20120285 Ver 1_Stream Call Letter_20061130

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name:
NCTA
2. Evaluator's name: Jennifer
M. Freeman
3. Date of evaluation:
11 -30 -06
4. Time of evaluation: 1200
5. Name of stream:
UT to Crowder's Creek
6. River basin:
Catawba
7. Approximate drainage area:
8. Stream order:
3
9. Length of reach evaluated:
2,700 ft
10. County:
Gaston
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude:
Longitude:
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
north corridor, west of SR 2423
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
n/a
15. Recent weather conditions: cool
/sunny
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
cloudy, — 72 degrees
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point?
no If
yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map?
yes
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
yes
21. Estimated watershed land use: 40%
residential
60% forested
22. Bankfull width: —
12 ft
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
4 -7 ft
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
Frequent
meander
x
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 characteristics 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 amy 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): 172 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature I (Jennifer M. Freeman) Date 11 -30 -06
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.

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
EC,ORE 1o#rrr 0
'CHARACTERISTICS
CC
,
Coastal
Pie moat
ouA � n
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
4
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max oints)
0 6
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
3
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
3
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 2
1
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max pomts)
NA*
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
2
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
3
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
2
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Presence of riffle pool/ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed =max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
5
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
5
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
5
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
3
Presence of amphibians
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
2
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
2
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
5
WOi � 'Total Points Possible
100
00"-"X'J #
A � 00
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
72
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
12 5 06
4 Time of evaluation 0925
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
900 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
east of Bud Wilson Rd behind houses & near agricultural fields
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions cool
sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
cold & sunny
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
omt '
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad map�
n o
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
no
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 60%
agricultural
40% forested
22 Bankfull width 2
— 3 '/2 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
2 — 3 ft
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
Frequent meander
x
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 163 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 12 5 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
r,7-
�klkACTERIS�TICS
a,r�
�
Coastal Piedmont Mountam ,
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
3
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max oints)
0 6
0 4
0 5
3
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no flood lain = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 2
3
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max oints)
NA*
0 4
0 5
3
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Presence of mayor bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max oints)
0 3
0 4
0 5
3
Impact by agriculture livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
2
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
4
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
4
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
I�A*
0 4
0 4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0 4
0 5
0 5
2
Presence of amphibians
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
3
ottahioints'] ossible
100
®0
s � TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) �� � > ,. MAJ
63
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
12 5 06
4 Time of evaluation 0925
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
l
9 Length of reach evaluated
— 900 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
east of Bud Wilson Rd behind houses & near agricultural fields
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions cool
sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
cold &sunny
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
no
If es estimate the water surface area
y
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 60%
agricultural
40% forested
22 Bankfull width 2
— 3 '/2 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
2 — 3 ft
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
Frequent meander
x
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 163 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 12 5 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
` These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
��.
RA "TERISTICS
t
Coastal 4
Piedmont
own _ta n
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
3
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
3
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 2
3
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 5
3
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
3
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
2
Presence of riffle pool/ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
4
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
4
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
2
Presence of amphibians
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
3
ota oan& ossible
OO i�
00
®®
¢ten TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first
r page)
63
` These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
12 5 06
4 Time of evaluation 1430
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
— 700 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /G1S Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
east of Bud Wilson Rd (SR 2423)
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions cool
sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
sunny — 58 degrees
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
point9
no
If es estimate the water surface area
y
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 30%
agricultural
30% forested
40% cleared/logged
22 Bankfull width 2
i/2 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
4 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2/)
x
Gentle (2 to 4/)
Moderate (4 to 10 /)
Steep ( >10 /)
25 Channel smuosity
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 terram vegetation stream classification etc Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion Assign points
to each characteristics 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 amy 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) 148 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 12 5 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
C*Wh AT.ERST>CS A' - ; , J
M
CoastapPiedmont
oun�ta>n
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
3
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
1 (no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
0
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
2
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
3
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
5
2
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
3
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
15
substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
1
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles /ri les or ools = 0 well develo )ed = max points)
0 3
0
5
0
6
3
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
2
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
3
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
4
2
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
5
0
5
2
Presence of amphibians
Q 21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
O
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
2
WHO oints Possible
10
o©
XOTO
-Wrl
WPM irl W
0 TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
12 5 06
4 Time of evaluation 1620
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GiS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
east of Bud Wilson Rd on west side of D20 mainstem
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions cool
sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
cool sunny
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
no
If es estimate the water surface area
y
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 50%
agricultural
30% forested
20% cleared/logged
22 Bankfull width
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2 i)
x
Gentle (2 to 4i)
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 51 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 12 5 06
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
�I

USACE AID#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
'1 f �
� , COREG
Coas�
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
12 6 06
4 Time of evaluation 1200
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GiS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
north corridor east of Bud Wilson Rd
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions cool
sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
sunny & 47 degrees
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
omt9
no
If es estimate the water surface area
y
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 60%
agricultural
40% forested
22 Bankfull width 2
%2 3 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
3 — 4 ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 145 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 12606
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

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
A g
I These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
" m `
ECOREGION POJNT RANG k
S(
a
„CHARACTERISTICS
ate, W1, "
Coastal
Piedmont
�ou tarn
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Evidence of past human alteration
'tt
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
2
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
2
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs seeps wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
3
Presence of adjacent floodplam
K
6
(no floodplam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
0
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 fre uent flooding = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
3
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
1 0 4
0 4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 5
2
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
2
Presence of major bank failures
y13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
3
Q
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
2
!�
Impact by agriculture livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
2
Presence of riffle pool/ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles /ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
3
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
2
Canopy coverage over streambed
[
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
2
t
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
1
ij
Presence of amphibians
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
a
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
3
tal Points Possible
��X -Foo
{
700
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
45
I These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
12606
4 Time of evaluation 1400
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
north corridor east of Bud Wilson Rd
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions cool
sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
sunny & 52 degrees
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
omt9
no
If es estimate the water surface area
y
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 50%
agricultural
50% forested
22 Bankfull width 2
ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
6 in — 2 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2/)
Gentle (2 to 4/)
Moderate (4 to 10/)
Steep ( >10 /)
25 Channel sinuosity
Straight
Occasional bends
Frequent meander
Very sinuous
Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2) Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location terrain vegetation stream classification etc Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion Assign points
to each characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 58 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) I Date 12 6 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
0 4 1 0 5
0 5 0 5
0 4 0 5
0 4 0 4
0 4 0 4
0 4 0 2
0 4 0 2
0 4 0 2
0 4 0 3
0 4 0 4
0 4 0 5
0 4 0 5
0 5 0 5
0 4 0 5
0 4 0 5
0 5 0 6
0 6 0 6
0 5 0 5
0 4 0 4
0 5 0 5
0 4 0 4
0 4 0 4
0 5 0 5
1001 t &I Ld0
e,
Jk
W-
58
Coast;
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max oints)
0 5
`
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max pomts)
0 6
I
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
y
Groundwater discharge
t
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max pomts)
0 4
Entrenchment / floodplain access
Q+
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
l i
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
4
Evidence of channel incision or widening
14,i
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
Presence of major bank failures
H
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max oints)
0 3
Impact by agriculture livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max oints)
0 3
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation= 0 continuous canopy= max pomts)
0 5
Substrate embeddedness
+
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
i
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max pomts)
0 4
Presence of amphibians
Q.,
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
t
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
Total Points Possible
100
i TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
0 4 1 0 5
0 5 0 5
0 4 0 5
0 4 0 4
0 4 0 4
0 4 0 2
0 4 0 2
0 4 0 2
0 4 0 3
0 4 0 4
0 4 0 5
0 4 0 5
0 5 0 5
0 4 0 5
0 4 0 5
0 5 0 6
0 6 0 6
0 5 0 5
0 4 0 4
0 5 0 5
0 4 0 4
0 4 0 4
0 5 0 5
1001 t &I Ld0
e,
Jk
W-
58

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
12 706
4 Time of evaluation 1100
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GiS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
south of NC 274
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions cool
& sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
cool & sunny
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
no
if yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 10%
residential
30% agricultural
60% forested
22 Bankfull width 3
ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
6 m — 2 ft
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
Frequent meander
x
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 165 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 12 7 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
0 These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
n
d
I
s
i
3
r a
ECOREGIO OfNr
E �` #
IN
' ,»CHARACTERISTICS
Ilk
P3 k �q 6 79
t X
Coastal
Pledmon
o ntain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
t
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0 5
1 0 4
0 4
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
1 0 4
0 4
0 2
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 2
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 5
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 5
Presence of major bank failures
4k
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 5
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
Canopy coverage over streambed
C
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
Substrate embeddedness
t
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
I
Presence of amphibians
r
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
q
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max oints)
0 6
0 5
0 5
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
0 These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
n
d
I
s
i
3

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I Applicant s Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
12 11 06
4 Time of evaluation 1530
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /G1S Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
East of Bud Wilson Rd north corridor on east side of D20 mamstem
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions cool
sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
sunny & 64 degrees
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
oint ,
yes
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 10%
residential
10% industrial
80% forested
22 Bankfull width 2
ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
8 in — 2 ft
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
TFStra.ght
I 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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 49 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 12 11 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
C � CCT RTS�T>'CS
Coastal ¢`Piedmont
�,
oun ain,
0
, `
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
1
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
3
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max pomts)
0
6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
4
1
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no floodplain = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
2
2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
2
3
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
2
1
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
3
2
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
5
1
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max oints)
0
3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max pomts)
0
3
0
5
0
6
2
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0
6
0
6
0
6
2
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
4
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
5
0
5
0
Presence of amphibians
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max pomts)
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
4
3
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
Jo tal Points Possible
X00
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
+49
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site Gaston East West Connector Community ID wetland
Applicant/Owner NCTA Transect ID
Investigator W Mullin /J Freeman Plot ID C1 004
A Do normal circumstances exist on this site?
B Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)
C Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed explain on reverse)
Date
16 Oct 06
County
Gaston
State
NC
Q Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
Q No
❑ Yes
El No
Viburnum dentatum downy arrowwood
shrub
Viburnum prun►fol►um blackhaw
shrub
Acer rubrum red maple
tree
Smilax rotund►fol►a common greenbner
vine
Microsteg►um v►m►neum Japanese grass
herb
Arund►nana tecta switch cane
shrub
Impatiens capens►s jewelweed
herb
Tox►codendron rad►cans poison ivy
vine
rcent of Dominant Species that are OBL FACW or FAC (excluding FAC
marks
HYDROLOGY
FAC
FAC U
FAC
FAC
FAC+
FACW
FACW
FAC
88% II
_Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_Stream Lake or Tide Guage
Primary Indicators
_Aerial Photographs
_Other
_Inundated
_Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
—No Recorded Data Available
—Water Marks
Lines
Field Observations
—Drift
_Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in)
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit (in)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in)
_Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12
—Water Stained Leaves
—Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC Neutral Test
—Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks

