro loam y sand Drainage Class: Somewhat excessively drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic Udipsamments Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Texture, Concentrations,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 10 YR 3/2 sandy loam
4-16 10 YR 5/2 5% 10 YR 5/4 sandy clay loam

Hydric Soils Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_
_ Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
_Aquic Moisture Regime -
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
Wt 1 LAND Ut 1 tKMINAI IUN
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? El Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? El Yes ? No Is this Sampling Point within 0 Yes ? No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? R Yes ? No
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: upland Date: _
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County:
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: N-2 State:_
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? 0 Yes
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? ? Yes
(If needed, explain on reverse)
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
? No
P] No
R] No
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM
1. Red maple - Acer rubrum Tree
2. Loblolly pine - Pinus taeda Tree
3. Japanese honeysuckle - Lonicera japonica Vine
a. Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia Vine
5. Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua Tree
6. Blackberry - Rubus alleghensis Herb
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ):
IICATOR
FAC
FAC
FAC-
FAC
FAC+
UPL
66% II
NvnRni nrv
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs -Inundated
_ Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
- -Drift Lines
Field Observations -Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in,) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
-Water Stained Leaves
-Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Tarboro loamy sand Drainage Class: Somewhat excessive) drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic Udipsamments Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Texture, Concentrations,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 10 YR 3/3 sandy loam
4-16 10 YR 4/3 sandy loam
Hydric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
_ Concretions
-High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Q Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? ? Yes El No Is this Sampling Point within ? Yes No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? ? Yes 2 No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: Wetland Date: 18-Oct-04
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transact ID: County: Pitt
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: 0-6 State: NC
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? Yes ? No
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes No
•------------------
-
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? _ El Yes No
(If needed, explain on reverse)
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES:
1. Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua
2. Loblolly pine - Pinus taeda
3. Smartweed - Polygonum hydropiperoides
4. American elder - Sambucus canadensis
5. Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
STRATUM
Tree
Tree
Herb
Shrub
Vine
FAC+
ent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - )
arks:
FAC
OBL
FACW-
FAC
100% II
NvnRni nnv
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
_ Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
-Drift Lines
Field Observations _ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil surface (in,) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
-Water Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Portsmouth loam Drainage Class: Very poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic paleaquults Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Texture, Concentrations,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 10 YR 3/2 sandy loam
4-16 10 YR 4/2 15% 10 YR 5/4 sandy clay loam
iric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
marks:
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
V ft I LAND Ut I LKMINAI IVN
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 Yes ? No Is this Sampling Point within [21 Yes ? No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? [21 Yes ? No
rks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: upland Date: _
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County:
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: 0-6 State:_
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? _ Yes
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) __ ? Yes
-------- --------
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? _ El Yes
(If needed, explain on reverse)
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
? No
No
No
IOMINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM INI
Red maple - Acer rubrum Tree
Red oak - Quercus rubra Tree
Japanese honeysuckle - Lonicera japonica Vine
Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia Vine
Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua Tree
Chinese privet - Ligustrum sinense Shrub
o.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
'ercent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 83%
Remarks:
FAC
FACU
FAC-
FAC
FAC+
FAC

. Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
-
Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
- Drift Lines
Field Observations -
-Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in,) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water Stained Leaves
-
-Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_
Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
SOILS
loam
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic paleaquults
Taxonomy (Subgroup):
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast
0-4 10 YR 3/3
4-16 10 YR 4/3
Drainage Class: Very p'
Field Observations:
Confirm Mapped Type:
? Yes ? No
Texture, Concentrations,
Structure, etc.
sandy loam
sandy loam
Hydric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
Wt I LAND Ut 1 tKMINAI 1UN
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 2 Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? ? Yes El No Is this Sampling Point within ? Yes No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? ? Yes Q No
(Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: Wetland Date: _
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County:
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: P-2 State:_
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? Q Yes
-------------------------------
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) -- El Yes
-----------------
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? ? Yes
---------------------------------------
(If needed, explain on reverse)
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES:
1. Soft rush - Juncus effusus
2. bluestem - Adrapogon glomeratus
3. Sedge - Carex species
4. Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia
5. Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua
6. Smartweed - Polygonum hydropiperoides
7.
