20110810 Ver 1_401 Application_20110811

? ? ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
August 30, 2011
Ian McMillan
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
James Shern
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
20110810
Re: City of Durham Department of Water Management
Southern Reinforcing Main - Phase II
Nationwide Permit # 12 Application Submittal
Durham County, North Carolina
Dear Ian and James:
? LS?? V L5
P A U G 3 0 2011
DENP, - +NATER. QUAL
¦
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, Norlh Carolina
27636-3068
On behalf of the Department of Water Management of the City of Durham, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. is
submitting the enclosed Preconstruction Notification Application for authorization to construct to above
referenced project under Nationwide Permit Number 12.
The proposed project includes the construction of approximately 14,900 linear feet of new water pipeline. This
project will result in temporary buffer Zone 2 Impacts of 7,947 SF. Due to the minimal nature of the impacts,
mitigation has not been proposed for this project.
The following information is included with this submittal:
• Project Summary Sheet
• Preconstruction Notification Form
• Stream and Wetland Crossing Position Information
• Aerial Figures, USGS Soil Maps, and Construction Drawings
• Site Photographs
• Agent Authorization Form
• Preliminary JD Form, NCDWQ Stream Forms, Wetland Determination Forms
If there is any additional information you need to assist in the processing of this application, please do not
hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN A D ASSOCIATES, INC.
A?
Nolan Raney, P.E.
Enclosures
Cc: Bryant Green, City of Durham Dept, of Water Management
¦
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
? ? ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc. Project Summary Sheet 2 0 8 1 0
Project Name: Southern Reinforcing Main - Phase II
Applicant Name and Address: City of Durham Department of Water Management
Attn: Mr. Bryant Green, P.E.
1600 Mist Lake Drive
Durham, NC 27704
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: Bryant.Greeng_durhamnc.gov
Type of Request: ® Nationwide PCN (NWP #: 12 GC#: 3699 ) ? Individual Permit Application
® Jurisdictional Determination ? Other:
Included Attachments: ® Project Plans ® USGS Map ® NRCS Soil Survey
® Agent Authorization ? Delineation Sketch ? Delineation Survey
® Data Forms (Up & Wet) ® NCDWQ Stream Forms ? USACE Stream Forms
? NCEEP Confirmation ® Aerial Photo ® Site Photos
? Agency Correspondence ? USACE JD Form ? Other:
Check if applicable: ? CAMA County ? Trout County ? Isolated Waters
? Section 7, ESA ? Section 106, NHPA ? EFH
? Mitigation Proposed (? NCEEP ? Bank ? On-Site ? Off-Site ? Other)
County: Durham Nearest City/Town: Durham
Waterway: UT's to Northwest Creek, UT's to Little Lick Creek River Basin: Cape Fear ; Neuse
H.U.C.: 0303002 / 03020201 USGS Quad Name: Southeast Durham, NC
Property Size (acres): +/- 10 acres Approx. Size of Jurisdiction on Site (acres):
Site Coordinates (decimal degrees) -Longitude: 78.852829 °W Latitude: 35.955345 °N
Project Location: This project consists of approximately 14,900 LF of 30-inch ductile iron waterline located in southeast
Durham, originating near the Ellis Road Elevated Water Storage Tank (EST). The proposed waterline follows Ellis Road
south for approximately 1700 LF, where the alignment turns east and travels cross country across several parcels crossing
primarily forested and/or active pasture to Glover Road. The alignment then follows Glover Road east to Angier Avenue,
which it follows southeast to the proposed Angier Avenue EST located near the intersection of Miami Blvd and Angier
Avenue.
Site Description: The project corridor is primarily located along existing City of Durham/NCDOT roadways and in
Impact Summary (if applicable):
Impact Table
? [R (r-?' [R -
AUG 3 0 2011 '
DENR - WATER 60
eaaraa a s< Elann&
NWP Open Water Wetland Stream Channel Impact Buffer Impact
Impact UGC Impact (ac) Impact (ac) Temp. Perm. Intermittent Mitigation (ft )
Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. LF SF LF 11 SF or Perennial Ratio Zone 1 Zone 2
Stream SI, BufferBI 12/3699 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perennial N/A 0 1,316
Stream S2, Buffer B2 12/3699 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perennial N/A 0 730
Stream S3, Buffer B3
- 12/3699 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perennial N/A 0 606
-tream S4, Buffer B4
Ls 12/3699 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perennial N/A 0 1,253
Stream S5, Buffer B5 12/3699 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perennial N/A 0 1,489
¦
P.0 Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636.3068
¦
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
Southeast Raleigh Expansion Reuse Pipeline, April 2009, Pg. 2
Stream S6, Buffer B6 12/3699 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perennial N/A 0 1,351
Stream S7, Buffer B7 12/3699 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perennial N/A 0 1,202
Wetland WI 12/3699 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perennial N/A N/A N/A
Wetland W2 12/3699 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perennial N/A N/A N/A
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,947
Kimley-Horn Contact: Nolan Raney Direct Number. [phone]
Email: Nolan. Raney&kimley-hom.com
20 1 1 0 8 1 0
off
j ?0FryWALk?9
1 ILJ_?7??-?
o Niii? 'c
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 12 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ® Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Southern Reinforcing Main - Phase II

2b.
County:
Durham
-TZ
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Durham k-%-> L% L9 Ifli
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A I j?
3. Owner Information WUtNR $GV R QUALI
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: City of Durham / Durham County
3b. Deed Book and Page No. Linear Utility Project - N/A
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): N/A
3d. Street address: 1600 Mist Lake Drive
3e. City, state, zip: Durham, NC 27704
3f. Telephone no.: 919-560-4381
3g. Fax no.: 919-560-4479
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Nolan Raney
5b. Business name
(if applicable): Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
5c. Street address: 3001 Weston Parkway
5d. City, state, zip: Cary, NC 27513
5e. Telephone no.: 919-653-6625
5f. Fax no.: 919-677-2050
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): N/A
Latitude: 35.955345 Longitude: -
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): 78.852829
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: N/A acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project: UT's to Northwest Creek; UT's to Little Lick Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: WS-IV NSW 03-04-01
2c. River basin: Cape Fear; Neuse
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project site is a linear corridor spanning approximately 14,900 linear feet. The proposed waterline will serve as a
transmission line between the existing Ellis Road Elevated Water Storage Tank and the proposed 3-Million Gallon Angier
Avenue Elevated Storage Tank to be located near the intersection of Miami Blvd and Angier Ave. Approximately 57% of
the proposed pipeline will be constructed in and along City/NCDOT streets traveling through a mix of industrial and
residential areas. Additional easement will be required from properties outside of the existing right-of-way to facilitate
construction. Most of the remaining 43% of the proposed pipeline will be along proposed cross country utility corridors.
Existing land use in the cross country areas vary between forested areas to active pastures. Proposed clearing limits will
be limited as necessary to allow for the construction and future maintenance of the proposed waterline. All streams in the
project area will be crossed via trenchless methods (bore and jack) to minimze impact.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
Approximately 0.04 acres of wetland were delineated along the corridor. All wetland impacts will be avoided or crossed
via trenchess methods (bore and jack) to minimze impact.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
The proposed pipeline will cross approximatly 210 LF of existing streams. All crossings will be via trenchless methods
(bore and jack).
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The proposed 30-inch waterline will serve as a transmission line between the existing Ellis Road Eleveated Water
Storage Tank (EST) and the proposed 3-Million Gallon Angier Avenue Elevated Water Storage Tank (EST) to be located
near the intersection of Miami Blvd and Angier Ave. This waterline will allow the Angier Ave EST to provide service to
southeast Durham.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed project involves the construction of approximately 14,900 linear feet of 30-inch ductile iron pipeline
extending from the existing Ellis Road EST to the proposed Angier Ave EST. The project will extend an existing City of
Durham transmission line from the Ellis Road EST to the Angier Ave EST. Construction will be performed using heavy
equipment such as bulldozers and excavators to dig a trench, install the pipe, and backfill. All stream and wetland
crossings will be constructed using trenchless methods (bore and jack crossing). A casing pipe will be bored beneath the
affected area, and a carrier pipe will be placed inside of the casing pipe. The project corridor will be accessed along
existing roads, proposed utility easements, and access easements. Clearing of woody vegetation and trees will be
required for the construction of the pipeline, however will be minimzed to allow for the installation and maintenance of the
waterline.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
? Yes ? No ®Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Currently, no additional extensions are planned for the Southern Reinforcing Main. However, extensions or additions to
the pipeline may occur in the future.
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ® Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ®T No Impact (bore N/A ? Yes ? Corps 0
and jack) ® No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ® T Avoided N/A ? Yes
® No ? Corps
? DWQ 0
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments: All wetland impacts have been avoided. Wetland 1 will be crossed via trenchless methods (bore and jack
crossing), and Wetland 2 has been avoided.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S2 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments: See Project Summary Sheet for Stream Impact information. All stream impacts will be crossed via trenchless
methods (bore and jack) to minimze impact.
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4E Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5E Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
® Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments: See Project Summary Sheet for Buffer Impact information.
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
During the route selection process, wetland and stream impacts were avoided to the extent practical in order to limit impacts.
Field reviews of three potential corridors were conducted during the route selection process to eliminate or minimze the
amount of impacts. Several alternate routes which would require additional impacts were eliminated during the routing
selection process.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
All streams crossings will be crossed via trenchless methods (bore and jack) to minimize impacts. Additionally, all wetland
impacts have been avoided to the greatest extent practical. Wetland W1 will be crossed via trenchless methods (bore and
jack), and Wetland W2 was avoided during the routing phase. Fencing will be used during construction to prevent
construction from taking place inside of the Zone 1 Buffer.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this