Map Unit Name Pacolet sandy loam
(Series and Phase)
Taxonomy (Subgroup)
Drainage Class WD
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type ❑ Yes ❑ No
Profile Description
Depth Matrix Colors
Mottle Texture Concentrations
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Abundance /Contrast Structure etc
08 A 10YR4/2
COMMON clay loam
8 16 B 10YR5/2
FEW sandy clay loam
Hydric Soils Indicators
_ Hlstosol
Concretions
_ Histic Eplpedon
_
—High Organic Content
_Sulfidic Odor
_Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aqulc Moisture Regime
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
—Reducing Conditions
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors
(Explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks
_Other
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present) 0 Yes ❑ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point within a 0 Yes ❑ No
Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? [21 Yes ❑ No
Remarks

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site Gaston East West Connector Community ID wetland Date 17 Oct 06
Applicant/Owner NCTA Transect ID County Gaston
Investigator W Mullin /J Freeman Plot ID C2 005 State NC
A Do normal circumstances exist on this site? [21 Yes ❑ No
B Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ❑ Yes 0 No
C Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑ Yes 21 No
(If needed explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
11DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES STRATUM INDICATOR
Acer rubrum red maple
L►nodendron tul►p►fera tulip poplar
Smilax rotund►fol►a common greenbner
Viburnum dentatum downy arrowwood
Chasmanth►um laxum slender woodoats
Microsteg►um vim►neum Japanese grass
Arundinana tecta switch cane
tree
tree
vine
shrub
forb
fnrh
Tox►codendron rad►cans poison ivy
rcent of Dominant Species that are OBL FACW or FAC (excluding FAC )
HYDROLOGY
WIJ
RM.
89% II
_Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream Lake or Tide Guage
Primary Indicators
_Aerial Photographs
Inundated
_Other
_
x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available
—Water Marks
Lines
Field Observations
—Drift
_Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in)
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit (in )
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil 12 (in)
_Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12
—Water Stained Leaves
—Local Soil Survey Data
FAC Neutral Test
_
_Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks
lU1L,

Map Unit Name Pacolet sandy loam Drainage Class WD
(Series and Phase) Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Confirm Mapped Type ❑ Yes ❑ No
Profile Description
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle
fiches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
08 A 10YR4/2
9+ B 7 5Y4/3
Inc Soils Indicators
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
x Aquic Moisture Regime
—Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors
Abundance /Contrast
distinct/common
distinct/common
Texture Concentrations
Structure etc
clay loam
loamy sand
_ Concretions
High Organic Content
—Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
root channels Inclusions of Madison series (lots of mica in soil) Common inclusion for this series
.AND DETERMINATION
phytic Vegetation Present? D Yes ❑ No
nd Hydrology Present? 0 Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point within a 0 Yes ❑ No
Wetland?
Soils Present? 0 Yes ❑ No

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site Gaston East West Connector Community ID wetland
Applicant/Owner NCTA Transect ID
Investigator W Mullin /J Freeman Plot ID C3 004
A Do normal circumstances exist on this site'?
B Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)
C Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
LANT
Ligustrum sinsense Chinese privet
Lonicerajaponica Japanese honeysuckle
Microstegium vimmeum Japanese grass
Woodwardia areolata netted chain fern
Sanicula canadensis snakeroot
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum
Date
19 Oct 06
County
Gaston
State
NC
21 Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 No
0 No
shrub
FAC
vine
FAC
grass
FAC+
fern
OBL
forb
FACU
tree
FAC+
Field Observations
_
_Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in)
Patterns in Wetlands
rcent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC ) 67%
marks
uvnnnl nr-v
Data (Describe in Remarks Section)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_Recorded
Lake or Tide Guage
Primary Indicators
_Stream
Photographs
_Inundated
_Aerial
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_Other
No Recorded Data Available
—Water Marks
_
Drift Lines
Field Observations
_
_Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in)
Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit 4 (in)
—Drainage
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in)
_Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12
Stained Leaves
—Water
—Local Soil Survey Data
FAC Neutral Test
_
Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks
SOILS

Map Unit Name Pacolet sandy loam
Drainage Class WD
(Series and Phase)
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup)
Confirm Mapped Type
❑ Yes ❑ No
Profile Description
Depth
Matrix Colors
Mottle Texture Concentrations
(inches) Horizon
(Munsell Moist)
Abundance /Contrast
Structure etc
03 A
10YR5/2
sandy loam
3+ B
10YR6/2
distinct/common
sandy loam
Hydric Soils Indicators
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_Sulfidic Odor
x Aqulc Moisture Regime
—Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors
WETLAND DETERMINATION
_ Concretions
—High Organic Content
x Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
—Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes ❑ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? D Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point within a 9 Yes ❑ No
Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? 0 Yes ❑ No

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site Gaston East West Connector Community ID wetland
Applicant/Owner NCTA Transect ID
Investigator W Mullin /J Freeman Plot ID C4 003
A Do normal circumstances exist on this site?
B Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)
C Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed explain on reverse)
L►nodendron tul►p►fera tulip poplar
Acer rubrum red maple
L►gustrum s►nense Chinese privet
Microsteg►um v►m►neum Japanese grass
Impatiens capens►s jewelweed
Arundinana tecta switch cane
Boehmena cyl►ndnca false nettle
Date
20 Oct 06
County
Gaston
State
NC
El Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
2 No
❑ Yes
P1 No
tree
FAC
tree
FAC
shrub
FAC
herb
FAC+
herb
FAC
herb
FAC
herb
FACW+
(Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL FACW or FAC (excluding FAC ) 100%
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
_Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_Stream Lake or Tide Guage
Primary Indicators
_Aenal Photographs
_Inundated
_Other
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available
Marks
_
—Water
Drift Lines
Field Observations
_
_ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in)
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit (in)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil (in)
_Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12
—Water Stained Leaves
—Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC Neutral Test
Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks
SOILS

Map Unit Name Chewacla loam Drainage Class SPD
(Series and Phase) Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Confirm Mapped Type ❑ Yes ❑ No
Profile Description
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Texture Concentrations
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance /Contrast Structure etc
04 A 10YR4/4 clay loam
4+ B 10YR4/2 distinct/common clay loam
Jnc Soils Indicators
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
x Aquic Moisture Regime
—Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors
►��94m-, Jill,"F-W10P.
_ Concretions
—High Organic Content
—Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
—Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
—Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes ❑ No
Wetland Hydrology Presents D Yes El No this Sampling Point within a No P] Yes ❑ No
Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? 0 Yes ❑ No
Remarks

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANDS DETERMINATION
(1987 ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site Gaston East West Connector
Applicant/Owner NCTA
Investigator W Mullin /J Freeman
Community ID wetland
Transect ID
Plot ID C5 001
A Do normal circumstances exist on this site?
B Is this site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)
C Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Date
31 Oct 06
County
Gaston
State
NC
El Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes Q No
❑ Yes 0 No
1 Acer rubrum red maple _
2 Platanus occ►dental►s sycamore _
3 L►gustrum srnense Chinese privet _
a L►ndera benzo►n spicebush _
5 Microsteg►um vim►neum Japanese grass _
6 Viburnum dentatum downy arrowwood _
7 Onoclea sens►b►l►s sensitive fern _
s Polygonum hydrop►penodes swamp smartweed
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL FACW or FAC (excluding FAC
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
tree
tree
shrub
shrub
herb
shrub
herb
herb
FAC
FACW
FAC
FACW
FAC+
FAC
FACW
OBL
100%
_Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks Section)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Lake or Tide Guage
Primary Indicators
_Stream
Photographs
_Aerial
_Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_Other
No Recorded Data Available
x Water Marks
_
Drift Lines
Field Observations
_
_ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water (in )
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Free Water in pit 6 (in )
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth to Saturated Soil 2 (in )
_Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12
Stained Leaves
—Water
—Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC Neutral Test
Other (explain in Remarks Section)
Remarks
SOILS

Map Unit Name Chewacla loam Drainage Class SPD
(Series and Phase) Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Closely matches? D Yes ❑ No
Profile Description
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Texture Concentrations
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance /Contrast Structure etc
06 A 10YR4/2 faint/common clay loam
6+ B 10YR46/2 distinct/common clay loam
Hydric Soils Indicators
_ Histosol
_ Hlstic Eplpedon
_Sulfidlc Odor
x Aquic Moisture Regime
—Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
_ Concretions
High Organic Content
_Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
—Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
—Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks Section)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? E] Yes ❑ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? El Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point within a [Z Yes ❑ No
Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? 0 Yes ❑ No
rks

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
10 16 06
4 Time of evaluation 1350
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
— 305 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
East of US 321 & east of D1 mamstem
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Sunny
cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Sunny cool
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
No If
yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys
I No
21 Estimated watershed land use 60%
forested
30% industrial
10% agricultural
22 Bankfull width —
6 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
10 ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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)7 57 Comments I Deeply incised
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman I Date 1 10 16 06
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