6.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
STRATUM
Herb
Herb
Herb
Vine
Tree
Herb
rcent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - )
marks:
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
? No
F] No
El No
INDICATC
FACW+
FACW+
FAC
FAC+
OBL
100% II
HYDROLnnY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs -Inundated
_ Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
- -Drift Lines
Field Observations _ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: 8 (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil surface (in,) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
_ Water Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
1 .1
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Portsmouth loam Drainage Class: Very poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic paleaquults Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast
0-4 10 YR 2/2
4-16 10 YR 4/1
iric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
'narks:
Texture, Concentrations,
Structure, etc.
sandy loam
sandy clay loam
_ Concretions
-High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 21 Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 Yes ? No Is this Sampling Point within E Yes ? No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? 2 Yes ? No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: upland Date: _
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County:
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: P-2 State:_
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? 0 Yes
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? ? Yes
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
? No
El No
Q No
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES:
1. Dallisgrass Paspalum dalatatum
2. Fescue - Fescue species
3. Dogfennel - Eupatorium capillifolium
4. Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua
5. Soft rush - Juncus effusus
o.
1.
2.
3.
STRATUM
Herb INDICATOR
FAC+
Herb FACU
Herb FACU
Tree FAC+
Herb FACW+
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - )
Remarks:
60% II
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs -Inundated
Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_
-No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations _ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (In,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in,) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
-Water Stained Leaves
-Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Portsmouth loam Drainage Class: Very poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic paleaquults Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Texture, Concentrations,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 10 YR 2/2 sandy loam
4-16 7.5 YR 6/6 sandy loam
Hydric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
-Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:
_ Concretions
-High Organic Content
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? ? Yes No Is this Sampling Point within ? Yes 0 No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? ? Yes No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: Wetland Date: 18-Oct-04
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County: Pitt
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: Q-15 State: NC
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? 2 Yes ? No
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes 0 No
•------------------
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? ? Yes 2 No
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM INDICATi
1. Arrow leaved tearthumb - Polygonum sagittatum Herb OBL
2. Cane - Arundinaria gigantea Herb FACW
3. Sedge - Carex species Herb
Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
5. Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+
6. Smartweed - Polygonum hydropiperoides Herb OBL
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 100%
HYDRot orw
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs X Inundated
_ Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations _ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water 6 (in,) X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil surface (In,) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Portsmouth loam Drainage Class: Very poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic paleaquults Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle
nches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
0-4 10 YR 2/2
4-16 10 YR 4/1
iric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
marks:
Abundance/Contrast
Texture, Concentrations,
Structure, etc.
sandy loam
sandy clay loam
_ Concretions
-High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ? No Is this Sampling Point within Yes ? No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? Q Yes ? No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: upland Date:
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: Q-15 State:_
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? Yes
-------------------------------
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes
-------------------
_
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? ? Yes
(If needed, explain on reverse)
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
? No
No
Q No
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM
1. Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua Tree
2. Japanese honeysuckle - Lonicera japonica Vine
3. Blackberry - Rubus alleghensis Herb
4. Blackjack oak - Quercus marilandica Shrub
5. Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia Vine
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ):
Remarks:
FAC+
FAC-
UPL
NL
FAC
40% II
NvnRni nrv
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
- -Drift Lines
Field Observations -Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in,) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
-Water Stained Leaves
-Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
1 11
Map Unit Name: Portsmouth loam Drainage Class: Very poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic paleaquults Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle
nches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
0-2 10 YR 2/2
2-8 10 YR 4/3
8-16 7.5 YR 6/4
Hydric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
_Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:
Texture, Concentrations,
Structure, etc.