pro
project? ? Mitigation bank

? Payment to in-lieu fee program

? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ® Yes ? No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: The linear utility project will obtain an approved NCDENR Erosion and ? Yes ® No
Sedimentation Control permit. All Zone 1 buffers will remain undisturbed. Zone 2
will be returned to pre-construction elevations.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? <1 %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Due to the nature of the project, it is not
anticipated that this project will generate any additional stormwater. The utility line co rridors will be returned to grade and
allowed to revegetate.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? City of Durham
? Phase II
? NSW
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ® No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
? HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
? Yes ® No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
? Yes ? No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
It is not anticipated that the proposed pipeline will not result in a change in the amount of water treated by the City of
Durham. The proposed Southern Reinforcing Main - Phase II will allow the City to better serve existing users in the southeast
area of Durham.
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ? Yes ® No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. El Raleigh
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
The Natural Heritage Program database access through the virtual workfroom. Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) and
smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) are currently listed as endangered plant species by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service. However, habitat is not presentt for either of these species based upon a review of the NRCS Soil Survey for
Durham County. Additionally, a review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database shows no record (historic/present)
of Michaux's sumac or the smooth coneflower within the vicinity of the proposed project corridors.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
The project is located in Durham County, and is therefore not anticipated to impact EFH.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A review of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the NC Archaeology Department records show that there
will be no impacts to historic or archaeological resources along the proposed corridors. Based on infromation from Susan
Myers, NC State Archaeologist (11/2/2010), there is on archaeological site along Angier Avenue. However, the site has
been previously surveyed and no further investigations are required.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: The project is the installation of a new utilit
line that will not res
lt
y
u
in above-ground fill.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA map service center.
NO /4,1 b- /04 /? ey
/ 9121111

Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Applicant/Agent's S gnature
-
Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is rovided.
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Stream and Wetland Crossing Position Information
Crossing Latitude Longitude Aerial
Figure No. Survey
Figure No. Type of Crossing
Stream S 1 35.9629 -78.8664 1.2 2.1 Bore and Jack
Stream S2 35.9607 -78.8639 1.4 2.2 Bore and Jack
Stream S3 35.9608 -78.8637 1.4 2.2 Bore and Jack
Stream S4 35.9599 -78.8594 1.5 2.3 Bore and Jack
Stream S5 35.9570 -78.8556 1.6 2.4 Bore and Jack
Stream S6 35.9519 -78.8482 1.8 2.6 Bore and Jack
Stream S7 35.9482 -78.8415 1.10 2.8 Bore and Jack
Wetland W1 35.9535 -78.8503 1.7 2.5 Bore and Jack
Wetland W2 35.9498 -78.8448 1.9 2.7 Avoided
I ,
1
r'w"w
L

- AL
Stream 1
Bore and Jack Crossing

Ic --1
Legend
- Delineated Streams
Waterline Alignment
DWQ Stream Locations
N
W E
S
0 100 200
1 1 1
Feet
Cam„ Kimley-Horn I City of Durham, North Carolina
and Associates, Inc. Southern Reinforcing Main - Phase II

il
Figure 1.2
Proposed Crossings
May 2011
W E.
yo
4
y , 4
y? 1
? a
t ' f '4 5X
L•
E L?
Stream 5
Bore and Jack Crossing

j
t
I
g
s
rawro
\ "!!Y
? s
Legend
- Delineated Streams
Waterline Alignment 0 100 200
DWQ Stream Locations Feet'
Kimley-Horn City of Durham, North Carolina Figure 1.6
and Associates, Inc. Southern Reinforcing Main - Phase II Proposed Crossings
May 2011
O Z ow iaej 000 5 Oti8 5T I aleoS
0 00.01 000 Z 000 £ 000 b 0009
N
eliy? i 0 °h W % i
U m
3
I (8L iaa s swop) i33J 000 eoe
U -? - -
co
? a ? \ 3 J _ _ ? ?? m U Q m
y (?
mX ¢ m
U m u. a / m ism L) ?e
C) ui
i o L y? U 3 v
v
--- y --
W
L 3 m ,Un /?' -? 0 0 3
U ``l - 3 ??? w = JS yG --
i
wy? olU
d /+? \ U
-C co m 3
c
0 3 J'? , , m
m in ul L)
3 t 3 m a /
0 Lo
r
U
3 3 a 14 - ?' m
3 es / / J
u C)
U 3:
U ?/ U 3
m m
U e' U '\ a
in
3 m ,I r -\ 3 ?\ U\ 3 ? ,m
ci • I ?
I N _
W ?
i ,
U v, - -? 3 M \
G `
Q.
s
0
U ?- 1 3
0 L)
w < co
?3
z 3 a 3 /? \ 3
i i
w ?- m
w W W U r
3 3/ co Iw
S o c? l 3 3
con
1 -
w U _
Q 3~ OsM a m m
i N
Z U v m 3 3
In ca
J 9 3 ?__ d J 9A0
'A o /
Q?,>
U
% ?y m "NsC ?? os m 3?d `? 3
Z U ice/ ul I _ m
d \ 3
F- m co
w
q v I3 / 3 ?-
w
s / P C; '
U ms
U
L) L)
3 \ / m I ? 3 ? ? '°_ Il
w 3 N C
m m m. -? - cn m a i
m w y- 3 yo DER co
N. X, - U
3i 3 \ I co
L ( 3
C.) w
N
> a
/f
u
m c.>
3 / 3 ? 3
1-
r
3
3
U ?
U '
O / tom-- w / d
3
- m 106 3 3 w ss
3. s m
0 o
JS _ _ O -
mm w 3 U
14 m mar/ 3 I 3 ?_ 3 ? ._.? a GtG c7
co 4)
? m zi f
m
U m ?
-- i
cc c
:3 i co
"Hlnos U U
I U `?
3
U
\! / 3 3 m
U
ZZ *ON VN1-lOdVD Hi8ON 'AiNf1O0 VWHana
pauoilisod alewlxojdde aie'uemys p 'vawoo uoisinlp puel pue sjoil pus aleu.p-o
sa??uase 8uye?atlooo pue a??n,ag uaten?asuo? poS 'a.ngn>?sy .0 1?>?.:?eox; y ? aw; Sq euce,3o;o,?9 ie ae ?; 6I uo papowua ? dew s?yl
n7 •nnl wKii-l mw-) IJ 1 w -)NI ` 1 I Nnn-) www),4nn
3?4 112 1?4 0 1 Mile
z N
5 000 4 000 3 000 2000 1 000 0 5 000 Feet
Scale 1:15 840
(Joins sheet 37)
i C[` ---?- ! - --
Cr C
WSC
v \\ v gig j W f, \
',?/ W
m N
n % m o: r
n PfE
ff ?n
N
r
Mf8
m f co t.N 1 _ MfD
t(
D N 1
O N V, M / - W ?
r; 0
C ?-
A
7- 40
N
_• v
P?
Y? t
-? '-__ -
(7
w
(7
Y
ICU
SOUTH %
°
I ,_ _ m \ 4 l
tt
N
OSM _ N W m 1 I ?/
A n - ' ul
i
n
0
I
\ ?? \ n$
l _
< l A .w z
- --'
rt '?v o
' e
\ )r / r to / - z
D
i o n
CIO
?sM ?' 1? ? •.,
n'f
in cc
i
?I \
?
f r
N
°' \ cs v C Qs6 1 w
7 N
G N ?? ? f' C ? v?r F
I
r
N / I
,
;
u
.
N
1 N ! Q7 '
L) zt
n
"it
r
a;
co 1 Wsc CO
ji 1•
?I c
I
n ,
m
j m / co
i Q sC \ vii
03 WSB
---
N
r ...
m
.
m
0 Z!
0. WSE d
M `? C
CID
F m N
7 m n y N f n sM '
sc,
(Joins sheet 33) - - -- 800000 FE_
n f
N
co n
DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA NO. 32
This r•+ap rs compiled o, 1972 aerial photography cy the U S De Dartmont of Agriculture" ",I Cpnse-t- S-1- acid cooperating ager+c•es
This map is comprleo on 1972 aenal photography Dy !ne U.S. Department Dt Agriculture, Soil CDnServauti, service and Cooperating agencies.
r'-rr,t,:I orvt hrkc -1, lann n??i?Inn rn -, It chnwn are annr--tew n-tinned
'ONI 'S3LVIOOSSV aNV NHOH-A31Y'IIH Ol A1f118V11 1f1OHLIM 38 l1VHS 'ONI 'sumossV aNV NNOH-A31WIH A8 NOLLV &W ONV NOILVZIHOHinY NUUHM inOH11M 1NW4 0O0 SIHL NO 30NVn38 NUGH&V aNV 30
3sn3H 'O3SVd3Sd SVM 11 HOIHM SO3 113110 ONV 3SOd2U1d 3Hl 2103 AlNO a3aN31Nl SI '30VMS 30 1N314n u1SNl NV SV 'N13M3H 031N3S3Hd SNJIS3a ONV S cJ3ONOO Ni HLIM 83H13001 '.MvinbOa SIHL
L*Z T nou SONISS080 HV32US
II 3SVHd - NIVW JN102103N138 N83H1nOS
L L/-VZ/B 'Oul'sM.MVPUBWOH-klwlN
31Va ?=?
a a a a a
g U. o? ou- oN ou-
o° o ° o° o° o°
U UpQ
_ Q QW O
L) a. a. z
VI ?.a ?W M Q; in
Z ~
Q
it z
II Z Q Zo ZQ
x F a QU- Qm
pa, W V Y ?o ?} U
94 ~U p w z Z ? n_
UZ air pZ o
W Wa uj Z W ?Z U
W O O W W w w W2 mU q
Q W
g
(n (n ?o ow uj
LL.? Wa x? v1
e
?.
q
V IT
vv,
r
a ? 4 -a
1 lei /? ? N
•,? I- `` .? 'fit +j/ \ ? g V ?? w' t • f at
ft
J
W a ?. V
Z \L? \q f J c0 Q (D ¢
ZOOO L
Il
\ t,
W \. Q Z O J
ZQZ?C7bU
Z co
i
1 EL
r
O7UUU
Q Q Q
0 0 0 0 Q
O O O m Q
cl? LL-
W Ll- ---1 cn cn 0 s
LL- D
E D?U 1Z
O
? II
m cn CD C)
z II a- v
I ?. (n Q
Ln U
??,... W Y OQ
Z U W d
U z i
L U
z W
W Q z
Crwa.O
i ' LL)
(f) F- LLj a
Q = ?
r W U
1 z L
V) °
a-
o {
x?,,,..... / O
LL 1
.? a_
O =
x F o
s
f
nvPuoruoJou :n8 woOV:LI - LLOZ -t6 Isn0nV b/AP'*Z 90-LLOZ Mt,6ti110-dSXx sain643 woaµS Z-V48S\saJnbld JOOduq wD84S\sllq!4x3\s01!d OVO-LO\ZHd Vg8S-Z90*64110\I0luawuouinu3-lVil\ N
ONI 'S3LVIOOSSV aNV N8OH-AnAD1 Ol AU11&n InO LIM 38 l1VHS '0NI 'S3LVI00SSV aNV NHOH-A31WIN AS NOLLV1dV(IV UNV NOLLVZINOHInV N3MA inOHJJM LN3rin3oa SIHI NO 30Nvn3H 83dOddAl ONV 30
3sn3H '(33Wd3Md SVM 11 H01HM SOd imno aNV 3SOdafld 3HL HOd AINO a3aN3. N1 S1 '30VMS d0 1NMins.LSNI NV SV 'NON3H a3. N3S3ad SNJIS3a aNV SLd30N00 3Hl HLIM S3H13001 '1NMMboa SIHL
SONISSMK) VW32US ll/-V Z/B 9U?". PUBWOH-klw!N
Z'Z 32if1O13 II 3SVHd - NI` V4 ON10803N138 M3H1f10S KVG ???
Q Q Q Q Q ! /
F r
lei lei ° Iii Lei
LLJ
g 00V) 00W gN 00W °?
0 0
o° o° o° o° o° Z z t f r ;
J w
LLJ
Q LiJ fr
w < Q W (n f I r g f t f
r f rp.
U ?. U O_ a_ Z Q Q 3
LZ rr ?'/ j g? ' pa a .
p W Ow OZ_ J I p V
zO_ 0 ZQQ H C) W J I / / / rr` `
LL cn , X/11,
Y o U r` ?y x ` F i j
a_
{ R ! / i 0 -J w ZZ? a. /
T. r
LL- W W W F-? ?Z U? (Z "J t .J ( f F! >" / r
Q <y j s fy t f
w 0 0 W M W 2 m Q W [ d_ 6r /y ?x ? ' it < r"
?CL
2 (n 0-
LL LL (L m m
jr,
A-
00
00 f` f
/"gin / C/ I t j c r / i
188
i p
f f ,}
pf f J r / / Y
ce T
i'
15
3NO
I/1`
JJ.. ?, rhn , a ?" Y
r
,.?X!
t
i
41 v
m
C) c
CZ) _ 1 ! ,7L ,+ 1?? fkZ{ f r
44
Q
< C) CD
:?j CD CD J
W J (n /
LL 0
u-: 11
CAI u 4 r /1 It „ ID ?`
I .' j.: m
;--a
? u- 'L ' x f f
,a ?/ 1 s r I?rw,. f1
F r- / F
,{ ti r
CD)
(Y Z;z
.N '(, 3 r ` Kati t
IV
I f
Lid
i, r !` Z r e 1 /` p
L J LiJ ' d
41 :j
d d
0-f- F% 7j1 r t. Y t, W
LLJ z 4t / r?? fr,
.i. / f } s L?J ddd '
/ O CO'/ Ij
r ,
W /, f` fr J t r
0 I t s
{I 1 l
S 3 !S7 r3 I r` t z
r ' 3
,
i 3 ?` f 3? ! I
-W-11 T61'?
r ,
n??eC? ... ......... . I
CO''O: r-, r
1\ Y LL-/
If rll (-11 lgl )?.{?l?,,O Qfl 'rl ?r I j rf. r t j l:.`
o LL/ if
f Q
j1 If
s? i Ir 't
1d t r
( g; rl
II I f V`? rt f r I
f 4
4
rbl` (t J
i
e
rx }., .,/ Q Li]
y.
b'J
f ,j r, ,'r`y.,r rte, ? s??' ? ? ?r ?????4rr ? "%??? ?• 'j j ?' z ??,,?'r ¢ ,.. `f ! I ?, (f/ ? 1 ,
N, LIJ
/ f tr
/ / `?( x Sa h? F s W E?
LLJ
r t
Adwj uuiuu nu wo«:LL - IIOG V6 Fsnony DmP'*Z 80 IIOZ nob6VLlo-dSp sainbij woaJaS Z-WNS\sajnbij }oodwl woaAjS\s}Igjgx3\sal!j OVA 40\ZHd W21S Z90-064410\lo}uawuo.Ainu3 lVL