USACE AID#
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
A, CHARACW TERISTICS
ECOREGION PO
„]
Coastal
Piedmont
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0
5
0
4
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0
6
0
5
Riparian Zone
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0
6
0
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0
5
0
4
Groundwater discharge
no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0
3
0
4
Presence of adjacent floodplam
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0
4
0
4
Entrenchment / floodplain access
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0
5
0
4
Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0
6
0
4
Channel sinuosity
extensive channehzation = 0 natural meander = max points)
0
5
1 0
4
Sediment input
extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0
5
0
4
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0
4
Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0
5
0
4
Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0
5
0
5
Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0
3
0
4
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0
5
0
4
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0
3
0
5
Habitat complexity
ittle or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0
6
0
6
Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0
5
0
5
Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0
4
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
5
Presence of amphibians
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0
6
0
5
L -'s
Total Points Possible
mm
100
100
' TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
0 5 2
0 5 4
0 5 4
0 4 3
0 4 4
0 2 3
0 2 0
0 2 0
0 3 4
0 4 3
0 5 1
0 5 0
0 5 3
0 5 3
0 5 3
0 6 3
0 6 4
0 5 5
0 4 2
0 5 3
0 4 1
0 4 0
0 5 2
57

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicant s Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
10 18 06
4 Time of evaluation 1120
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
— 160 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
East of US 321
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Cool
Rained yesterday
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Overcast & — 68 degrees
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
No
if yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys
No
21 Estimated watershed land use 60%
Forested
30% industrial
10% impervious
22 Bankfull width 2
5 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
1 ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 155 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freman) Date 10 18 06
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

USACE AID#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
;:f1$'-�T
-- �CHARACTERIS'TICS
ECOREGION POINT 94,6E '� '
�
SC
Coastal
Piedmont
4 ountaint
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
1
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
3
Riparian Zone
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
4
1
Presence of adjacent floodplain
(no floodplain = 0 extensive floodplain = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
2
2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
2
3
Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
2
2
Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
'extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max oints)
NA*
0
4
0
5
1
Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of mayor bank failures
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
4
Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
'no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max pomts)
0
3
0
5
0
6
4
Habitat complexity
little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max pomts)
0
6
0
6
0
6
4
Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
4
2
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
5
0
5
1
Presence of amphibians
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
2
otal' Possible'
400
points
a
i ,100
r :1
®®
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first
page)
55
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
10 18 06
4 Time of evaluation 1303
5 Name of stream
=U T to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
— 194 ft
10 County
Gaston
1 l Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determmed (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GiS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
East of US 321
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Cool
sunny rained yesterday
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Partly cloudy & —68 degrees
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
omt9
No
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
No
21 Estimated watershed land use 60%
Forested
30% industrial
10% impervious
22 Bankfull width —
4 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
7 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2/)
X
Gentle (2 to 4/)
Moderate (4 to l0 /)
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 38 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 10 18 06
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

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1 (no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points) 0 5 0 4 0 5 0
Evidence of past human alteration
2 (extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max oints) 0 6 0 5 0 5 4
Riparian Zone
3 (no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max oints) 0 6 0 4 0 5 4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4 (extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints) 0 5 0 4 0 4 3
Groundwater discharge
5 (no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max oints) 0 3 0 4 0 4 0
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6 (no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max oints) 0 4 0 4 0 2 1
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7 (deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max oints) 0 5 0 4 0 2 0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8 (no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max oints) 0 6 0 4 0 2 0
Channel sinuosity
9 (extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points) 0 5 0 4 0 3 3
Sediment input
10 (extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points) 0 5 0 4 0 4 2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11 (fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max oints) NA* 0 4 0 5 0
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12 (deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max oints) 0 5 0 4 0 5 2
Presence of major bank failures
13 (severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max oints) 0 5 0 5 0 5 2
Root depth and density on banks
14 (no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max oints) 0 3 0 4 0 5 2
Impact by agriculture livestock, or timber production
15 substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max oints) 0 5 0 4 0 5 3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16 (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points) 0 3 0 5 0 6 2
Habitat complexity
17 (little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points) 0 6 0 6 0 6 1
Canopy coverage over streambed
18 (no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points) 0 5 0 5 0 5 5
Substrate embeddedness
19 (deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max oints) NA* 0 4 0 4 2
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20 (no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints) 0 4 0 5 0 5 0
Presence of amphibians
21 (no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points) 0 4 0 4 0 4 0
Presence of fish
22 (no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints) 0 4 0 4 0 4 0
Evidence of wildlife use
23 (no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max oints) 0 6 0 5 0 5 2
Dotal Points Possible 100 1000,0>
�� TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 38
ITW-11'
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
C z
JEOCREGIONt9CV�uZ
R W
C
z A
- a R
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicant s Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
10 18 06
4 Time of evaluation 1530
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
— 1850 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GiS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
East of US 321
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Cool
sunny rained yesterday
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Partly cloudy & — 70 degrees
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
pointy
No
If es estimate the water surface area
y
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys
No
21 Estimated watershed land use 60
% forested
30% industrial
10% impervious
22 Bankfull width —
3 5 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
Varies
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
Frequent meander
X
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 168 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman Date 10 18 06
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

USACE AID#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
;OtARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION Pao
C"(
Coasfal
Piedmont
� oun�t
if
i
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max oints)
0
5
0
4
0
5
3
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max oints)
0
6
0
5
0
5
5
Riparian Zone
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
4
4
Groundwater discharge
no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of adjacent floodplain
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
2
2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent floodmg = max pomts)
0
5
0
4
0
2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max pomts)
0
6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
0
Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
3
Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
4
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0
3
0
5
0
6
5
Habitat complexity
ittle or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0
6
0
6
0
6
6
Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max oints)
NA*
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0
4
0
5
0
5
1
Presence of amphibians
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
3
OWT!", otal Points Possible
100
10
0
V, ilx {
10®
,.
x ,4
f
i ,F ^ - TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
68
I These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
10 1906
4 Time of evaluation 1115
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated —
210 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GiS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
East of US 321
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Overcast
rained 2 days ago
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Overcast and — 67 degrees
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
No
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
No
21 Estimated watershed land use 60%
forested
40% industrial
22 Bankfull width —
2 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
2 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2 /)
Gentle (2 to 4/)
X
Moderate (4 to 10 /)
Steep ( >I0 /)
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 153 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 10 1906
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
Is
M. CH ARA�TERIS'f'ICS
6 i�
at
ECOREC�IU�JjO -1 ! AGE
N
SMOIR E
W W
Coastal
`�`
� hedmo
t
Mountain,
�
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
1
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
4
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
4
1
U
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
2
2
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
2
2
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
2
1
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
3
3
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
5
2
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of mayor bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
3
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0
3
0
5
0
6
4
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0
6
0
6
0
6
4
�I
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
4
2
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
5
0
5
1
Presence of amphibians
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
2
T�o1 t4P'6in'ts Possible.®0'
X00
®®
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
PROa
53
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
10 1906
4 Time of evaluation 1232
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
— 626 ft
10 County
Gaston
I 1 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
East of US 321
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Rain
overcast
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Overcast 68 degrees
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
oint9
No If
yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
No
21 Estimated watershed land use 60%
forested
40% industrial
22 Bankfull width —
4 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
3 6 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2 /)
Gentle (2 to 4 /)
X
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 58 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 10 19 06
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

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
° These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
0
--
C RACTERTSTICS
FCOREfOVq --- T GE
=
r,
i' dm Castal n a
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
1
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
5
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
2
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive floodplam = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
0
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
1
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
2
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
2
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
1 0 3
0 4
0 5
3
Impact by agriculture livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Presence of riffle pool/ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
5
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
6
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
5
Substrate embeddedness
' " ,
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
1
Presence of amphibians
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
2
W alh'oints,Possible
0000
40
Ep"111
V � f TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) ra
�X
58
° These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
0

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
10 1606
4 Time of evaluation 1130
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
3
9 Length of reach evaluated —
2 600 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /G1S Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
East of US 321 and South of SR 2420
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Sunny
cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Sunny cool
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
No
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
Yes
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
Yes
21 Estimated watershed land use 20
% residential
50% Forested
10% Agricultural
22 Bankfull width —
30 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
12 ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 62 Comments Bank soft & unconsolidated Highly eroded and
Currently eroding
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 1 10 16 06
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

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
C A C ERISTICS�)
�. .
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
2
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
4
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
1
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
0
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
f
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA* '
0
4
0
5
3
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
0
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
2
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
5
3
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool/ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0
5
0
6
5
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
5
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
3
Substrate embeddedness�
*3
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
0
4
0
4
1
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
5
0
5
4
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
2
a
O
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
2
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
3
otal oints Possible` "1
00
Mn
00
I
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on firsff aeeliy
y'
* °
'F
62
I These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
10 16 06
4 Time of evaluation 1545
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated —
670 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
East of US 321
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Cool
sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Cool sunny
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point?
No
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys
No
21 Estimated watershed land use 60%
forested
30% industrial
10% agricultural
22 Bankfull width 2
5 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
8 12 inches
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 156 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 10 16 06
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

USACE AID# _ DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
�
C RACTERISTICS
�CORE.GION
®�
C
S
l 7
GARstal
iedmon
o_untain
Presence of now / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strop flow = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
0
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
4
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
1
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
4
Entrenchment / floodplam access
�+
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
2
2
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
3
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelizatton = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NAB* tj
0
4
0
5
0
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
4
E '
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
5
1
Impact by agriculture livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0
5
0
6
4
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
3
C4
Canopy coverage over streambed
x
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NSA*
0
4
0
4
1
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
5
0
5
0
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
O
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
3
mom=
T'ota nsP�oss bl� �,�
00
MOO
go
®TAL SCOR (aso enter on firt page) T -
f�
56
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
10 17 06
4 Time of evaluation 1030
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
— 190 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
E of US 321 near Wolfpack Drive
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Cool
sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Cool raining
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
omt9
No
if yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys
No
21 Estimated watershed land use 60%
forested
30% industrial
10% impervious
22 Bankfull width 3
ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
< 1 ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 59 Comments raining
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 10 17 06
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