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
_ Concretions
-High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ? Yes n No
Wetland Hydrology Present? ? Yes B No Is this Sampling Point within ? Yes D No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? ? Yes 0 No
Abundance/Contrast
(Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID;
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID:
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: S-6
Date: _
County:
State:
Pitt
NC
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? R] Yes ? No
-------------------------------
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) - _ El Yes El No
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? ? Yes 0 No
•--------------------------------------
(If needed, explain on reverse)
OMINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM INDICATOR
Arrow leaved tearthumb - Polygonum sagittatum Herb OBL
Cane - Arundinaria gigantea Herb FACW
Willow - Salix nigra Shrub OBL
Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+
Smartweed - Polygonum hydropiperoldes Herb OBL
o.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
'ercent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 100%
temarks:
HYDRnLMY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs X Inundated
- - Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
_ -Drift Lines
Field Observations -Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water 8 (in,) X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil surface (in,) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
-Water Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
Wetland
18-Oct-04
Map Unit Name: Ballahack fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Very poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Cumulic Humaquepts Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Texture, Concentrations,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5 10 YR 2/1 sandy loam
5-16 10 YR 4/2 5 % 10YR 4/6 clay loam
iric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
narks:
_ Concretions
-High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? El Yes ? No Is this Sampling Point within Yes ? No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? El Yes ? No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: upland Date: _
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County:
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: S-6 State:_
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? Yes
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) _ El Yes
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? _ ? Yes
--------------------------------------
(If needed, explain on reverse)
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
? No
0 No
Q No
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM INDICATOR
1. Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+
2. Japanese honeysuckle - Lonicera japonica Vine FAC-
3. Loblolly pine - Pinus taeda Shrub/Tree FAC
Blackjack oak - Quercus marilandica Shrub NL
5.
6.
7.
8.
8.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 50%
Remarks:
uvnoni nrw
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
- Drift Lines
Field Observations _
_ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in,) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water Stained Leaves
-
-Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_
Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Ballahack fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Very poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Cumulic Humaquepts Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Texture, Concentrations,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 10 YR 2/2 sandy loam
2-18 10 YR 4/3 sandy loam
Hydric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
-Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:
_ Concretions
-High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? El Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? ? Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within ? Yes 0 No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? ? Yes 0 No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: Wetland Date: 18-Oct-04
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County: Pitt
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: T-20 State: NC
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? Q Yes ? No
-------------------------------
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes 0 No
C. Is the area a potential Problem Areal ? Yes 0 No
---------------------------------------
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VtCst 1 A I IUN
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM INDICATOR
1. Red maple - Acer rubrum Tree/shrub FAC
2. Chainfern - Woodwardia areolata Herb OBL
3. Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+
Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 100%
Remarks:
uvneni nr_v
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_
-No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
-Drift Lines
Field Observations -Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil surface (in,) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
_ Water Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Welhadkee silt loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic Hapludults Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Texture, Concentrations,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5 10 YR 2/1 sandy loam
5-16 10 YR 5/2 5 % 10YR 4/6 clay loam
Hydric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content
_Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-C4iroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
WETLAND DETERMIN6ATIUN
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ? Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? ? Yes ? No Is this Sampling Point within ? Yes ? No
a Wetland?
Hvdric Soils Present? Yes ? No
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: upland Date: 18-Oct-04
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County: Pitt
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: T-20 State: NC
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? Q Yes ? No
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes E No
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? ? Yes 0 No
(If needed, explain on reverse)
A 1 IUN
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM INDICAT
1. Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+
2. Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
3. Loblolly pine - Pinus taeda Shrub/Tree FAC
Blackjack oak - Quercus marilandica Shrub NL
5. Blackberry - Rubus alleghensis Herb UPL
6.
7.
6.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 40%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs -Inundated
-Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations -
_ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in,) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
-Water Stained Leaves
-Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Wehadkee silt loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic Hapludults Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle
nches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
0-2 10 YR 2/2
2-18 10 YR 4/3
iric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Texture, Concentrations,
Structure, etc.