'ON[ 'MIVIOOSSV ONV NNOH-A31N11N Ol kLnI3VI MORIIM 38 IIVHS 'ONI 'S3IVIOOSSd ONV NNOH-AMAIN AS NOI1V1dVOV ONV NOIIVZIMOHInV N311J21M inOH1JM INMAO0O SIHI NO 30Nvn38 adObdill ONV JO
3sn3M 'm21Vd3Sd SVM Il HOIHM 2103 1N3n3 ONV 3SOdkind 3HI 2104 AINO 03ON31NI SI '33OMS d0 iWrin211SNI NV SV 'NE20H 03.LN3S321d SNOIS30 ONV SLd30N00 3H1 HIIM H3H13001 'IN34f1O0O SIHI
27 32,(1913 SDNISS0213 V4' 815
II 3SVHd - NI` V4 9N192103N132J N83H1f10S
g

U
r/
g
a a a a a
8(f'
o 8N 8(j' 8N 80
C
d d 0 d 0 d 0 6

0 U U Q

d
w a. a_ z

Z z
LL W H
o in Q°L° a:Fc
??

L
I U U
w
z 1W,10
3 W?W}
3
(n Q

(L
L
z w LL Xz
. O
..
LLI
LL a. w w J a W z
cn ¢ a ?'
w w w a w
-1 N ?
00 0w
M M wa
2
LL L- LL a m
I
r`.
?. ,.
s,
A..
k .
?y
W v it 3 rip ` \,

i

i
r
i
r
i
i
i
t
w
c
i
r
t
ul
N
(0 C) N
l-
OzQH<
w
UQO_00?
[if 00

' u7
Qrl

gt .....
..
x ? ?.._
) W
UOinrnW I .
?
OUMUmop
u 01-
U CD d- C7 I J
? (2
o w
j

?
-
i?
0,
D ..
.`
.
?
o
CE
o r,
0m?m(D
... ?.,
Z
C)
0_ V) .. ,_..,
a
m 6

r ?? N;s a. ,., {
l ?
r

m Q Q Q
U p O rn
Q O O CN
O O O
O p p
Q? W Ll- LL
L Li J
? O O ?
M LL II N
U)I;d o U II
? II ? U
z??Q
VU n
U) <
0 0- W
U Z cV
0N
W
Qa z
WW a- N
N
cl-- [if W
Ln (n F-- W
W
uJ

L,? 0

6 "
00 Cf)
j .?, tea,.
` ...
s t

" t -

t?

I-

f
?\
?
f? C7
W r? t€> ..
Z

rz ? r
W
Q ;' C

W {
C u,

I U)
Q rS
c,.: n 3 f
i

U
W ..
t

C)

O f 1 F
CL
0 `. 3

LL ?. ? "?N" `il 4 +.
r <t.
r r
1 C1... E:l..
rn
2! Ld
0C) >N-
- 04 "or I p
aw i PI) 0
00 C) -
(' F-
c
LLI JaaW0?
00 of
Q
Co't
<
1: 0 IL
U a ? z
0

? f
a,
31 \ I N; NJi
n? ?4
7 C

l L/-Oz/8 -Oul'saaa!M+PUB wqi ILUI l
31V G ?MM?
rrl O 0)
o coop
z?0LF)
Q?O_0) co
of O'M?
0) w
zzrl> j o
Z C!)
w0.OOOW
rn-OU
o00<
?CLNoCL

n
w
tZ'
O
m
W
p
Z ? Z
J
Q ry
W
Y
U z
Q z
W

1
..? '!?E .
O Q

d
O W
?
3W02` (!)
~ o ?
00, >CNN
D ?
O
m M Ir i
, CL
7)
ry=a
ap O
JOD_WpW
< ca 'T 00
0o