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
CHARACTERISTICS
� V x. RJ G ® ® y. � G
CC
lip
�+�`' i
Coastal 51e MountaiM
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
1
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
4
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
1
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 2
3
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
3
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max oints)
NA*
0 4
0 5
1
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
4
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
2
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
3
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
3
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
5
Substrate embeddedness
3
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
1
Presence of amphibians
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max pomts)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
3
o al ointsoss><ble
ENFA--,V
i �
X100 �`1
�. -
}
t00
001'
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
59
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicant s Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
10 1706
4 Time of evaluation 1230
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
— 1000 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
East of US 321
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Cool
sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Cool raining
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point?
No
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys
No
21 Estimated watershed land use 60%
forested
30% industrial
10% agricultural
22 Bankfull width ---
4 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
Varies
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 168 1 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) I Date 10 1706
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
I
�,®N
O
G
�
N�1Coastal°
�. �
�iedmon�
ou
a n
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
4
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max oints)
0 6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
4
2
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs seeps wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
2
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
2
3
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
2
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
10
extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
41 L
11
(fine homogenous =0 large diverse sizes= max oints)
NA* `
0
4
0
5
1
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
4
W
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
5
3
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0
5
0
6
5
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max oints)
0 6
0
6
0
6
6
ai
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shadmg vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
5
0
5
2
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
2
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
3
tz-
MUM w s��P6sssible "
100
OW O
IOq4'M
5OTAL�SCO -(also enter on ilirst
p
"rye :,,�
ge)��
6
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
10 18 06
4 Time of evaluation 0915
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
I
9 Length of reach evaluated
—435 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GiS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
Adjacent to US 321
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Cool
sunny rained yesterday
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Overcast 65 degrees
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
omt9
No
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys
No
21 Estimated watershed land use 60%
forested
30% industrial
10% impervious
22 Bankfull width 4
— 5 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
2 — 4 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2/)
Gentle (2 to 4/)
x
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 147 Comments Section ends at stream origin
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 1 10 18 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
1
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
4
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
2
ra
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
0
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
0
'x
Entrenchment / floodplam access
a
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
1
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 5
1
Evidence of channel incision or widening
H12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
i,.
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
2
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max p omts)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
5
Q
Habitat complexity
F*
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
4
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
5
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
2
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
0
(�
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
2
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
47
* These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
10 20 06
4 Time of evaluation 1316
5 Name of stream 7UT
to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
1250 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /G1S Other G1S Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
East of US 321 & east of main DI channel
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Cool
light rain some sun
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Sunny 70 degrees
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
point9
No
if yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
No
21 Estimated watershed land use 10%
residential
60% forested
30% industrial
22 Bankfull width 3
4 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
8 18 inches
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 80 Comments I Tons of crayfish and salamanders (different types)
Stream ends downstream in a wetland before reaching main D1 channel Wetland adjacent to sewerline easement that runs
Parallel to mapped main channel System has been altered by human influence
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 1020 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
C
"�WW%T
� C® �® ©i
�'
Wt
Coastal
Tti edmon
0-89-
ntam
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max oints)
0 6
0
5
0
5
3
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no floodplain = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
4
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
2
4
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
2
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
_ --
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
5
2
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
5
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0
5
0
6
5
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 fre uent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
5
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
5
0
5
5
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
4
C
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
4
otal Multi Poss ble ������
ell �
To AL SCOYtE (also enter on first
80
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
10/23/06
4 Time of evaluation 1334
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
3
9 Length of reach evaluated 2200
ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GiS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
E of US 321 near Telegraph Rd
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions sunny
cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
sunny cool
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point?
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
yes
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
yes
21 Estimated watershed land use 40%
residential
40% forested
20% industrial
22 Bankfull width 12
ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
7 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
x
Flat (0 to 2
Gentle (2 to 4/)
Moderate (4 to 10 /)
Steep ( >I0
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 175 Comments Corbicula salamanders
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer Freeman) Date 1 1023 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
k These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
C ERIS ICS
c ®0,
t® P® s
G
SCO
"
Coastal
P�edmon�
4, , R
o_ untain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
4
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
4
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max omts)
0 5
0
4
0
2
2
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
2
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
3
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0
5
0
6
3
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
5
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
5
0
5
5
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
1
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
5
otal onts Possible���N
®®
Moo
®®
NoWiRmwe
TpTA SCORE (alsoenter onf rst'p
"'age) "*
� y� '
„,£
75
k These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
10 24 06
4 Time of evaluation 1325
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
2
9 Length of reach evaluated
1790 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GiS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
E of US 321 Just S of Telegraph rd along sewer line
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions sunny
cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
sunny 55 degrees
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'
no If
y es estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 40%
residential
40% forested
20% industrial
22 Bankfull width 5
ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
2 5 ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 74 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer Freeman) Date 10 24 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
WRW
PCAWWOTAI. W Ci's O Z, -
r I
S
� EcouE
®P A L
T
MWed"mont
ountain
k
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
3
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
3
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no floodplam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
3
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
2
1
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
*A *
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max omts)
0 5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
3
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0
5
0
6
5
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
6
a1
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max oints)
0 5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
Wk*'
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
5
0
5
5
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
2
O
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
3
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
4
H" a r M k�
otal ovnts ossible �� 1���
®®
WOMM101
®0
&
h�g )A
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first *nOage)� � 77W"1 �
74
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
10 24 06
4 Time of evaluation 0800
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated 960
ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
E of US 321 behind industrial park near Telegraph rd
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions sunny
cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
sunny 35 degrees
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
omt9
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 40%
residential
40% forested
20% industrial
22 Bankfull width 5
ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
3 6 ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 141 Comments Fed by stormwater ditch off US 321
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer Freeman) Date 1 10 24 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
lmmlw_;V�
� EC®RECIi ®�NRAC�ERIST>�CS
��
CoastaI �iedmo
9 Wo-1
� t�,
t:
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 5
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 4
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive floodplain = max oints)
0 4
0 4
0 2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 2
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 3
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
2'k ,
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 5
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 5
Presence of mayor bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
15
substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max omts)
0 4
0 5
0 5
Presence of amphibians
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max pomts)
0 4
0 4
0 4
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max pomts)
0 4
0 4
0 4
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
�oarPo�ints Possible
100
01 T1,049
0
mm. WPM, TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)��
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
,1
3
4
2
0
1
0
0
4
1
i
0
e
a
41

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicant s Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
10/23/06
4 Time of evaluation 1715
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
840 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
Adjacent to US 321
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions sunny
cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
sunny cool
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
oint9
no
if es estimate the water surface area
y
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 40%
residential
40% forested
20% industrial
22 Bankfull width —4
ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
— 7 ft
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
F
Very sinuous
Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2) Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location terrain vegetation stream classification etc Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion Assign points
to each characteristics 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 amy 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) 129 Comments Deeply FDeeply incised Fed by roadside ditch
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman I Date 1 1023 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
C;HAA CTERISTICS
1H C6hEGION R.gW ti%
*"
i „
_
4" � 4 °
Coastal
%� Ji
�
%4
SCORE
���
,
ont
ntain�
Presence of now / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
1
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
2
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
3
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
1
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
0
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
2
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
-', � Z
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
N-A
0
4
0
5
0
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
0
Presence of mayor bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
1
Aa
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
5
1
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0
5
0
6
1
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
1
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
� i t
�
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NT'A*
0
4
0
4
0
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
5
0
5
0
Presence of amphibians
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
2
OEo a 1,Points"4Possible
1 "�
wo�m
Erg"
TOTAZ SCORE (also enter on first page)`
�
29
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
1024 06
4 Time of evaluation 1340
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
l
9 Length of reach evaluated 170
ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
East of US 321 South of Telegraph Rd
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions sunny
cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
sunny 53 degrees F
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
oint�
no
Tlf yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 40%
residential
40% forested
20% industrial
22 Bankfull width 2
3 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
2 6 ft
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 bendT
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 146 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 10 24 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGIOXY -WNT RAbTGE �,
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont 11ou�itain
Presence of now / persistent pools in streams
3
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
1
Evidence of past human alteration
' t
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max oints)
0 6
0 5
0 5
2
Riparian Zone
g,
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
2
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
2
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 2
1
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
2
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 5
2
Evidence of channel incision or widening
,'�.r"z
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
1
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
2
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
2
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
2
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max oints)
0 3
0 5
0 6
4
Q+
Habitat complexity
t F l�
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
3
0.
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
5
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max pomts)
0 4
0 5
0 5
1
Presence of amphibians
O
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
v
Presence of fish
N
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
*
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
2
92a ift- _0 �OTotal Points Possible
100
100
t 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
46
* These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
1024 06
4 Time of evaluation 1130
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
280 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GiS Other GiS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
Behind industrial park near Telegraph Rd and US 321
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Cool
sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Sunny and 48 degrees
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 40%
residential
20% forested
40% industrial
22 Bankfull width 2
ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
0 1 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2/)
x
Gentle (2 to 4/)
Moderate (4 to 10 /)
Steep ( >I0/)
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 151 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 10 24 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
n
0
2
2
4
1
4
1
2
2
1
4
4
3
2
1
3
3
3
1
0
0
3
51
'WIN
CHAR�CTERIS I ICS 9. ��
a�
' x
Coastal
Piedmon
o�un
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
Presence of adjacent floodplai
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 2
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 5
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
Impact by agriculture livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 5
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
Presence of amphibians
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
ol�P�oints Possible
OEM
1. 00
430—ft--44
r 0 �0
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)"
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
n
0
2
2
4
1
4
1
2
2
1
4
4
3
2
1
3
3
3
1
0
0
3
51