sandy loam
sandy loam
_ Concretions
-High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? P] Yes ? No
Abundance/Contrast
Wetland Hydrology Present? ? Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within ? Yes E No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? ? Yes E No
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: Wetland Date: _
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County:
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: U-17 State:_
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? El Yes
-------------------------------
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes
-------------------
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? ? Yes
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
? No
FA No
Q No
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM INDICAT
1. Red maple - Acer rubrum Shrub/tree FAC
2. Munson's grape - Vitis rotundifolia Vine FAC
3. Willow - Salix nigra Shrub OBL
a. Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
5. Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+
6. Smartweed - Polygonum hydropiperoides Herb OBL
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 100%
wvnRnt nrY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs X Inundated
-Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
X Drift Lines
Field Observations X Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water 15 (in,) X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil surface (in,) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
-Water Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
Bank of the Cheeks Mill Creek
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Tuckerman fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Typic Ochraquialfs Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Mabrix Colors Mottle Texture, Concentrations,
(inches) Horizon (Munasell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5 10 YR 2/2 sandy loam
5-16 10 YR 3/2 5 % 10YR 4/6 sandy loam
Hydric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Reginwe
-Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-ChrorFna Colors,
Remarks:
_ Concretions
-High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
jHydrophytic Vegetation Present? F,_/1 Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? , i Yes ? No Is this Sampling Point within 0 Yes ? No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? F71i Yes ? No
marks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: upland Date: 18-Oct-04
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County: Pitt
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: U-16 State: NC
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? ? Yes
---------------------•--.------
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? ? Yes
(If needed, explain on reverse)
? No
No
No
VEGEI
DOMINAINT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM
1. Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua Tree/shrub
2. American Hornbeam - Carpinus caroliniana Tree
3. Red maple - Acer rubrum Tree/shrub
Blackjack oak - Quercus marilandica Shrub
5. Blackberry - Rubus alleghensis Herb
6.
7.
6.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ):
Remarks:
FAC+
FAC
FAC
NL
UPL

HYt1Rnp nGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
-Drift Lines
Field Observations -Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in,) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
-Water Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit IP+lame: Tuckerman fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
(Series arwd Phase): Typic Ochraqualfs Field Observations:
Taxonom)w (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
rofile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast
0-2 10 YR 2/2
2-16 - 10 YR 4/3
iric Soft Indicators:
_ His,dosol
_ His-tic Epipedon
_ Su{tfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
_ ReoJucing Conditions
-Gle:yed or Low-Chroma Colors
Texture, Concentrations,
Structure, etc.
sandy loam
sandy loam
_ Concretions
-High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
WETLAND
hytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes ? No
d Hydrology Present? ? Yes ? No Is this Sampling Point within ? Yes [21 No
a Wetland?
Souls Present? El Yes E] No
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: Wetland Date: _
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County:
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: X-7 State:_
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? El Yes
-------------------------------
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) _ ? Yes
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? ? Yes
---------------------------------------
(If needed, explain on reverse)
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
? No
No
No
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM INDICATI
1. Arrow leaved tearthumb - Polygonum sagittatum Herb OBL
2. Cane - Arundinaria gigantea Herb FACW
3. Chainfern - Woodwardia areolata Herb OBL
4. Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
5. Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+
6. Smartweed - Polygonum hydropiperoides Herb OBL
7. Red maple - Acer rubrum Tree FAC
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 100%
Remarks:
NvnRni nrv
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs X Inundated
_ Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
-Drift Lines
Field Observations _ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water 8 (in,) X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil surface (in,) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
_ Water Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Tuckerman fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Typic Ochraqualfs Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle
nches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
0-5 10 YR 3/3
5-16 10 YR 4/2
iric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Abundance/Contrast
5 % 10YR 4/6
Texture, Concentrations,
Structure, etc.
sandy loam
clay loam
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 2 Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? R1 Yes ? No Is this Sampling Point within El Yes ? No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? 0 Yes ? No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: upland Date: _
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County:
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: X-7 State:_
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? Yes
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) - El Yes
------------------
? Yes
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? .......................................
(If needed, explain on reverse)
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
? No
No
Q No
VEGETATION
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM INDICATOR
1. Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+
2. Japanese honeysuckle - Lonicera japonica Vine FAC-
3. Loblolly pine - Pinus teeda Shrub/Tree FAC
4. Blackjack oak - Quercus marilandica Shrub NL
5. Morning glory - lpomoea purpurea Herb FACU
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 50%
Y
uvnn?? env
- Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs -Inundated
-
Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
- Drift Lines
Field Observations _
-Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in,) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water Stained Leaves
-
-Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_
Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
Map Unit Name: Tuckerman fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Typic Ochraqualfs Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle
nches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
0-5 10 YR 2/2
5-16 10 YR 4/3
Hydric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
-Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Abundance/Contrast
Texture, Concentrations,
Structure, etc.
sandy loam
sandy loam
_ Concretions
-High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? El Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? ? Yes No Is this Sampling Point within No
a Wetland? ? Yes ?