U a
v°m

< a-
a-
-,
DRIVE
ESTHER
:,? E 60! RIGHT OF WAY
. PEft Pg 40 PG 33
A
..
<
EVELOPED IN THIS ARE
UND

,S ? \ p
z

? c
I
E

noubPUDIOU ag wbLV:tL - LL()Z '4Z }snbnV bMp•*Z 90 LLOZ Z90b6b4L0-dSXx sain6!3 wbai}S Z-r4dS\sajn613 Jbbdwl wb8A}S\sl!q!gx3\s81!1 OVA LO\ZHd V48S Z90*6bLL0\IbIuawuou!nu3-1V6\:N
ON3r.n3aV100cnwcum sVM HJ.1 Homm 2101 man 4NV 3SOdmnd 3H1 2103 AINO 0 1NI N'30VMS Wd0 1N3rinS ?aNV SY NO H OUNMMd SNeis30HONV?sld30H00 3H1 HIM a3dOHdAi ? SIFl1
?'Z 32?f1?13 I SONISS083 VW38iS
II 3SVHd - NI` V4 ON10803N138 N83H1f10S
a a a a a
g oO0ON 0?
N o $N o $U- $ o $o $o
?' R U
w H
a U (L z
U
w H Q
II
is 0 0 <11
Q
9 w w o Z 3 3? V) a
t3 Z W? li l o 0 o Z 0
W ZZ ZZ 0 w I1 Q
W O O J ww w cM< W
g N U) go gw w?
w? wa x_
I
I
L l /-VZ/g 'D"I's 100m'd PUB WOHAWIN
RVG ?m?
? ,.,,. F OWNER
.,,. PjN?-7 G 505
?ERRy 2A51 P R Rp PD
og G33-go
P N o$ c??p0 16318
P PR
FpW?'?R5
jEp 4? PG RpPp 6
EE 2
pg 1R`psg ?3,p2
?fo 3o G??po 161,1
P PR
FpW?ERB
?gp19 5 p aS5 15 1a k
8 PG SgEE p838?
9'a N 80 40 ?pD 163?a4 aPo?
\ PRE ?
5 ,P,rli r,
/.(" t Cpl l
?----°~o ? ,PPS pBg22 0p??\S?ON ??? ?. ;,. ? `' t. •. ?,?:
?? i?.t PAN SPA © .; .v`s..
? ?l ?fi`/ I/f/ ? ? C ? ` " i ? ? /•
r1!' xE _ z
„y^ ,?i? Y` f (f ! 11. f? f ?T? 1 ? ??h } ya?°+°+(? ( ? f F f
? f
r-
-
,- .Y?? ,ice /? t ! ?/yp ,; „i`-? . }?
i
r ?
?k f
if
( u
CA
I
W
Z
LiJ
Z
W
H
Q
U
Z
I
O
110
0
L LJ
Ln
O
n
O
ry
d
F-
Z
W
LiJ
Q
LLJ
0
w
U)
O
a_
O
m
n
m
L LJ
O
m
z
Q
Y
U
Q
J
1kf
W
Z
W
U
Q
W
Cf)
i
0 (1A
I-
Y
Z
Q
m
LLO
0-
0

t
It
6
N
N
LC)
UUU
F-
m
Q Q d
V0C 4- Ld

a- O O O O
:E O O O m
Ch LL- LL LL-
-j cnU)
?
? 0 U 0) Q
Y

Ii II
CO
Q
`
cf)0U II
?
CD II C
U
Z
Q
? -
U n
O Q T ?
CL L -
0
U ? ? N
LLJ
N
Z
Q Q O
L LI LLJ IZ
N
? ? ?
LLJ
V)
d

w

€ f
I
Aouovuolou :49 woZC:LL - LLOZ '*Z Jsn6nV 6Mp'*Z 90 LLOZ Z9046bLL0-dSV sain6lj woaA}S Z-V48S\sajn6lj Zoodwl wo8a}S\s}lglyx3\s8lU 0V:)-LO\ZHd W2i5 Z90-064110\lo}uawuo.J(nu3 Iya\:N
'ONI 'S3LVIOOSSV ONV NMOH-A3lNIH Ol AlIl18VIl 1f10H1IM 38 -nVHS 'ONI 'S3LVl3OSSV aW NMOH-AMMIH AS NOILV1dV4V ONV NOLLVZIMOHI(W NUIIHM inOH.UM 1N3V4A000 SIHL NO 30Nvn3H mdOMdWI ONV .d0
3Sf13M '03HVd3Md SVM 11 H3IHM MOd 1M3110 ONV 3SOdUnd 3H1 MW AlNO 030N31NI SI '33IN2I3S d0 1N3V4ns SN1 NV SV 'Nl3N3H 031N3S3Nd SNJIS30 ONV SLd3ONOO 3H1 RIM M3H13001 '. N3NU1000 SIHl
57 38noij I SONISSO21O NV3?I1S
II 3SdHd - NI` V4 ONIONOAN13N NH3H1f10S
a a a a a
g °c`iF °a °oai °p(n °V)
g° $° 0 ° 8° 8°
R U U a
a a
U e o
v? ?g z ?? ?Q °z
U- w F- Q
z Q °z o °z a
o in aLL a?
U Y O F?- } U
U W Q
z a.
~ Z 0 LLI 0 30 Z O m
w cL w k? z
g ~ ?i ?6 ?O 2i w wa
(!? fn (n LL F- LL 0_ x f0
I
0
w
0
O
Q
(Z 11
w
O
m
Z Z
Q a
U
Q
w
z
J
LY
W
F-
Q
F- ?
z =
LUJ
w Z
(n I
w
V) cn
O O
(Z a-
O O
Of O`
a_ n
O? ?p
501`L ?tiP \:
Nro
Off` V tc coF) \O
O??'I
tiP?p

tiP
t9 T
X x?? 6005
?G
QP ?

§ ffi4
?r)..,-\
G
? O
Op
\
QP
CD
z
a
y
O
Q
L l /-0 Z/8 '0Ul 'sM.DMV PUB UJOH-ALUIN
3144 ?M?

rf

=!f
t 4 /?
, f
Ate/ t f'
,X ?'C' ry ?;l
E ?•
Y, ,
60,
j °?? Jai/ •?d `"?f/?
f?fi ' ..?
y
lb qG IN
\Ib
c3 q
,?F
O?,eQG?OP l?°
ci _)
,Z,p p Q? O PRO'S fro ? .` ?,
O GF, :r.
y
nauoruoIOU :AG wOZC:ll - IIOZ 'bZ }snony 6Mp,4Z-90 IIOZ 290464110-dW sain6ld woaj}S Z-W21S\sam6ld }OOdwl woa.4jS\sj1914x3\s0lld OV0-l0\ZHd WNS Z90464L10\lo}uawuoulnu3 1Vd\:H

SSV 38 - moossy 30 aNV ON'=nu IOC mv.443ad svvMHll women a03 1N31 ONV 3SO4mnd 3RL 2104 AlNO 0 1NII S1 '33V4GSW.40 1NWmI?aNV SV No Hla 31N3S3Nd SNSIS30HONV?SId3 NOO 31H1 H11M 213H1300131N3V4n3Oa SSIHI
SONISSO2?O Wb?3b1S L l/?Z/8 'oul !?VPUBWOH-klwlN
9'Z 32?f1O13 11 3SdHd - NI` V4 ONIOHOJN13N N83H1f10S 31bfl ???
U U U U U ```
8(f) SW SO W 8 V)
C;° o° o° `
Ot4&?? . \\
..? ? a az O ?
U
V] o Z ?c~iJ MQ z ~
d -w -?
oit oz g
x II o o a° a? ~
o
c o W wzz
id F t F
LL w? J (f) W (1] Q ~ Q
J W O O w0: w2 Ma w ,
g. .
g ~ ~ so 2i w wa-
v? cn cn w w 0_ x v?
r?
I _ r
I
?G
w
z_
J I--
ry
? Y
w Q
U p?
Q O
w
(n O
w
1-
z
I
?/
LL
Lli w
= o
Z z a
w -
OI Y mR„
w U
w
V)
\?G °O
w tL
(f) 0
\0?A- ? ry
QJGQO ^O ,-'' ?
GoP O? m
pG0 0 ^Q'p"???0
O ?Op%0iG0?,
Q
ix,
r0'? l
I ' r-

???rr f
a
d / f X,
j
^? ? Q
C'O ^F,c?A)
J
IQ (?n
a-
Lli
O pOQO??p vp ?
O
Q m
o? Q
0
z
Q
Y
U
Q
G
y?J
/ONI
b4. p
4 &3° tvj ? ? fi`%

ie'? J' C? ? . Y J 1 r
I/ %r
lbr
I to?P )
0
P
lj
S?

'/ Id

i
f
r `
Ip_
?co4
M Cam: U U
Q Q
U00
? p p O
5i o o O?
«.,» LL- 00
p m
j
:
c
CD II m v
z ?Q
F---
a
0
V) Q
w w

N
() :2 Z
N
z
? Q Q O
?v c A) ?CO

o
Q) IV

LJ
LJ
~
GP?<4? ?o
O n
?
cb S Cf) c
n
3
O
?
QP

douoruolou :(g wogC:tt - ttOZ '4Z }snbnV 6Mp•4Z 90 tt0Z 290464110-dSP soin613 woaJ}S Z-WMS\sajn6!3 laodwl wo6a}S\s}lgtqx3\68113 Ova l0\ZHd r4dS Z90464tt0\lo}uauuuoulnu3 lV2l\:H
IN AS (INV HI NO 30 ? tllDOmfmvd? SvtA i ku mm aoA ?ijun aaNv 3SOdind -nVHS 'ON[
210.4 ANO 0 .N SN'30V?2[3Swd0 N3 nsiSNIaNY SV NERGHIa IN308d SNs153aHaNV?SUM 03 3IHl HLVA a3H1300a3N3Wfboa Al
SONISSO210 HV38iS 'ml*M,0MVPUBW0 91WIN
L'Z 38f1Ol3 ?M?
II 3SVHd - NI` V4 ON1080AN138 N83Hinos RVO
U U U U v ,' 00 e?ehQpp/ ?O trt ,
Q Q Q Q Q ??p0 O/ (vim ? '?`
g oC 012, oC oC. oCA
r,
wa' w
h? g, t
a
a. CL Z 0) <ZI 5b Q
C%2 0 SO ?- ` ??Oh G` O 0? r
LL LLJ
U o p Om oz J ? POD Q Vv 4)
Z Q z o Z Q F-Q Q p? / 90 a ;?
O 0 Q W Q Qi O V? ,`'i,
P! (n
w LL
?v o Z?z o AL.
4 f ry?'1 /? rf
W Z° t '
LL- d Z Z W WP WQ
W J w w cn
lil o o ww w2 mQ 1 /?
J W MM Of ?... ^ VA J` fl
g _... ._"
F
t? 00 0 w w
'f
r
I QQQ? ' ?'? ?' " • pis ? I, ?? i ?^e'
W
Z
J
Lj
Q
Z
L d U
(n A?
Q O ?E co
?h O ?p ? ^
w Qz Pp?` `O
4> O <v
? ?O p?P?G
O O Q
0- a_
O O
tY Q?
a_ n
QO Qp?? o,,h^n,
4 Q?
AO
e
Q' O`o
Cb
o"
r
E -
?
1 _
/ 10 4,
h 110
lot
??OQO Q'??O
Aj V;
e
®V