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
1024 06
4 Time of evaluation 1205
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
280 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
Behind industrial park near Telegraph Rd and US 321
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions cool
sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
sunny and 50 degrees
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
omt9
no If
yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 30%
residential
30% industrial
40% forested
22 Bankfull width 2
3 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
2 ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 50 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 10 24 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
� � � � ��
Coastal
pie moist
ountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
1
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max oints)
0
6
0
5
0
5
2
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
5
3
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0
5
0
4
0
4
2
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
4
1
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
2
2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max pomts)
0
5
0
4
0
2
3
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
3
3
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
A*
0
4
0
5
1
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
5
3
Impact by agriculture livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max oints)
0
5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0
3
0
5
0
6
4
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0
6
0
6
0
6
4
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
l
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
IAA*
0
4
0
4
2
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
5
0
5
0
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
®
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
2
�� �-
otal Points possible.
®®
0®
00
`� _ "41 � _
O),A>J #SCORE first''
�f
ROM
(also enter on
age)
f
50
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
1025 06
4 Time of evaluation 1335
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
2
9 Length of reach evaluated 3360
ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
East of US 321 between SR 2420 and SR 2416
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions sunny
and cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
sunny and 58 degrees
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
oint9
no If
yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
yes
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys
yes * **
21 Estimated watershed land use 40%
residential
50% forested
10% agricultural
22 Bankfull width 12
ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
2 5 8 ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 177 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 1025 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
��
i� � �
0
C "C`I,ERISTICS _
4
` 1VIounta►n
CORE
Cd- as
d edmont
,
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
4
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive floodplain = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
3
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
2
2
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
4
Sedimentinput
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max oints)
NA*
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of mayor bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
3
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max oints)
0 3
0
4
0
5
3
Impact by agriculture livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0
5
0
6
5
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
6
f�
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0 4
0
5
0
5
4
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0 4
0
4
0
4
1
Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
2
t23
Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
4
VANN 0 Loi n t s Possible
100
10o i6 13
0®
I i TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
r-
��,
�,
7
77
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
1025 06
4 Time of evaluation 1120
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
530 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GiS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
East of US 321 between SR 2420 and SR 2416
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions sunny
and cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
sunny and 48 degrees
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(i IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 40%
residential
50% forested
10% agricultural
22 Bankfull width —
3 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
1 2 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2/)
x
Gentle (2 to 4/)
Moderate (4 to 10 /)
Steep ( >10 /)
25 Channel smuosity
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 161 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 1025 06
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals m
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

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
�010 TE� SST iCS4t
�W�Y
C® �®�T
_
Coastal
iedmpnp
ountam
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max oints)
0 6
0
5
0
5
3
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
4
4
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no floodplain = 0 extensive floodplain = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
2
3
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
5
2
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max oints)
0 3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max oints)
0 3
0
5
0
6
3
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
3
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
A
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
*
0
4
0
4
2
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
5
0
5
2
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
O
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max oints)
0 6
0
5
0
5
2
otal o><nts ossili�le A
00
�� 00
Mma
� �� t� u �
TOT AL SCORE (alsolenter on first page
W,
A
61
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
10/26/06
4 Time of evaluation 1230
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
130 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GiS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
West of SR 2416
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Cool
sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Cloudy & 55 degrees
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
omt9
No
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad map�
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
No
21 Estimated watershed land use 40%
residential
40% forested
20% agricultural
22 Bankfull width —
3 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
5 8 ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 134 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 1026 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
�3,t����, �. ��4 ✓�1' � � __��€��
�FiC ®RED � ®��P,~
� IARAC ERISTWS
v
Coasiii
-,Tina own t�
Moun in
SC®12�E
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
0
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
4
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
extensive di-,charge., = 0 no dischar es =max omts)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
0
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
0
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
3
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
# %,f'rY
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
5
1
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of mayor bank failures
13
(severe erosion =0 no erosion stable banks= max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
5
1
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max oints)
0 3
0
5
0
6
1
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
1
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
't
-0 4
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
4
0
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
5
0
5
0
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
0
=3121 0`s' i ssible _
fit
x00
00
�I'OTA es CORE (also enter-on first page ` {' �' ° r +.�° _
34
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 1 06
4 Time of evaluation 1405
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
I
9 Length of reach evaluated —
2460 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
West of SR 2420
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Sunny
cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Sunny & 70 degrees
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
omt9
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys
No
21 Estimated watershed land use 25%
residential
70% forested
5% cleared /logged
22 Bankfull width 4
8 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
Varies 3 7 ft
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
Frequent meander
x
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 172 Comments Lots of fish Frog & salamanders present
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 1 11 1 06
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

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
4
9
0
0
9
I
72
A
�"�
C &ACA STICS
x
CoastaC
'I,'iedmont
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 2
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
IAA*
0 4
0 5
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
Presence of mayor bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*-' -Y
0 4
0 4
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
Presence of amphibians
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
&WP ints'Possible
"
�,,JO
©©
�.�' �0ba
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first Jpafty: f'
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
4
9
0
0
9
I
72
A

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name
Jennifer M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 1 06
4 Time of evaluation
1300
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
300 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GiS Other GiS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
Near SR 2420
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Sunny
cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Sunny & 68 degrees
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
omt9
no If
yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad map9
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 25%
residential
70% forested
5% cleared/logged
22 Bankfull width
2 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
1 2 ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 140 Comments Gas stove water heater in stream
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 1 11 1 06
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

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT'
E
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont
Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
1
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max oints)
0 6
0 5
0 5
2
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
3
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
2
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
1
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
1
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 2
3
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
2
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sedirnent = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
2
y
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 5
2
Evidence of channel incision or widening
ja
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
3
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
2
Impact by agriculture livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
1
y
Presence of riffle pool/ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
3
Habitat complexity
t
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
2
d
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shadmg vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
3
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
2
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
0
Presence
of amphibians
FO
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types =max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
2
,V
��k jotal Points Possible
#
��
] 00
100
� 0
IF r ` TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
40
* These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 206
4 Time of evaluation 1345
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
2
9 Length of reach evaluated
4300 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GiS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
N of SR 2420
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Cool
& sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Sunny and 67 degrees
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
omt9
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
yes
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
yes
21 Estimated watershed land use 25%
residential
70% forested
5% agricultural
22 Bankfull width
6 8 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
Varies 2 5 — 5 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2
x
Gentle (2 to 4
Moderate (4 to 10/)
Steep ( >I0 /)
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 79 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 2 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These charactersrtics are not assessed in coastal streams
#CI�ARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POfINT
AW
469`6ORE
Coastal Piedmont
Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
Evidence of past human alteration
k6
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
43
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
9a
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs seeps wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
3
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 2
3
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
1
Channel sinuosity
3
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
�a
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
3
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
2
Impact by agriculture livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
5
Habitat complexity
Fyn
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
6
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
5
Substrate embeddedness
4
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
5
�Vr
Presence of amphibians
O
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
1
Presence of fish
MW
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4 1
0 4
0 4
3
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
4
s Wtal .Points Possible
-100
100
r TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
79
* These charactersrtics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 206
4 Time of evaluation 1245
5 Name of stream 7UT
to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
335 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location detennmed (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
On powerhne behind homes in subdivision off SR 2420
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Sunny
cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Sunny & 66 degrees
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
no 71f
yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad map9
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 50%
residential
50% forested
22 Bankfull width 1
5 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
< 1 ft
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 characteristics 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
mto a forest) the stream amy 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) 1 36 Comments Most of reach in a powerlme right of way
Vegetation treated with herbicide
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 206
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

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT_ t
,,
;' �
SCORE
a
�a
Coastal Piedmont Mountai n
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
2
Riparian Zone
t
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
2
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
1
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no floodplain = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
a
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 2
3
Presence of adjacent wetlands
t
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
2
'
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
2
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 5
0
"1
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Presence of mayor bank failures
*�h
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
0.
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
1
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
2
Presence of riffle pool/ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
1
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
0
Q
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
1
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
1
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
0
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23 J
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
0
Pull 40"
�,Total Points Possible
100
100
1.00
— TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
36
* These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
1027 06
4 Time of evaluation 1000
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated —
1950 ft
10 County
Gaston
I 1 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
N of SR 2420
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Sunny
cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
— 52 degrees raining
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
omt9
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
Yes
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys
yes
21 Estimated watershed land use 30%
residential
40% forested
30% agricultural
22 Bankfull width —
10 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
4 6 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2/)
x
Gentle (2 to 4/)
Moderate (4 to 10
Steep ( >I0 /)
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 73 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 1027 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
C C CCoas
al
edmon
onntain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
4
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no floodplam = 0 extensive floodplam = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
2
3
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(dee ly entrenched = 0 frequent floodmg = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
2
3
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
I I
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
5
3
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
3
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
15
substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max pomts)
0
3
0
5
0
6
4
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0
6
0
6
0
6
4
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
CIA
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
5
0
5
4
Presence of amphibians
Q 21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
4
2
®
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
5
ota o nts ossnble� IT O
s
-mot TOTALSCORE (also enter on first page)"
73
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
1031 06
4 Time of evaluation 1030
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated —
1700 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Sunny
cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Sunny & 62 degrees
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
oint9
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 10%
residential
70% forested
20% agricultural
22 Bankfull width 2
3 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
6 inches
24 Channel slope down center of stream
x
Flat (0 to 2 /)
Gentle (2 to 4 /)
Moderate (4 to 10 /)
Steep (>10/)
25 Channel sinuosity
Straight
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 172 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 1031 06
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