Hydric Soils Present? ? Yes No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: Wetland Date: _
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County:
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: AC -2 State:_
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? Yes
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) _ ? Yes
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? __ _ _ El Yes
-----------------------------------
(If needed, explain on reverse)
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
? No
0 No
El No
MINANT PLANT SPECIES:
Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua
Red maple - Acer rubrum
Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia
Blackberry - Rubus alleghensis
Smartweed - Polygonum hydropiperoides
Arrow leaved tearthumb - Polygonum sagittatum
o.
1.
2.
3.
4.
STRATUM
Tree/shrub
Tree/shrub
Vine
Herb
Herb
Herb
INDICATOR
FAC+
FAC
FAC
UPL
OBL
OBL
(Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 83%
Remarks:
NvnDni nrv
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs X Inundated
Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
- X Drift Lines
Field Observations X Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water 36 (in,) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in,) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
-Water Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_
Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
This line defines the southern bank of the Conetoe Creek
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: Wetland Date: 18-Oct-04
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County: Pitt
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: AC -2 State: NC
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Bibb complex Drainage Class: Poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic Fluvaquents Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast
0-2 10 YR 3/2
2-16 10 YR 3/2 10 % 10 YR 4/2
iric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
narks:
Texture, Concentrations,
Structure, etc.
sandy loam
sandv loam
_ Concretions
-High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
t I LAND Ut 1 LKMINAI IVN
rdrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes ? No
etland Hydrology Present? 0 Yes ? No
idric Soils Present? P1 Yes ? No
Is this Sampling Point within
a Wetland? Yes ? No
rks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: upland Date: 18-Oct-04
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County: Pitt
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: AC -2 State: NC
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? 0 Yes ? No
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) __ _ El Yes D No
----------------
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? ? Yes D No
•----------------------•-------••------
(If needed, explain on reverse)
MINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM INDICATOR
Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua Tree/shrub FAC+
Pokeweed - Phytolacca americana Herb FACU+
Blackberry - Rubus alleghensis Herb UPL
Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
River birch - Betula nigra Tree/shrub FACW
Virginia creeper - Parthenocissus guinquefolia Vine FAC
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 67%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs -Inundated
_ Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
-Drift Lines
Field Observations _ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in,) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
-Water Stained Leaves
-Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_
-Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
the is an upland data point wetland hydrology was absent from this location.
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Bibb complex Drainage Class: Poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic Fluvaquents Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle
inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
0-2 10 YR 3/3
2-16+ (
10 YR 6/4
tric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
-Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Abundance/Contrast
Texture, Concentrations,
Structure, etc.
sandy loam
sandy loam
_ Concretions
-High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
land soils are present at this point, this is the upland bank of the Contoe Creek
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? El Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? ? Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within ? Yes No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? ? Yes P] No
rks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: Highway 33 Community ID: Wetland Date: _
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County:
investigator William Mullin Plot ID: AR-2 State:_
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? Yes
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? - - - ? Yes
(If needed, explain on reverse)
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
? No
0 No
? No
MINANT PLANT SPECIES:
Red maple - Acer rubrum
Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua
Loblolly pine - Pinus taeda
Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Tree
Tree
Shrub/Tree
Vine
INDICATOR
FAC
FAC+
FAC
FAC
rcent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 100%
marks:
uvnRni nrv
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs -Inundated
Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations _ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil surface (in,) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
_ Water Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
Map Unit Name: Ocilla loamy fine sand Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Aquic Arenic Paleudults Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes I? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast
0-6 10 YR 3/2
6-16 10 YR 5/1 15% 10 YR 5/6
Hydric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:
Texture, Concentrations,
Structure, etc.