1 !1
(. c1 ` I ?I f l`^d
E.YV,' 1 y.tl6 , ??
r
C,3
I,..
? %t 1
/I
.&I1

1 r
t j
l
oh
O ?.
Q?? eP
?O
NSN
y ?
V1, Y
? r f A11 ,
Y E C?
Aj

IE ? I
Il
Ql / Ijr?l1
r i
0
Ld
O
Q
U
Q
N
C)
Z
Q
J
w
--
`
r-s v i
W
i i_i
^^OJ
OQ C? e-P /? O^
?, A)
??tK O? h?h
e'b
j
Q? n
e\.? QP

FauOJ•u010u :49 w0£f4L - 110Z '4Z }snbnV 6Mp•pZ 90 1102 Z9046t,110-dSXx sajn61J woaJ}S Z-rjdS\sajn61J j0odwl w0aa}S\s}Iglyx3\s91lj aVD-l0\ZHd V4dS Z90*6b110\lo}uswuognu3 ]V2f\:X
ON3Sf13m '(13W 3a SVM NMOH-A31MI)i 01
HojHw moi LV3o ONV 3SOdkind 3RL 2104 AINO 00 30 31N SN'30VMSWd0 N3rinu SNIaNV SV N? NOLLVZIH 31LN3S3Hd MamaHONV?Sl3d30N00 3IHi HLIM OH H11300131N3nnoaa ? SIRL
SONISSMJ0 HV3US 11/*Z/8 'OuI' IDMVPUBWCHAILUN
8'Z 32?f1013 II 3SVHd - NI` V4 ONIOHOJN138 M3H1f10S 31V G
???
C.) C) C) v v
a a a a a "`\^
ON Oc ON OU- O?
S p p p p 0 O u .. <2? eV
t '
o 80 OO 80 80 \,.. Cv'QCo rrvco
C; Ov Oas 0.? Ov /? C7 Q 0 0 k
R .. v nom. az o
03
LL Li
U o p air oZ J v?QQ a
1-4
Z Z O Z Q H Q 7. > i
w L)
U F- W Z Z Z O i'
0 D0_ OW W (1.,
li (L W W J (?1) W f?Jl Z O '7 ^? Yi Cf ass r ? ?
Q Q x
,X, Aj
Z Z W W ? fib" Q c)<.?.:z, Asa
O O ww ? 0]
Y) Q) LL F- LL a- x
PT.
...-.. fYq ?,
A5
_ ?' _ .___. ?A Am/
~rv ?C
e
F-_...
C)o W,
QQN.s
O W 1 { a<? A % /? f>?y
O O O \ ,v V? tai f ?w"^•`r. f r .. ( dq,y) / ',' ?k` " '{'?
o
ti
G!? LL- LL- (14 Z{ boo\?? doh
Li L i <n N Q ( G?
O
LL- O O Y 00 Q?PO? ZW ` ,f r j/? ` .\\,
y
P
W
U) C)
Y X f
Q m LLJ LL.
V) C) N w m' / ?1' ?•
(n < U i d<C ?< QQ
F- a- Lu LLi F-
of
W W O :2 z z :2 C3 O O Q
`?.J ? Q Q Ch
cr- P
?
6v 00 O p / \
~ W W „.
(r) F- CY
cli LO a- A?V
ILJ
LLJ C)
w Z U? `54!? `fT' < IV bl IV r \ , O^
cj-
i L l C3 ?b Z- oo
Q O `
LLJ C,
CD D
W w
a_ a_
O O 6 ?' "•- Yr t
a_ n
N.,
.......? ? ?? `tea ;r
tea` n \
A,o
! t
1
J ,
,4Y g'

r
/z,

`b
Ks 0
Al A
Oi`l'

.i .t7
a` Q J
%, qr
1 LINE ?cc ?

p0? ?\??PGO???
?Qc? / roo AD
O^GO
Qp AV
0
g?. O QQhp) N??p/ ?? \Q
o<1
QP ?
GPOP ?O
J
??pPP A5
,?? Q GO?rO?o?? °a
0
o ? \ 5
-? QP
r(auoruolou :Aq wotC:1L - 11OZ 'bZ }sn6nV 6Mp•*Z 90 IIOZ Z9046b110-dSXx sojn61j woaJ}S Z-V4dS\sajn6lj loodwl wo9.4}S\s}lgigx3\s911j OVA 10\ZHd V4dS Z9006b110\lo}uswuoulnu3 lV2l\:N
lit

tidy `
%

=
?
i
' Vic. y Ali. r%i•
;.
?y-,a•?'C?+"iK„`jam R
"y?
r
? ?•?@?`
°
`i
?
. y„'??-rte'
.?.
c?

View of Stream S1

N -04
%
} r:. i * fhb '1?. a .'eprfe w0 r 'A -may :. - ?r r ;. dam'/ 7 i t•

i _- 'vF j Z .i
Oki
I 1
%
_ ` EEE
A. Z
e
t tit ?'? r r ?'
t
r w
a
-Rk
???QQQ111 Y ,? i :1+ r `

Alternate View of Stream S 1
Title Site Photographs
Prepared For
DURHAM Southern Reinforcing Main - Phase II
Project Wetland and Stream Delineation
Durham, Durham County, North Carolina
Date Project Nu mber Site Photo Page
1869
urr a oaf 7/27/11 011494062 1
Prepared by Nolan Raney [on „K°"tl?i, -
e,, n?.
b
a ? v
fKAi I x 4 fn a ?7°. s
gg
' ` ? Yap v? i?? ?4h i? M1 ? ?j ?-aidg .?rt r_fr a 1Mj'`,4'db??F?T?,;... ,',
? t+ t A f .? j^ .x
? W`4
a? ?`, a'?'j ??.t.. ?J, ?,Y i? ?,ly -: a7'? +? .s?#rtit ., "9[•fi
71,
s ? F yr ` r ? ? ?' ' + • r ?????? ?? r?
q + +_?'?wr• Yx '' v
'?Y?` tt.J? ti T g 4 u r i? ofi t ' 2 , x °? t Se''
Y
7 .1,
zoo
fit
View of Stream S2
INK
VOL
tY ??
dli? ref ' c, low
Olt. 41, Om ?+f??t} r,s ?,Y ?? ? :ia. ?i1/1`.k i.. ilr ar'„g' i?, t"`
W -
_A t 115 Y 1? `?k" V nom, t?/ ?,*7,te h ev iy w /
+r'?n i!?,?`
?'°'1y??." '? T%
e?w \,
R k, y ti r` .yJ ? , 'A4?1 '? -, c":'L'?.r ?`+ r " ?? a a?. l'' A ir..^...-` ar ? yyaQJ??„ ?.M.rq ?=Y?
c °..w._s.ic..,.:dlc'rc?t?i?1.n?°a::,?r;:'"w?'-"'?!:`?..aucveirtka:?9ttt?'
Alternate View of Stream S2
Title Site Photographs
Prepared For:
DURHAM Raleigh Reuse
Project Wetland and Stream Delineation
Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina
Date Project Number Site Photo Page
l g 6 q 7/27/11 011063050 2
crtv or naocr[
Prepared by Nolan Raney [On 'a1tl'''"01 web+oome?
.
? . .
Prepared by Nolan Raney CC" = M
Prepared by Nolan Raney CCn ? ? M
r
?5 a 5? G y.'?.'f 77,
Y
, •
View of Stream S5
Title Site Photographs
Prepared For
DURHAM Raleigh Reuse
Project Wetland and Stream Delineation
Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina
Date Project Number Site Photo Page
1 8 6 9 7/27/11 011063050 5
cm of r.,?do[
Prepared by Nolan Raney [c" =.
4 i {( a y.?, p

y k} E y rr A "?

i
?U ? ? C ? ? ??,Y, • 1
? ?
'
•
?
w
?y? ?- "s??Tw
aW Y9 t}T
h "
?
?
z ,
,
?
? ?
M1
#
_.
?R/ `?
y .?
\
C p?
I
?
?
C
%
1 JCe 1 '"? 'i y ` •,, \ .'?:"
ys rrt? P..rc
Hr °. '}lN +
9 ; 1A??` 4.

b ? t b ypl
f
`,?' 1R ? -F a s
H 8 y ar 3Y6}r hit t?eri :'n s°41?ti a; a.tr?F?
"
'f•t
r.
'
°
l
?'
7
??` ??
?
?
?
?
??e
? , by ; y?, ,• .ar.? ??
?,
? ?1 t ???, y t%
>;?`
?
1?
+
i • q
by y
\''???
It
?
g t t?iS + +.
' ?'? . 1 ,?P ? ? t } H "•
;.
'4 r ?.r
7' ?
ter}
• .
x,
R
}
,? t
?
J
P
,. tr s 1 ? Y q xy3.5,tS 7yAr .
yi
'
ilk
r,q.,p S{,. ?+ b Ay 3$ tyr yp9dC; t .. ':,:
;.. ?
47
r
.
jh \ SY ,'Hy.?p!{; .y;1?? fY ?A'?..
?, i}•f Yin 3
?
?
.?
? 1 d
Vbc !.. p '?
'? h }
y?"t?p3 .
?'y
t
??
.
b
?i
.. R
.?
??'?
"'
y?
? ??.
???
'
%
?
1
?
?
'"
?
?
_,
r
. 8
... a
s
aC.?wWF
.:. `. :
]
>z ?.
! _
_• .ia
k
?is
.
^R_
View of Stream S6

b

.
?:?t o?
??
h?
?
?
?
r
..
n 1 ?
3 ? b r I
? A??