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
s These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
i V- ^ �' ..
CSI -� -., C�E STCS-
EC'O'�®pp
AXIS e�
OIN
'A er7aY
�,
C®
Coastal
Piedmont
�
ountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
4
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no floodplam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
4
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
2
4
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
3
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
3
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
1
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
5
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
2
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
5
3
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0
5
0
6
3
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
5
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
2
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
5
0
5
0
Presence of amphibians
Q`
21
no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
4
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
Ila ao':WC%6ints!r"'Ossible�
��0
*42
®0
®®
' Z TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) �4 � �
� �
�
72
s These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 7 06
4 Time of evaluation 0930
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
600 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GiS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
Near Robinson Road (south)
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Sunny
cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
raining
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
oint�
Yes
Fifyes estimate the water surface area
1 28 acres
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
Yes
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys
Yes
21 Estimated watershed land use 10%
residential
30% forested
60% agricultural
22 Bankfull width 3
ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
2 5 3 ft
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
Frequent meander
x
Very sinuous
Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2) Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location terram vegetation stream classification etc Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion Assign points
to each characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 71 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 7 06
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

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
9
�
� C 2� E Ge 1O�
EI—A"GTYRISTfCS
O � a
C � 0 b
S0a
Piedno t
ou Main
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max oints)
0 6
0
5
0
5
2
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max oints)
0 3
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
3
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 fre uent flooding = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
2
2
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
3
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max oints)
NA*
0
4
0
5
2
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well develo )ed = max oints)
0 3
0
5
0
6
5
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
4
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
4''
�17-
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0 4
0
5
0
5
3
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
2
O
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
4
sotal =ointsPossible �
jam-
100 1
0O
'$
100
tv
.. 4'33`
1 TOTA SCORE (also enter on first -
,
page);,,
71
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 906
4 Time of evaluation 0930
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated 1900
ft
10 County
Gaston
I 1 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GiS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
West of Bud Wilson Rd (SR 2423)
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Cool
& sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Sunny & 62 degrees
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
omt9
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 55%
forested
45% agricultural
22 Bankfull width 3
4 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
3 6 ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 154 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 9 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
SCi CE
®s
INVI* R }RSI'
P
oa
uan
o
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
2
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
3
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
2
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive floodplam = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
0
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 fre went flooding = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
'"I A*
0
4
0
5
3
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of mayor bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
3
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
1
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0
5
0
6
5
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
4
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
4
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
0
4
0
4
2
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
5
0
5
3
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
1
o
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
3
otal %rots 6ssible � � 1VI
0®
M
00
,
ry
R T O � A L SCOT (also enter on first page) !W V
, ., ".
.t,
W1
,
o
54
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 906
4 Time of evaluation 1322
5 Name of stream 7UT
to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
400 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
West of Bud Wilson Rd (SR 2423)
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Cool
& sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Sunny & 67 degrees
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'
no
If es estimate the water surface area
y
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 75%
forested
25% agricultural
22 Bankfull width 2
ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
3 6 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2/)
Gentle (2 to 4/)
x
Moderate (4 to 10 /)
Steep ( >10/)
25 Channel sinuosity
Straight
Occasional bends
x
Frequent meander
Very smuous
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 51 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 906
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
CHAC�ERISTeS
kT,
IV
Piedmont
oasts
on
sin
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
4
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
1 (no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
2
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no floodplam = 0 extensive floodplam = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
0
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
5
2
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
3
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0
5
0
6
4
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
3
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
4
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure =max points)
ANA*
0
4
0
4
2
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
5
0
5
2
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
3
4�1 4
a 1 ol<nts ossible�
nt
al
O
O
®Q
TO 1J SCORE {also enter on first`
page) -Y
`Y
{` F
51
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 1406
4 Time of evaluation 1045
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated 400
ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
West of Bud Wilson Rd (SR 2423)
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Sunny
& cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Sunny & 53 degrees
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
omt9
No
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
No
21 Estimated watershed land use 90%
forested
10% agricultural
22 Bankfull width 1
5 2 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
0 5 2 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2/)
x
I 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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 149 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 14 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
k These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
Coastal
Piedmont
�� o ntai5>
1R-
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 5
1
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max oints)
0 6
0 5
0 5
4
Riparian Zone
a
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
4
Groundwater discharge
Qi
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
2
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
1
x
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 2
3
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max pomts)
0 6
0 4
0 2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channehzation = 0 natural meander = max pomts)
0 5
0 4
0 3
2
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 5
1
Evidence of channel incision or widening
`
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
1
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
4
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
2
t
17
Habitat complexity
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
2
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max pomts)
0 5
0 5
0 5
5
Substrate embeddedness
19 1
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
2
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
0
*�
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
1
na4, Mv)
Points Possible
{'otal
100
100
X00'
k TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
49
k These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 1406
4 Time of evaluation 1249
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated 640
ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
West of Bud Wilson Rd (SR 2423)
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Cool
& sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Sunny & 67 degrees
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
No
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 20%
agricultural
80% forested
22 Bankfull width 2
ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
1 5 ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 168 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11/14/06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I These charactersrtics are not assessed in coastal streams
ss 2 "P"V a,
C �ARACTERISTTCS
yA y�
M011Intain
0mo
I
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
5
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
4
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs seeps wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive floodplam = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
1
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
2
3
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
1
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
5
3
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of mayor bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
5
3
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
4
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0
5
0
6
3
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
3
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
X!&*
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
5
0
5
3
Presence of amphibians
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
121
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
2
otal ° s Possle����
®0
#
0 10
®0
jive
T01TAL SCORE�`(also enter o rrs
OR e)
68
I These charactersrtics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 1406
4 Time of evaluation 1249
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
640 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
West of Bud Wilson Rd (SR 2423)
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Cool
& sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Sunny & 67 degrees
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
oint9
No
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad map9
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 20%
agricultural
80% forested
22 Bankfull width 2
ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
1 5 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2 /)
I 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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 68 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11/14/06
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

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
P These charactersrtics are not assessed in coastal streams
CRARAC— TERISTICS
1WW"K, `
..�
Coastal
Piedmont
Mounta��
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
5
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
4
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
1
Entrenchment / floodplam access
a+
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent floodmg = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 2
3
�t§
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
1 0 4
0 4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 5
3
5
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
3
Impact by agriculture livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
4
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max pomts)
0 3
0 5
0 6
3
Habitat complexity
(
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
3
4�
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shadmg vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
5
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
3
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
OPresence
of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
l
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
2
Total Points Possible
100
100
;b00
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
68
--
P These charactersrtics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name
Jennifer M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 15 06
4 Time of evaluation
1100
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated 475
ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
West of Bud Wilson Rd (SR 2423)
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Sunny
& cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Sprinkling & 62 degrees
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
oint'?
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 95%
forested
5% agricultural
22 Bankfull width —
3 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
3 ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 145 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 15 06
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

USACE AID#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
0 4
E ORI
C �RaA'LCT li STICKS
0
0 5
0
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
4
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max oints)
0 5
Evidence of past human alteration
4
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max oints)
0 6
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0 5
Groundwater discharge
0
no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
Presence of adjacent floodplain
2
(no flood lam = 0 extensive floodplain = max oints)
0 4
Entrenchment / floodplam access
0
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max oints)
0 5
Presence of adjacent wetlands
3
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max oints)
0 6
Channel sinuosity
2
extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
Sediment input
1
extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
#
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NSA*
Evidence of channel incision or widening
3
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max oints)
0 5
Presence of major bank failures
2
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
Root depth and density on banks
3
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max oints)
0 3
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
4
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max oints)
0 5
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
3
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
Habitat complexity
5
ittle or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
Canopy coverage over streambed
2
no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max oints)
0 5
Substrate embeddedness
0
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NSA*
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
Presence of amphibians
0
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
Presence of fish
2
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0 4
Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
f ° t _
otal oinits� � ossible
r
w5
pill TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first pa)
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
0 4
0
5
0
0 5
0
5
4
0 4
0
5
4
0 4
0
4
3
0 4
0
4
0
0 4
0
2
0
0 4
0
2
2
0 4
0
2
0
0 4
0
3
3
0 4
0
4
2
0 4
0
5
1
0 4
0
5
2
0 5
0
5
3
0 4
0
5
2
0 4
0
5
3
0 5
0
6
4
0 6
0
6
3
0 5
0
5
5
0 4
0
4
2
0 5
0
5
0
0 4
0
4
0
0 4
0
4
0
0 5
0
5
2
r� 45
t "e I

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 15 06
4 Time of evaluation 1320
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated 450
ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
West of Bud Wilson Rd (SR 2423)
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Sunny
and cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Overcast and 62 degrees
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 65%
forested
35% agricultural
22 Bankfull width 4
ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
3 5 ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 52 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 15 06
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