sandy loam
sandy clay
_ Concretions
-High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? [] Yes [_ ] No
Wetland Hydrology Present? [] Yes ? No Is this Sampling Point within [;] Yes ? No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? ? Yes [] No
(Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: upland Date: _
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County:
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: AR-2 State:_
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? (] Yes
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes
•------------------
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? ? Yes
---------------------------------------
(If needed, explain on reverse)
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
? No
No
No
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM INDICATOR
1. Red maple - Acer rubrum Shrub/tree FAC
2. Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
3. Loblolly pine - Pinus taeda Shrub/Tree FAC
Blackberry - Rubus alleghensis Herb UPL
5. Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 85%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs Inundated
_ Other -
-Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations -
_ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in,) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
-Water Stained Leaves
-Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Ocilla loamy fine sand Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Aquic Arenic Paleudults Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: [A Yes [] No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast
0-4 10 YR 2/2
4-16 10 YR 4/3
Hydric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:
Texture, Concentrations,
Structure, etc.
sandy loam
sandy loam
_ Concretions
-High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes [] No
Wetland Hydrology Present? [] Yes [?] No Is this Sampling Point within ? Yes [j] No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? ? Yes [] No
(Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: Wetland Date: _
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County:
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: AS-5 State:_
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? [] Yes
- --- - -
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
? No
0 No
F1 No
MINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM INDICATI
Red maple - Acer rubrum Tree FAC
Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+
Pepperbush - Clethra alnifolia Shrub FACW
Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 100%
Remarks:
HYnROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs -Inundated
_ Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations _ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil surface (in,) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
_ Water Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
this is an unmapped shallow ditch line
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Roanoke silt loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic Ochraquults Field Observations:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: ? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast
0-6 10 YR 3/2
6-16 10 YR 4/2
Hydric Soils Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
10% 10YR 4/4
Texture, Concentrations,
Structure, etc.
sandy loam
sandy clay
_ Concretions
High Organic Content
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
Wt I LAND Ut I tKMINA 11UN
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? [1 Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ? No Is this Sampling Point within 0 Yes No
a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? P-1 Yes ? No
rks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Highway 33 Community ID: upland Date: _
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Transect ID: County:
Investigator William Mullin Plot ID: AS-5 State:_
A. Do normal circumstances exist on this site? [] Yes
B. Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ? Yes
-------------------
C. Is the area a potential Problem Area? ? Yes
(If needed, explain on reverse)
18-Oct-04
Pitt
NC
? No
M No
FJ No
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES: STRATUM INDICATOR
1. Red maple - Acer rubrum Tree FAC
2. Sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+
3. Loblolly pine - Pinus taeda Shrub/Tree FAC
Common green brier - Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC - ): 100%
uvnQni nrrv
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section) Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs -Inundated
Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
- -Drift Lines
Field Observations _ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in,) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in,) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
-Water Stained Leaves
-Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_
-Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Roanoke silt loam
Drainage Class: Poorly
(Series and Phase): Thermic Typic Ochraquults Field Observatio
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Map? No
Profile Description: ntrations,
Mottle
Depth Matrix Colors
Horizon (Munsell Moist)
(incnes)
.
Abundance/Contrast etc

0-4 10 YR 2/2 am
4-16 10 YR 4/3 am

dicators:
Hydric Soils In

Concretions
_ Histosol
Histic Epipedon _
-High Organic Content
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Sulfidic Odor -
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_Aquic Moisture Regime -
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Reducing Conditions -
Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
_Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? [] Yes [] No

t? [] Yes is this Sampling Point within Yes [_?] No
['] No
Wetland Hydrology Presen a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? ? Yes [] No
O? WATF9 Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
\OC? pG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
co Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
D `r
April 1, 2005
William Mullin
Dr. J.H. Carter III & Associates, Inc.