Y ? ? ,a ? y
Y
i'",
r
?
t
vai 4
MY? k
?
?
A {?
?
Ly
?
?
X11
? ;wi f 1 34 Y;? .FJ ? y ? xt y A ? •'?
?a?
F
L

+M ? M

" 4 hs y,? ?,??? r. r r fir'; vR",$t X1.1 y fi ` vh1Tt!
, w
x
5
!
"Y W
r ,_ .A@r' a u.- _ ,_}, •. R. :'. s 7y?i1' J 9 7k a?. e 5 ?pu?'
4tPG.+ .1+g vl{gt?ANEt 6 ?? A ?'i_ }W Ss S + •?'7Av
6x ,
" Y
q
, i s v rr
@
?
0
q4 +
s1
Y
r ?'y !{Pr
A'?rbry
F
t S.Y-
3
faW =;y iNA.. • +i?+ ?, rtrlF.
u4 ?,
Alternate View of Stream S6
Title Site Photographs
Prepared For
DURHAM Raleigh Reuse
Project Wetland and Stream Delineation
Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina
Date Project Number Site Photo Page
1869 7/27/11 011063050 6
M OF WOk4+r
Prepared by Nolan Raney [O/1 "A=,.

Y ,
¢
??
4
?
l [ }'S Y fit..
1
Ai,

m,? I ? ?, a 1?:9fe} '

1
4e
J?1

tr
?
4 F,. r _ a ?t b
9 j/ da ,
,:.
w
'1 e'
)1'- et, .?~r
?
,
w
L?.t s:9 y, h
? ¢
a F as i7?,i
?yr"
Y
yyp
Sfw I V Y ?? / J Y

e r
,.
?w

View of Stream S7

Title Site Photographs
Prepared For
DURHAM Raleigh Reuse
Project Wetland and Stream Delin
Raleigh, Wake County, No eation
rth Carolina
Date Project Number Site Photo Page
1869
r 7/27/11 011063050 7
Prepared by Nolan Raney [M11
..
fry'
"
.' \\
f• V

?
i
?
4
?
?
S
N
? ? ? ' ? '?
i t
# ,a„? ` '?"?f '
4 T 1'` 1 Yy{
f ? •?
!f•' F ?k
?y Y
T
v,

i I 3 ZZrP { t i f¢? '?tk far,t?4{
a _ xa }
i"N

F.
Ii V? ?b? ylssa??v ?r t7:a?4M ?a, r.
IT K
1
'
g
- ?
` t ? / 'Q µ1y;
I
E
n

AN
! e, a"+S v J 3 b RSW
?'3 '" t `?°' Y+S? I? as?7P p', ".tea' " :? !r*?,ecy'?a;,'TM"9?t:-?
Tt\

hr!
4R h
. ?i
3'? 1'?YP 3o?a.?,{?
??d
r° ! - P.? •el, .? h
`f
?i
+'
k
i
t
1
? l
?
.
yy ..RF
v _ r
p a 7?'1b i 1 Rt. ?•?
;lki ? ; ? y al f. 7? L ' f ? 1BV r. lP?t 'P t - z ,,a J ? y?# i ,j•;;
a a ?5
?!
a
P< q M
?,rc? 4 i

"
.i.?•t,
f.:th.% f114 a ..'..S e.? ?': 4? x ' °_ ?r•`
d
View of Wetland W 1
? yy??? ? ,?rd +I'}}y??t?? l ?"?. ?'?yyt, •?? i y :i ,.iT" ,.. y;.f°:
r
°
? k ?' ? t??
??
`???f 1 ?
"
?
? •
?
ff ?"
?
?
??
? .
ar
Y
?`
x : ,v
'x?rv i
1 k' t { ? ?l? ? rte i -`Q? - ?'??'?'I?'l Rla+?, ??''RdS, i? ?i?

c ?e `-
41,
.s
'v
u
{
F
l
4
?
?
g
a? ''
Dg.{T' Y?1 ml y
'? i
! 1, A
7llr? ?)J .?y ?I?q?.
. • 7?.
` ??Pff ii ? t?jR?QrR 1eT?R { A
l
1
?
? ?
?
f
W ?
dF
f,`gi+
Y
1 4 f? y
?3h ^1Z 1 YR.K
1 +!
, i. ,.
{ J 4y
y
r
1
is
M g Z ':
)Ti
Y
A
y F ) ? ? i f
4? J ( !
{
• q?f I?Y 'Pik "A4 ?°d . f ' t ?r?,?; ? '1j ('. ?' Y YI?? .X,'1 ?1' f ? ?r.}
If ? R

may s ?? ?{ iKl? 'y Y y y ?? R {. tR {y.
>n e in ,+ t?f a t l

Alternate View of Wetland W1
Title Site Photographs
Prepared Far:
DURHAM Raleigh Reuse
Project Wetland and Stream Delineation
Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina
Date Project Number Site Photo Page
1 8 6 9
cm or nlRacR?[ 7/27/11 011063050 8
Prepared by Nolan Raney [m" eum?t .
f
`
Y?
y r? , } ?tTi' ?ryt' 4
, 4W

! t
gis&
F ,` M??'y k t• '? ??

,yew
* 1
4 X0

r s i
?
'
?
,
Nr #y
+k :- ?f r i -- ?
tc
t N
irM? i? A r
? ?t?ym a ?'
V15Wa i-
;_ c . t , e ,r -r??F?p sf,c
A l
y"fit
t
?•-
"
?
e
.?
.
,. ;-.
?t .mil. ids A?
t¢?
"? va:; t
.'v
i
? ?;
+tr, r
k
?
S
? t
4 2
?
?.
t y.„'r St. It j?4 w? N4 rl ; t .; ai ?+ C j•°it N •w . . .?E' r ?+t
a ie r t11? '. R
W ; '. A'!Il?' 1 `. t A 4 ,yYN "t ?'? i A7j `1/ •
\ A"t \.r e?/1 ' t @ ukl \tt?? A .mss 5.2? ;+4:
AR
a
'
\
'S'• ? e ?. +. "1
"?
d v
f
{`?'
? '
?
?
R'
#
?
+r
,y7'
?... s'
fr ,{ s^ -r'?,
y?
.r'.. -'
Y •
a
..? ., n`.4g. r». ??. _
.-._ _..
' ? r :'.• 1?,'si'?'?
i r.
a.`. " i,
?? ?
,
?
,.
n
.
! f
..
View of Wetland W2

Title Site Photographs
Prepared For:
DURHAM
Raleigh Reuse
Project Wetland and Stream Delineation
Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina
Date Project Number Site Photo Page
1 8 6 9 7/27/11 011063050 9
cm a uttMCrt
Prepared by Nolan Raney GEn ? W=W
Letter of Authorization
itlr. Don Greeley, P.E.. with Citp of Durham Department of lVater
Mrmage meat authorizes Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to act as our limited
agent to coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and North Carolina
Division of Water Quality for the preparation and submittal of jurisdictional
determinations and 404/401 permits applications associated with the Southern
Reinforcing Main - Phase II waterline project located in Durham County,
North Carolina. Authorization will terminate on either final agency action or
upon written notification from either parties involved.
Company Name: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Contact Nance: Jeremv Rivenbark F.E.
Client Address: 1600 Mist Lake Drive
Durham NC 27704
Client Phone #: [phone]
Client Fax #: [phone]
Client Email: Don.Greelevra,,durhamnc.90v
(Signature of C Bent)

Date
ATTACHMENT
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD):
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. on behalf of the City of Durham. See attached
Agent Authorization Form.
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The
linear utility project begins at the existing Ellis Road Elevated Storage Tank and
travels west to the proposed Angier Avenue Elevated Storage Tank to be located
near the intersection of Angier Avenue and Miami Blvd.
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES
AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State:NC County/parish/borough: Durham City: Durham
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat.
35.955345° N, Long. -78.852829 0 W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT's to Northwest Creek; UT's to Little Lick
Creek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 250 linear feet: 30 width (ft) and/or 0.17 acres.
Cowardin Class: Riverine
Stream Flow: Perennial
Wetlands: 0.1 acres.
Cowardin Class: Scrub-shrub
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal: N/A
Non-Tidal: N/A
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s): KHA field determination conducted on
1/27/11
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre-construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
2
This preliminary JD finds that there "maybe" waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply
- checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and
requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant:Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc..
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
? U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
? U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.
Citation:Durham County Soil Survey.
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is:
(National Geodectic Vertical Datum
of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):2010 Imagery.
or ® Other (Name & Dateffrom 1/27/11 field determiation.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later jurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
VIZ,14VI
ignature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
3
Stream 1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Durham 2. Evaluator's name: Anna Reusche
3. Date of evaluation: 1/27/11 4. Time of evaluation: 10:00 am
5. Name of stream: Stream 1 6. River basin: Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area: 20 acres 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 300 feet 10. County: Durham
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.9607 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -78.8639
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): West of
Highway 147 north of Glover Road.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Bore and jack
15. Recent weather conditions:-cool, sunny, clear
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters
Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES CIO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES F-W 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential -20-% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
-80-% Forested
22. Bankfull width:
% Cleared / Logged % Other ()
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -X-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): 41 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date C7?dI ?cl / / I
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
Stream 1
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
# Ch
t
ti
i Eco-re 'on Point Range S
arac
er
s
cs
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain core
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 3
no buffer = 0; Conti ous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
04
5 Groundwater discharge
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 4
3
U no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
r.+
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
0
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 1
Q, (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
extensive deposition-- 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 1
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
E (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 4
ia,? (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 points)
rn 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 3
no riffles/riles or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
Q
1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
1
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