USACE AID#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
W ; CHARACT�?RISTICS
_ -" --
Coastal
Piedmont
oun
am
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
4
Riparian Zone
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0
5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of adjacent floodplam
(no flood lain = 0 extensive floodplam = max pomts)
0
4
0
4
0
2
0
Entrenchment / floodplam access
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max oints)
0
5
0
4
0
2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max pomts)
0
5
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max pomts)
0
5
0
4
0
4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max pomts)
NA*
0
4
0
5
1
Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
2
Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture livestock or timber production
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max pomts)
0
3
0
5
0
6
4
Habitat complexity
ittle or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0
6
0
6
0
6
3
Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max pomts)
NA*
0
4
0
4
2
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
5
0
5
2
Presence of amphibians
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
4
M Total Points Possible
'
100,4'J
- i*o,&bd
W
��,00
Of"� il
PE, 1A q � TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first pa'
age)
rx
52
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 15 06
4 Time of evaluation 1620
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated 300
ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
West of Bud Wilson Rd (SR 2423)
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Cool
and sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Overcast and 62 degrees
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
pomt9
No
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
No
21 Estimated watershed land use 80%
forested
20% agricultural
22 Bankfull width 3
5 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
6 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Fiat (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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 144 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 1 11 15 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
."�
CHARARTERISTICS
Coc .
PiedmB-
astal
,
oaun
ain
ry
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
5
1
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
3
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max oints)
0 6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs seeps wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
2
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max oints)
0 4
0
4
0
2
0
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
1
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channehzation = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
3
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max oints)
NA*
0
4
0
5
2
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
1
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
2
W
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max oints)
0 3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture livestock, or timber production
15
substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0
5
0
6
3
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
3
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
,-
4
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max oints)
NA*
0
4
0
4
2
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
5
0
5
0
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
®
Presence offish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
2
4 }
otal o>ntsPossi�ile`
X00
100
®®
!WTOTAL SCORE (also enter on first
page)
144
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 15 06
4 Time of evaluation 1620
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
300 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GiS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
West of Bud Wilson Rd (SR 2423)
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Cool
and sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Overcast and 62 degrees
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
oint9
No
If es estimate the water surface area
y
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
No
21 Estimated watershed land use 80%
forested
20% agricultural
22 Bankfull width 3
5 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
6 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (o to 2i)
x
Gentle (2 to 4i)
Moderate (4 to 10i)
Steep ( >10i)
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 144 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) I Date 11 15 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
RIB CS
®R�G oil > ®§
G
WR R
CE,G
oastali
edmon
oun
in
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
1
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
3
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
2
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
0
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
1
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
1
0
4
0
3
3
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
5
2
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
1
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
2
�4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool/ripple pool complexes
(no riffles/ripples les or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0
5
0
6
3
Habitat complexity
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
3
U18
Canopy coverage over streambed
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous cano y= max oints)
0 5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
Q*
0
4
0
4
2
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
5
0
5
0
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
2
ota o is 1'odifib�le i M, '
ti dr VIM'
0
®0
$ ..
NNW
M W-- OT�CORE (also enter on first gapekrff-
� �
���
I
,
44
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 16 06
4 Time of evaluation 1600
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated 950
ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
I
I Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
N of Mandel Drive near powerlme West of Bud Wilson Rd (SR 2423)
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Rained
last night
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Cool overcast
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
No If
yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
No
21 Estimated watershed land use 60%
residential
20% agricultural
i 20% powerlme easement
22 Bankfull width 3
4 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
2 4 ft
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
I 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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 157 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 1 11 16 06
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

USACE AID#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CHARACTERISTICS
- ECOREGION I
Coastal
Piedmi
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max oints)
0 5
0 4
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0 5
Riparian Zone
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0 5
0 4
Groundwater discharge
no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
Presence of adjacent floodplam
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0 4
Entrenchment / floodplam access
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max oints)
0 5
0 4
Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
Sediment input
extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max oints)
NA*
0 4
Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max oints)
0 3
0 4
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
Presence of riffle pool/ripple pool complexes
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
Habitat complexity
ittle or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max pomts)
NA*
0 4
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
Presence of amphibians
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
1btal Points Possible
MOT
'
L00
1 ,- 4
100
,�
b a.S
F TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 4
0 4
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 3
0 4
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 6
0 6
0 5
0 4
0 5
0 4
0 4
0 5
IV.
i
e
I
57

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 8 06
4 Time of evaluation 1000
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
2 (as mapped)
9 Length of reach evaluated
— 1850 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
Just W of Bud Wilson Rd (SR 2423)
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Cool
& sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Cool & sunny
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
No
TIf yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
Yes
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys
Yes
21 Estimated watershed land use 5%
residential
45% forested
50% agricultural
22 Bankfull width 12
16 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
4 6 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
x
Flat (0 to 2/)
Gentle (2 to 4/)
Moderate (4 to 10 /)
Steep ( >10/)
25 Channel sinuosity
Straight
Occasional bends
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 73 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 8 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
yi
m
s
s
A
73
,I
ri
, � ---
ECQREGION POINT RANG:
CHARACTERISTICS
`Piiii1mbnt
a
Coastal
o into
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max oints)
0 6
0 5
0 5
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 sprmgs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max pomts)
0 5
0 4
0 2
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max omts)
0 5
0 4
0 3
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points )
0 5
0 4
0 4
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
TI
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 5
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
Presence of mayor bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
i�
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
Habitat complexity
[-�
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
t
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
Presence of amphibians
!Qi
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
P4�
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
otal- Points Possible
� {
M
100
10, (l
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 010-
I These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
yi
m
s
s
A
73
,I
ri

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name
Jennifer M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 1406
4 Time of evaluation
0905
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated 950
ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GiS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
West of Bud Wilson Rd (SR 2423)
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions Sunny
& cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
Sunny and 40 degrees
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
No
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
No
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
No
21 Estimated watershed land use 85%
forested
15% agricultural
22 Bankfull width 2
4 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
2 3 5 ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 64 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 14 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
` These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
�CO>[ZEGON
�ARACTERISTICS
®�
'CO
no
K
= �t � M ',
eoastal31
�Ptedmont
ountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max oints)
0 6
0
5
0
5
4
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max oints)
0 3
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive floodplain = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
2
3
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous= 0 large diverse sizes= max points)
—NA*
0
4
0
5
3
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of mayor bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
3
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/rIPDIeS or D001S = 0 well develo ed =max oints)
0 3
0
5
0
6
4
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
4
fYi
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
4
Substrate embeddedness
14, qll
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
IAA*
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
5
0
5
3
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max oints)
0 6
0
5
0
5
2
otal &inns Possible,
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first'page)
64
` These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicant s Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 27 06
4 Time of evaluation 1527
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
— 430 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
East of Robinson Rd
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions cool
sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
sunny — 70 degrees
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
oint9
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 60%
forested
40% agricultural
22 Bankfull width —
2 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
5 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2 /)
Gentle (2 to 4/)
x
Moderate (4 to 10/)
Steep ( >IO /)
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 51 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 2706
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

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
1
i
s
51
Coastal
Pieil�mon�lVlount;
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0
5
0
4
0 5
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0
6
0
5
0 5
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0
6
0
4
0 5
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0
5
0
4
0 4
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0
3
0
4
0 4
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no floodplam = 0 extensive flood lain = max oints)
0
4
0
4
0 2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0
5
0
4
0 2
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0
6
0
4
0 2
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0
5
0
4
0 3
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0
5
0
4
0 4
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
14A*
0
4
0 5
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0
5
0
4
0 5
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max oints)
0
5
0
5
0 5
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0
3
0
4
0 5
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0
5
0
4
0 5
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0
3
0
5
0 6
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0
6
0
6
0 6
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0
5
0
5
0 5
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0
4
0 4
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
5
0 5
Presence of amphibians
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0 4
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0 4
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0
6
0
5
0 5
ootaVoints Possible
NO
��. ��
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
Olt
' These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
1
i
s
51

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
12406
4 Time of evaluation 1337
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
—450 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (►f any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GiS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
Just east of Robinson Rd
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions cool
sun/ram
16 Site conditions at time of visit
cool & sunny
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
omt9
no
[f es estimate the water surface area
y
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 60%
forested
40% agricultural
22 Bankfull width —
3 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
5 ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 51 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 12406
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

USACE AID#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
' 4
- JEQ-
0.RER-
GI0eId�
PoO
CIGA ACTERISTICS
M"*
i
Coastal
m nt
un
atnS
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max oints)
0
5
0
4
0
5
3
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
4
Riparian Zone
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max oints)
0
6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0
5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of adjacent floodplain
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max oints)
0
4
0
4
0
2
0
Entrenchment / floodplam access
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent floodmg = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
3
3
Sediment input
extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
5
3
Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
2
Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max oints)
0
3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture livestock, or timber production
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of riffle pool/ripple pool complexes
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0
3
0
5
0
6
3
Habitat complexity
ittle or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0
6
0
6
0
6
3
Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max pomts)
0
5
0
5
0
5
4
Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max oints)
NA*
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0
4
0
5
0
5
3
Presence of amphibians
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max oints)
0
6
0
5
0
5
2
Total Points Possible �
'1010��
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
51
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
U?

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
12 04 06
4 Time of evaluation 1532
5 Name of stream 7UT
to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
2
9 Length of reach evaluated
—2700
10 County
Gaston
I I Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
East of Robinson Rd (SR 2416) near powerlme
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions cool
sun /rain
16 Site conditions at time of visit
cool —& Sunny
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
no
If es estimate the water surface area
y
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
yes
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
yes
21 Estimated watershed land use 40%
agricultural
60% forested
22 Bankfull width 4
8 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
2 6 ft
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 characteristics 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 amy be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100 with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality
Total Score (from reverse) Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 12406
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
` These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
F
'C w4
�C�RISTIUN,
Coastal
C®
.Piedmont—
o�untain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max oints)
0 6
0
5
0
5
4
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
2
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
2
1
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max pomts)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substratert
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max oints)
NA�* { `
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max oints)
0 5
0
5
0
5
3
P�
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0
5
0
6
5
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
5
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
4
Substrate embeddedness
i 7W t
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
I&, Alf
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max pomts)
0 4
0
5
0
5
4
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
2
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
3
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
5
o al oints oisibl'ei o
°"0-'
w
10©
®0
TO`TA� SCORE (also enter on irstpage)�� �{�
74
` These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 28 06
4 Time of evaluation 0940
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
— 450 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GiS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
SW of Greenhaven Rd (SR 2657)
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions cool
sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
sunny — 53 degrees
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I iV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 40%
residential
30% agricultural
30 % forested
22 Bankfull width —
3 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
3 — 4 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2/)
Gentle (2 to 4/)
x
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 144 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 28 06
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

USACE AID#
I7 u�
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
r a
ECOREGT�6NP6Q,
T�RAN�
CARACtERISTICS
KW
t
t
CoastalP><edmo41
_
oun a><n
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
1
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
4
Riparian Zone
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
no discharge = 0 springs seeps wetlands etc = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
4
1
Presence of adjacent floodplain
(no floodplain = 0 extensive floodplain = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
2
0
Entrenchment / floodplain access
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max oints)
0
6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
3
2
Sediment input
extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max oints)
0
5
0
4
0
4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
5
1
Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
3
Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of riffle pool/ripple pool complexes
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0
3
0
5
0
6
4
Habitat complexity
ittle or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0
6
0
6
0
6
3
Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max oints)
0
5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max oints)
NA*
0
4
0
4
2
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
5
0
5
0
Presence of amphibians
no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
2
W "octal Points Possible
100
100
1 � *"
0
� a
i
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
44
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
2l