PO Box 891
Southern Pines, NC 28388
Subject: Proposed Widening of NC 33 in Edgecombe and Pitt County, R-3407
On-Site Determination for Applicability to the Clean Water Act and the Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules
Dear Mr. Mullin:
On March 8, 2005, Brian Wrenn conducted an on-site determination to review five stream features within
the study area for the referenced project for applicability to the Clean Water Act and the Tar-Pamlico
Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0259). The features are labeled on the attached maps initialed by Brian
Wrenn on March 8, 2005.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) determinations for the features are presented in Table 1. Two of
the five stream features were determined to be intermittent or perennial and subject to the Clean Water
Act and the Tar-Pamlico buffer rules. Stream feature UT 15 was determined to be perennial and subject
to the buffer rules from the most upstream point at NC 33 to a point outside of the R-3407 corridor to the
southwest (see Map 1). Stream feature UT 17 was determined to be perennial and subject to the buffer
rules from the most upstream point at NC 33 to a point outside of the R-3407 corridor to the southwest
(see Map 1).
Table 1. - Stream determinations and buffer applicability for streams within the R-3407 corrid
Stream Feature ID Stream Determination Buffer Applicability
UT 1 Ephemeral Not Subject
UT 15 Perennial Subject
UT 17 Perennial Subject
UT 19 Ephemeral Not Subject
UT 20 E hemeral Not Subject
or.
These on-site determinations shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or
affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that a
surface water exists and that it is subject to the mitigation rules may request a determination by the
Director. A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o
John Dorney, DWQ Wetlands/401 Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650. Individuals
that dispute a determination by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" a surface water
from the mitigation rules may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date
that you receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not
start until the affected party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision.
DWQ recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party
appeals are made in a timely manner. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 671?Mail
NorthCai
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Mr. Mullin
March 23, 2005
Page 2
Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing within 60 days.
This letter only addresses the applicability to the Clean Water Act and the Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rule
requirements and does not approve any activity within Waters of the United States or Waters,of the State.
If you have any additional questions or require additional information please call Brian Wrenn at (919)
733-5715.
Singly,
14 ?
Alan W. Klimek, P.E
Attachment: Map 1
cc: Nicole Thomson, DWQ Transportation Permitting Unit, Central Office
File Copy
Central Files
ft?1 L ?" ?. ti, el 1 of
;F 77
d TribyWy #13
t I. ? ?',? q m 1
R ;
?h
i 7
E A
. p ?., • i mow„ I - q
t 4
Cem , . % ta, , ±d
f1- - ?,
Unna?rie j Tri tart' 14..$ *etl?and A 3
au7
u6 O ++ 1 n f ?j{
It'. ?.
Ilk
U na ? t'ary #1"5
r f ti1_ .
TT-
+ ) / • t'1. ?Zo .rr? ~• h
Pie
I
v'
` ??
V
?a Fa ,
o
ce but
x6 « e A ' • tj ?1
?s
a
l e
I ?; `. m4 i
rM- s :Trt 8
Z
-!d..
a .
w
?\\1i ti +l 9 q '?r • 41
IJ '
4
sin -+ ?
7/ ...
,v
e ta.ij 01.
?
i 1 4 17
be g
IN' eg Unnam Tr #2'b'
a
ll .
i
Vol
K,/Pil'es` b 1
13 m
' b
?? xs.S i r'
March 9, 2005
MEMORANDUM TO: Meeting Attendees
FROM: Jackie Obediente, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting, Concurrence Point 1, Purpose and
Need for TIP Project R-3407, safety and capacity improvements to NC 33 from Tarboro
to Greenville
A Merger meeting for the subject project was held on February 17, 2005 at 3:00 p.m. in the Transportation
Board Room to discuss Concurrence Point 1, Purpose and Need, and study corridor of the proposed project.
The following people were in attendance:
Bill Biddlecome - USACE
William Wescott - USACE
Nikki Thomson - NCDENR-DWQ
Travis Wilson - NCWRC
Gary Jordan - USFWS
Ron Lucas - FHWA
Sarah McBride - SHPO
Chris Militscher - EPA
Gene Foxworth - Mid-East RPO
Olah Pittman - Edgecombe County Planning Department
Tom Tysinger - Greenville MPO
Chris Lukasina - Upper Coastal Plain RPO
Eric Midkiff - NCDOT - PDEA
Jackie Obediente - NCDOT - PDEA
Teresa Hart - NCDOT - PDEA
Rob Hanson - NCDOT - PDEA
Tim Goins - NCDOT - Roadway
Dean Noland - NCDOT - Roadway
Tim Gardiner - NCDOT - OHE
Elena Talanker - NCDOT - TPB
Theresa Wyatt - NCDOT - Highway Admin. Office
Jim Trogdon, PE - Division 4 Engineer
Neil Lassiter, PE - Division 2 Engineer
Ed Eatmon, - Division 2
The following were not present at the merger meeting, but want to be part of the merger team, and signed
the concurrence form (see attachment):
Sean McKenna - NCDENR-DMF
Ron Sechler - NMFS
The meeting began with introductions of the team members, and an overview of the project handout was
given.