< 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 0
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
>1 no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
0 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
0 (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

C
o-m
22 Presence of fish

no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 loo 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 41
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
Stream 1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 1/27/2011 Project/Site: SRM Stream 1 Latitude: 35.9607
Evaluator: Anna Reusche County: Durham Longitude: -78.8639
Total Points: 26
l
Stream Determination (circ
e one) Other Southeast
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name: Durham
if z 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 12.5 Absent -Weak
fi ?A derate S rongY` ' Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3
- - - ,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or treater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
anmciai ancnes are nuL sled; sue discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 7.5
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
I'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. I
Notes:
Channel width: 2ft
Water depth: 2"-6"
Water partly cloudy
Exposed bedrock present
Stream 2
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Durham 2. Evaluator's name: Anna Reusche
3. Date of evaluation: 1/27/11 4. Time of evaluation: 10:30am
5. Name of stream: Stream 2 6. River basin: Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area: 20 acres 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 325 feet 10. County: Durham
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.9607 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -78.8639
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): Crosses
Highway 147 in north central section of the moiect corridor.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Bore and jack
15. Recent weather conditions:-Cool, clear
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters
Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NQ If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? I`O? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial _60_% Agricultural
40-% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ()
22. Bankfull width: 5
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):-5
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -X -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): 34 Comments:
1
Evaluator's Signature Date b Ql/ 19=44 It
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
Stream 2
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
# Eco-re 'on Point Range Score
Characteristics
L
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
l Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 4
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
04 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 3
d no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 0
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 1
W dee 1 entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 1
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
1
04 (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 points)
on 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
1
no riffles/ripples les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
0
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
M
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
0
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
' (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
L7 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t)Tes = max points)
0

!R 22 Presence offish

0-4
4
0-
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
M
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 34
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
Stream 2
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 1/27/2011 Project/Site: SRM Stream 2 Latitude: 35.9519
Evaluator: Anna Reusche County: Durham Longitude: -78.8482
Total Points: 31
S
l
tream Determination (circ
e one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial Southeast Durham
e.g. Quad Name:
if 2t 19 or perennial if ? 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 13 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3
- - step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
ar[maai ancnes are not rates; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 12
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5- 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OB L = 1.5; Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Channel width: 5ft
Water depth: 2"-6"
Water partly cloudy
Moderate to low flow
Stream 3
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Durham 2. Evaluator's name: Anna Reusche
3. Date of evaluation: 1/27/11 4. Time of evaluation: 11:00 am
5. Name of stream: Stream 3 6. River basin: Cane Fear
7. Approximate drainage area: 20 acres 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Durham
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.9608
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex.-77.556611): -78.8637
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): Near
HiQhway 147
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Bore and jack
15. Recent weather conditions: Normal
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cold
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 NQ 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 % Agricultural
% Forested
22. Bankfull width: 2'
% Cleared / Logged % Other ()
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) __N _Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -X-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): 45 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date Dl,? / ail / 1
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
Stream 3
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
# Characteristics Eco-re 'on Point Range S

Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain core
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone
no buffer = 0; Conti ous, wide buffer= max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 3
U (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
r-+
v?
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
0
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access

Q,
(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 0
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate *

fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) NA 0-4 0-5 1
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

,7+
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
13 Presence of major bank failures

(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 4
14 Root depth and density on banks

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

substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6 1

17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 0
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
M 18 Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading ve etation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 0
19 Substrate embeddedness *

(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max NA 0-4 0-4 2
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
1
>4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
0 21 Presence of amphibians

O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
04 22 Presence offish
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
23 Evidence of wildlife use

(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 45
lnese cnaracterlstlcs are not assessed in coastal streams.
Stream 3
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 1/27/2011 Project/Site: SRM Stream 3 Latitude: 35.9482
Evaluator: Anna Reusche County: Durham Longitude: -78.8415
Total Points: 21
5
. Stream Determination (circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name: Southeast Durham
if ? 19 or perennial if a 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 7 Absent Weak, Moderate Strong ''Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalwe 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple-
ool se uence 0 1 2 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 9.5
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal = 5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OB L = 1.5; Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Channel width: 2'
Water depth: 3"
Clear mod flow
Stream 4
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Durham 2. Evaluator's name: Anna Reusche
3. Date of evaluation: 1/27/11 4. Time of evaluation: 11:30 am
5. Name of stream: Stream 4 6. River basin: Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area: 15 acres 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Durham
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.9599
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex.-77.556611): -78.8594
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): West of
Angier Road in pasture lands.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Bore and iack
15. Recent weather conditions: Normal
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cc
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: 0.4 acres
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
-20-% Forested
22. Bankfull width: 3-5'
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 1'F.S NO
% Commercial % Industrial _80-% Agricultural
_% Cleared / Logged % Other ()
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):-2-5'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends _X 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):-34 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.
Stream 4
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
# Ch
t
i
ti Eco-re 'on Point Range re
S
arac
er
s
cs
Coastal
Piedmont _
Mountain
co
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 2
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U
0*
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 0
k dee 1 entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 3
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
>+ (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
1
04 1.0 (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0 5
1
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
rn 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
0
no riffles/ripples les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
Q
1 habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
0
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
M 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0- 5 0- 5 0- 5 0
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy= max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 34
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
Stream 4
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 1/27/2011 Project/Site: SRM Stream 4 Latitude: 35.957
Evaluator: Anna Reusche County: Durham Longitude: -78.8556
Total Points: 32
Stream Determination (circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name: Southeast Durham
if z 19 or perennial if z 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 14.5 Absent. -, Weak Moderate Strong Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3
- - - ,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or reater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
artiticiai ancnes are not ratea; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 11.5
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OB L = 1.5; Other = 0
I'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. I
Notes:
Channel width: 2'- 5'
Water depth: 2"-6"
Water partly cloudy
Moderate flow
Stream 5
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Durham 2. Evaluator's name: Anna Reusche
3. Date of evaluation: 1/27/11 4. Time of evaluation: 12:00 pm
5. Name of stream: Stream 5 6. River basin: Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area: 20 acres 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Durham
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.9570 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -78.8556
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): West
Angier Avenue and north of Glover Road.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Bore and jack
15. Recent weather conditions:-Cool , clear,
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cool , clear
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 N 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 -90-% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
_10_% Forested
22. Bankfull width:-2-3'
% Cleared / Logged % Other ()
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):-2'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _X 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).-__37 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.
Stream 5
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
# Ch
t
i
ti Eco-re 'on Point Range Score
arac
er
cs
s Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 1
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 2
U (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
0
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 0
a (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
extensive deposition-- 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 3
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
>( (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
J 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 1
r (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 1
C~ no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
rA 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
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 les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
Q
1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
0
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 0
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
U' 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
0 (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
? no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
r 100 100 loo
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
-_::: 39
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
Stream 5
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 1/27/2011 Project/Site: SRM-Stream 5 Latitude: 35.957
Evaluator: Anna Reusche County: Durham Longitude: -78.8556
Total Points: 26.5 Stream Determination (circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name: Southeast Durham
if ? 19 or perennial if a 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 13 Absent Weak Moderoteg §trong Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalwe 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple-
ool se uence 0 1 2 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloqv Subtotal = 7.5
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OB L = 1.5; Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Stream 6
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Durham 2. Evaluator's name: Anna Reusche
3. Date of evaluation: 1/27/11 4. Time of evaluation: Loopm
5. Name of stream: Stream 6 6. River basin: Neuse
7. Approximate drainage area: 50 acres 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50 feet 10. County: Durham
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.9519 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -78.8482
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): Crosses
Angier Avenue iust south of Stone Road.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Bore and jack
15. Recent weather conditions:-coo 1, clear.
16. Site conditions at time of visit: cool clear
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:0.5 acres_
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YFS NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? Y NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 40 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
-60-% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ()
22. Bankfull width: 5' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):_3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -X -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): 39 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.
Stream 6
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
# Ch
t
i
ti Eco-re 'on Point Range S
arac
er
s
cs
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain core
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 4
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
*l
5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
U no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
r-,
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
0
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
p„ 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 1
p+ (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 1
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
(deeply incised= 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
'" 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
? (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points
Q 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
F no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
CA 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 1
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
Q
1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
0
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
0
x no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
>4 no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
0 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
04
G
?
22 Presence of fish

no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible loo 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 39
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
Stream 6
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 1/27/2011 Project/Site: SRM Stream 6 Latitude: 35.9519
Evaluator: Anna Reusche County: Durham Longitude: -78.8482
Total Points: 31
Stream Determination (circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name: Southeast Durham
if z 19 or perennial if =! 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 13 Absent Weak Moderate ` s6ong ' Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3
- - - ,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
anmciar unones are nut rateu; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology subtotal = 12
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OB L = 1.5; Other = 0
I'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. I
Notes:
Channel width: 5ft
Water depth: 2"-6"
Water partly cloudy
Moderate to low flow
Stream 7
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: City of Durham 2. Evaluator's name: Anna Reusche
3. Date of evaluation: 1/27/11 4. Time of evaluation: 1:00pm
5. Name of stream: Stream 7 6. River basin: Neuse
7. Approximate drainage area: 50 acres 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50 feet 10. County: Durham
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.9482 Longitude (ex.-77.556611): -78.8415
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): Crosses
Angier Avenue, north of S Miami Blvd.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Bore and jack
15. Recent weather conditions: coo 1, clear
16. Site conditions at time of visit: cool clear
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 (MV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: _0.2 acres
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? Yf NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 80 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
20_% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ()
22. Bankfull width: 5'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>I 0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -X -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): 39 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature /A-,-- 4? . G.L.l.1uA. 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.
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):_3'
Stream 7
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
# Characteristics Eco-re 'on Point Range S

Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain core
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 4
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration= max points)
3 Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 2
U (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
0
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
0
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access

is,
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-2 1
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input
extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 1
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 4
.,
13 Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
14 Root depth and density on banks

no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
V)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
16 Presence of riffle-pooVripple-pool complexes

F
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6 1
d
17 Habitat complexity
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points) 0-6 0-6 0-6 0
d 18 Canopy coverage over streambed

x
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 0- 5 0- 5 0- 5 0
19 Substrate embeddedness *

(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max NA 0-4 0-4 2
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
V' 21 Presence of amphibians

O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4 0

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

(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 39
T 1 nese cnaractenstics are not assessed in coastal streams.
Stream 7
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 1/26/2011 Project/Site: SRM-Stream 7 Latitude: 35.9535
Evaluator: Anna Reusche County: Durham Longitude: -78.8448
Total Points: 27
Stream Determination (circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name: Southeast
if a 19 or perennial if ? 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 11.5 Absent Weak -Moderate Strong Score:
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalwe 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple-
ool se uence 0 1 2 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 9.5
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5

23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1 -
1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OB L = 1.5; Other = 0
1-perenniai streams may also De iaentitied using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. I
Notes:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: SRM - Phase 2 Wetland 1
City/County: Durham Sampling Date: 1/27/2011
Applicant/Owner: City of Durham State: NC Sampling Point: W-1
Investigator(s): Anna Reusche Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): Level or Nearly Level Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Slope (%o): Lat: 35.9539 Long: -78.8503 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: White Store Sandy Loam NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic?
No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Easement wetland has likely been created by subterrainian gas lines.
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) ° Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 • NIA That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
2
3. Species Across All Strata:
(B)

4.

5. Percent of Dominant Species
100.0
That Are OBL
FACW
or FAC
AB
,
,
:
(
)
= Total Cover
Saolina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
1. Salixni_gra 5 Yes FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2. Juncos effums 5 Yes FACW OBL species x 1 =
3. FACW species 2 x2= 4
4. FAC species x3=
5. FACU species x4=
10 = Total Cover UPL species x5=
)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: N/A
Column Totals: 2 (A) 4 (B)
1. N/A
2. Prevalence Index = B/A = 2
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. _ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. X Dominance Test is >50%a
6. X Prevalence Index is <3.0'
7. _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
8 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
10.
'
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A )
= Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1. NIA H
d
h
ti
y
rop
y
c
2. Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Area is located in an easement and has been disturbed Very little natural vegeation is present. Area is actively maintained.
US Army Corps of Engineers Form Created by: Eccivni0CWcc khq Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Peer-Review Draft 6-25-2009
SOIL
Sampling Point: W-1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-6 l OYR 2/2 - - - - Sandy sandy loam
6-12 10YR 2/2 10 YR 3/6 20 - - Sandy sandy clay loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 136,147)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Stratified Layers (A5) 7C Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes Ir No
Remarks:
Oxidized root channels are present.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1514) - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (158)
X High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Drainage Patterns (1310)
K Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
- Water Marks (151) - Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (154) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (155) _ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (157) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water-Stained Leaves (159) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (613) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes K No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes 7C No Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Form Created by: e<o4ogi O1<oniuling Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Peer-Review Draft 6-25-2009
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: SRM - Phase 2 Wetland 1 (Upland) City/County: Durham Sampling Date: 1/27/2011
Applicantlowner: City of Durham State: NC Sampling Point: Up-1
Investigator(s): Anna Reusche Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level or Nearly Level Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Slope (%): Lat: 35.9535 Long: -78.8503 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: WMte Store Sandy Loam NWI classification: _
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No K
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) ° Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
0
1. NIA (A)
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
2.
Total Number of Dominant
1
3. Species Across All Strata:
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
0
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(AB)
= Total Cover
Saplina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
1. UlmusAlata 8 FACU Total % Cover of: Multioly by:
2. OBL species x 1 =
3. FACW species x2=
4, FAC species x3=
5. FACU species 1 x 4 = 4
8 = Total Cover UPL species x5=
Herb Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) Column Totals: 1 (A) 4 (B)
1 _ NIA
2. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. _ Dominance Testis >50%
6. _ Prevalence Index is s3.0'
7. _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
$ '
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation
(Explain)
9 _
10. '
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A = Total Cover
) be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1. NIA
tic
H
dro
h
y
p
y
2. Vegetation X
Present? Yes No
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Utility Easement
US Army Corps of Engineers Form Created by: e,0 <A t0fuukliy Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Peer-Review Draft 6-25-2009
SOIL
Sampling Point: Up-1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Lo Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 4/3 - - - - Loam loam
4-12 l OYR 5/4 10 YR 5/6 30 - - Clay clay with models
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al) - Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) - Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 136,147)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _, Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) - Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5) - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Indicator of hydric soil were not observed.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoaly) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (614) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
_ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
- Water Marks (131) -- Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131)
Iron Deposits (65) _ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ ShallowAquitard (D3)
_ Water-Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x
includes capillary frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology were not observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Form Created by: hol;9 a°i? ;ro Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Peer-Review Draft 6-25-2009
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: SRM - Phase 2 Wetland 2 City/County: Durham Sampling Date: 1/27/2011
Applicant/Owner: City of Durham State: NC Sampling Point W-2
Investigator(s): Anna Reusche Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level or Nearly Level Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Slope (%): Lat 35.9497 Long: -7$•$448 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: White Store Sandy Loam NWI classification:
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Wetland 2 is a sparsly vegetated linear system located at a low point on the southside of Angier Avenue. Wetland area is both groundwater and
stormwater fed.
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) ° Cover Soecies? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 • N/`4 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

2.
Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: (B)

4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
= Total Cover
Saoling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
1. NIA Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2. OBL species x 1 =
3. FACW species x 2 =
4. FAC species x3=
5. FACU species x4=
= Total Cover UPL species x5=
Herb Stratum (Plot size: N/A )
Column Totals: (A) (B)
1 N/fi
,
2. Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. _ Dominance Test is >50%
6. _ Prevalence Index is 53.0'
7. _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
8 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
9.
10. '
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

)
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A =
Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1. N/A
H
d
h
ti
y
rop
y
c
2. Vegetation
X
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Wetland 2 is a sparsely vegetated, linear system.
US Army Corps of Engineers Form Created by: E? <O°cekrp Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Peer-Review Draft 6-25-2009
SOIL
Sampling Point: W-2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Red ox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvpe Lo Texture Remarks
0-6 1OYR 2/2 - - - - Sandy sandy loam
6-12 10YR 2/2 10 YR 3/6 20 - - Sandy sandy clay loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matra.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al) _ Dario Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 136,147)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Stratified Layers (A5) X Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Oxidized root channels are present.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aooly) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
X High Water Table (A2) - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Drainage Patterns (1310)
X Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (61) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (132)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water-Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes K No Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
LI
US Army Corps of Engineers Form Created by: E<oloy'cL < wullcins Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Peer-Review Draft 6-25-2009
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: SRM - Phase 2 Wetland 2 (Upland) City/County: Durham Sampling Date: 1/27/2011
Applicant/Owner: City of Durham State: NC Sampling Point: Up-2
Investigator(s): Anna Reusche Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level or Nearly Level Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Slope (%o): Lat: 35.9497 Long: -78.8448 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: White Store Sandy Loam NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Tree St
t
Pl
t
i
N/A Absolute Dominant Indicator
° Dominance Test worksheet:
ra
um (
o
s
ze:
) Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1 0
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
1
3. Species Across All Strata:
(B)
4.
5 Percent of Dominant Species 0
0
.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AB)
= Total Cover
Sading/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
1. Ulm us Alata 8 FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

2. OBL species x 1 =
3. FACW species x2=
4. FAC species x3=
5. FACU species 1 x4= 4
8 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: N/A )
1
4
NIA Column Totals:
(A)
(B)
1.
2. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4

3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

4. Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. _ Dominance Test is >50%a
6. Prevalence Index is 53.0'
7. _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
8 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9 _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
10. '
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A )
=Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
1 NIA
H
ydrophytic
2. Vegetation
=Total Cover Present? Yes No X
Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Area alongside of Wetland 2 is vegetated.
US Army Corps of Engineers og ca Form Created byecolc wdy Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Peer-Review Draft 6-25-2009
SOIL
Sampling Point: Up-2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvpe 1_061 Texture Remarks
0-4 1OYR 4/3 - - - - Loam loam
4-12 l OYR 5/4 10 YR 5/6 30 - - clay clay with models
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (11147, 148) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (11147,148) (MLRA 136,147)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Indicator of hydric soil were not observed.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Se condary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: chec k all that aooly) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
_ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (616)
_ Water Marks (B1) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di)
_ Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (613) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology were not observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Form Created by: eeologk°?io?icin9 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Peer-Review Draft 6-25-2009