The team concurred with the following purpose and need statement:
The purpose of this project is to improve the safety and capacity of NC 33 between Tarboro and Greenville.
The team concurred with the following study corridor:
The study corridor along NC 33 is 300ft about the centerline, which is widened out at the locations of
substandard curves (maximum 600ft), as referenced by aerial mapping dated February 17, 2005.
Additionally, the following topics were discussed:
• The USFWS mentioned that because of the high amount of deer collisions in the project area, the
potential for wildlife crossings should be considered
• The DWQ pointed out that from DWQ's standpoint, "Connectivity" cannot be used as part of the
Purpose and Need, and therefore she could not concur with the purpose of the project as written.
• It was mentioned that it would be necessary to have a field meeting before or at Concurrence Point 2A.
• The EPA requested that NCDOT quantify Environmental Justice issues for the LEDPA selection
• The DWQ stated that buffers will be an issue for this project, and that it is important to attempt to avoid
and minimize impacts to buffer areas.
• The EPA stated that hazardous spill catch basins may be required.
• The WRC stated that the need for wildlife crossings should be approached as being a traffic safety
issue rather than a habitat fragmentation issue due to the high percentage of "animal" collisions.
• The SHPO asked if the study corridor was sufficient to accommodate widening on the opposite side of
the road from the potentially historic site - the Penny Hill Doctors Office. Roadway Design responded
that the study corridor was wide enough.
• Tom Tysinger of the Greenville MPO was inadvertently omitted from the Merger Team, however he
will be invited to and included in future Merger Team meetings. He verbally concurred with the
Purpose and Need.
• The NCDENR - DCM opted out of the Merger Team per Cathy Brittingham's email dated 1/24/2005.
• The NCDENR - DMF representative Sean McKenna, and NMF representative Ron Sechler, were not
present at the merger meeting, however per a telephone conversation on February 18, 2005 with Sean
McKenna and email correspondence on February 22, 2005 with Ron Sechler, they confirmed that they
wanted to participate in the Merger Team for the remainder of the project, and both signed the
concurrence forms.
• Copies of the concurrence forms are attached for your records.
Concurrence%20Point%201%20-%2OPage%201.jpg (JPEG Image, 1... imap://nicole.thoinson%40dwq.denr.ncmai][e-mail]:143/f
Section 404/ NEPA MLr;er Project Team Meeting Agreerttrzrt
ConcurrencePouit 1- Purpose and Need
FedcralProjectllLUnber: MASTP-33(3)
State Pscj ect Ilu uber: 3.1221701
TIP Number: P.-3407
State Application #: 04-E-4220-0196
W3S U=mber: 34539.1.1
Project Description: Safetyandcapacity imprcrementstollC 33 from US 64 in Tarboro to US 264 in
Grear,ille
Project Purpose: The purpose of this project istoimr-cove the safety and capacity of 14C 33 between
Tarboro andGreermlle. The study cccti&r alcngliC 33 is300ft about the cerilettine, which is widened
out at the to cations of ub:-taLnJudctaves(maxirnum600ft), as referenced by aerial mappingdated
February 17, 2005. 1

1
? ,
rI

"7 t)

1 of 1 4/13/2005 12:28 PM
Concurrence%20Point%201%20-%2OPage%202.jpg (JPEG Image, 1... imap://[e-mail]: 143/f...
\NCDOT .&'
\CWkC ---, iU
1 11WA
Iof I
2 f /7,0,5'

pat„
4/13/2005 12:28 PM