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name
Jennifer M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 28 06
4 Time of evaluation
0910
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
2
9 Length of reach evaluated —
2 500 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GiS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
SW of Greenhaven Lane (SR 2657)
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions sunny
& cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
sunny & — 50 degrees
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
oint'?
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
yes
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
yes
21 Estimated watershed land use 40%
residential
30% agricultural 30%
forested
22 Bankfull width —
15 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
4 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Fiat (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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 74 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 28 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersrtics are not assessed in coastal streams
�-
)%fARACTERISTICS
EC0REG10,N POINT" R G
r �
m
Coastal 4Pie ont ou gain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
3
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
2
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 2
2
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Presence of mayor bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
3
Impact by agriculture livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
2
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
5
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
5
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
4
Presence of amphibians
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
4
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
5
4.
ottalToints Possible'
3 00
100
100 ,
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
74
These charactersrtics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicant s Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 29 06
4 Time of evaluation 1525
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
2
9 Length of reach evaluated —
2 200 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
I
I Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
north corridor west of SR 2423
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions sunny
/warm
16 Site conditions at time of visit
cloudy & — 70 degrees
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
omt9
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 10%
residential
85% forested
5% impervious surface
22 Bankfull width —
4 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
3 — 7 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2/)
x
Gentle (2 to 4/)
Moderate (4 to ]0 /)
Steep ( >10 /)
25 Channel sinuosity
Straight
Occasional bends
TJ
Frequent meander
x
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 74 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 2906
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

USACE AID#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
w�CARACTERISTICS
ECOREGTO,N�OTT 4
4
Coastal
Piedmont
1V)-
ntain,
t
Presence of flow / persistent pools to streams
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
4
Riparian Zone
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of adjacent floodplam
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
2
2
Entrenchment / floodplatn access
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
2
1
Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
extensive channelizatton = 0 natural meander = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
3
Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
5
3
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0
3
0
5
0
6
5
Habitat complexity
tttle or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0
6
0
6
0
6
5
Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
5
0
5
5
Presence of amphibians
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
4
2
Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
5
MWco,t4lafFoints � Possible
r
x
F *M t
"1100
�
X100`
00
'4�4fi
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
74
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 29 06
4 Time of evaluation 1210
5 Name of stream —TUT
to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
I
9 Length of reach evaluated —
750 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GiS Other GiS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
north corridor west of SR 2423
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions warm
sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
cloudy and — 68 degrees
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad map9
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 20%
residential
80% forested
22 Bankfull width —
3 '/2 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
1 '/z ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 55 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 2906
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
k These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
C1A"RACTERISTICS
0
EC ORE GION,.P06ilep 1
r ,
C
-
Coastal 'iedmon o— un�,ain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
1
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
4
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
1
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
0
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
3
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 5
3
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
4
Presence of mayor bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
3
Impact by agriculture livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
4
Presence of riffle pool/ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
5
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
3
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max pomts)
NA*
0 4
0 4
2
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
1
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
3
Total Points Possible
�
� �
00 �
100
100
�
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
55
k These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 29 06
4 Time of evaluation 1322
5 Name of stream —TUT
to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
—200 ft
10 County
Gaston
I 1 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
north corridor west of SR 2423
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions cool
/sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
cloudy — 68 degrees
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
oint9
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 20
% residential
80% forested
22 Bankfull width 2
ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
1 5 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2/)
x
Gentle (2 to 4/)
Moderate (4 to to /)
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 145 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 29 06
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

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
2 These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
�I
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION�iI'®IT . °fi GG
"
Coastal'
?ied&5Wn
F'
ou to n
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 5
0
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
5
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
0
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive floodplain = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
0
'i
Entrenchment / floodplain access
K
7
1 (deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 5
0
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Presence of major bank failures
4
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max oints)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
a
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
3
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
3
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
2
a
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
Substrate embeddedness
19 1
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
0
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
{
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
0
Presence of amphibians
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
s 23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
4
� r ,Total Points Possible
100
100 -
� � 100`
m TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
45
2 These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
�I

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (mdicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 3006
4 Time of evaluation 1535
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
— 250 ft
10 County
Gaston
I 1 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GiS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
north corridor west of SR 2423 on west side of D18 mamstem
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions sunny
cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
overcast & — 67 degrees
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
WWater Supply
atershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
omt'
no
If es estimate the water surface area
y
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 20%
residential
80% forested
22 Bankfull width 2
ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
2-3 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2/)
x
Gentle (2 to 4/)
Moderate (4 to 10/)
Steep ( >I0 /)
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 147 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 3006
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

USACE AID#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
cij@
Coastal ,pie Mont,
s1V o�untain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
1
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max oints)
0 6
0 5
0 5
4
Riparian Zone
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Groundwater discharge
rio discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
1
Presence of adjacent floodplain
(no floodplam = 0 extensive floodplam = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
0
Entrenchment / floodplain access
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
0
Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
2
Sediment input
extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
tl
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes =max points)
��T�A* „� n
0 4
0 5
0
Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
3
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
no rtffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
4
Habitat complexity
ittle or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
2
Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
5
Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
1
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
1
Presence of amphibians
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
3
Onotal" ointsPossible
100
00
..
r)00
-fy��1
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
47
.
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
12 4 06
4 Time of evaluation 1337
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated —450
ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
I
I Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GiS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
Just east of Robinson Rd
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions cool
sun/rain
16 Site conditions at time of visit
cool & sunny
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
no7 If
yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad map?
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 60%
forested
40% agricultural
22 Bankfull width —
3 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
— 5 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2/)
x
Gentle (2 to 4/)
Moderate (4 to l0 /)
Steep ( >lo /)
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 151 Comments
Evaluators Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 12406
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

USACE AID#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max oints)
0 5
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
Riparian Zone
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
Groundwater discharge
no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
Presence of adjacent floodplain
(no floodplain = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0 4
Entrenchment / floodplain access
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent floodmg = max points)
0 5
Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
Channel sinuosity
extensive channehzation = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
Sediment input
extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
Impact by agriculture livestock or timber production
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
Habitat complexity
ittle or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0 4
Presence of amphibians
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0 4
Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max oints)
0 6
otal "Points `Possible 100
'' 0 4`�G tf-k4,
y TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
1
0 5
0 4
0 4
0 4
0 4
0 4
0 4
0 4
0 4
0 4
0 4
0 5
0 4
0 4
0 5
0 6
0 5
0 4
0 5
0 4
0 4
0 5
1d0����
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 4
0 4
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 3
0 4
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 6
0 6
0 5
0 4
0 5
0 4
0 4
0 5
3
f
e
51

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
12 04 06
4 Time of evaluation 1532
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
2
9 Length of reach evaluated —2700
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
4
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
East of Robinson Rd (SR 2416) near powerline
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions cool
sun /rain
16 Site conditions at time of visit
cool &sunny
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad map9
yes
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
yes
21 Estimated watershed land use 40%
agricultural
60% forested
22 Bankfull width 4
8 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
2 6 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Flat (0 to 2/)
x
Gentle (2 to 4/)
Moderate (4 to 10
Steep ( >I0�)
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 characteristics 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 amy be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100 with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality
Total Score (from reverse) Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 12406
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
la
"'* CHARACTERISTICS
"1;
Coastal
Piedmo tt
ountan
M
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max oints)
0 6
0 5
0 5
4
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max oints)
0 3
0 4
0 4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive floodplain = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 2
1
'
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 5
4
y�
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
2
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
3
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max oints)
0 3
0 4
0 5
2
Impact by agriculture livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
5
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
5
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max oints)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
3
WA�
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0 4
0 5
0 5
4
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
2
Presence of fish
P.
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
3
t
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
5
Total Points possible
ROL*'o1W
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
74
I These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
la

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 28 06
4 Time of evaluation 0940
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
— 450 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifymg stream(s) location)
SW of Greenhaven Rd (SR 2657)
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions cool
sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
sunny — 5.) degrees
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point'?
no
If es estimate the water surface area
y
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad mapE
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 40%
residential
30% agricultural
30% forested
22 Bankfull width —
3 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
3 — 4 ft
24 Channel slope down center of stream
Fiat (o to 2/)
Gentle (2 to 4/)
x
Moderate (4 to 10 /)
Steep ( >lo /)
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 144 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 28 06
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 thisjorm is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio
or requirement

USACE AID#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
�° � ��-
CHAI2ACTEAUSTICS
"
Coastal
� ,
PiedniQ t
F
�
ountain S
� C
0
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
1
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max oints)
0
6
0
5
0
5
4
Riparian Zone
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
4
1
Presence of adjacent floodplain
(no flood lam = 0 extensive floodplain = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
2
0
Entrenchment / floodplain access
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
3
2
Sediment input
extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
5
1
Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
3
Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
5
2
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max oints)
0
3
0
5
0
6
4
Habitat complexity
ittle or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0
6
0
6
0
6
3
Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
4
2
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
5
0
5
0
Presence of amphibians
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
2
m,, otal,�.Pomts Possible
100
100
t TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
44
These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
I

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 28 06
4 Time of evaluation 0910
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
2
9 Length of reach evaluated
— 2 500 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
SW of Greenhaven Lane (SR 2657)
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions sunny
& cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
sunny & — 50 degrees
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
omt9
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
yes
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
yes
21 Estimated watershed land use 40%
residential
30% agricultural
30% forested
22 Bankfull width —
15 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
4 ft
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 ecoreg►on based on
location terrain vegetation stream classification etc Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion Assign points
to each characteristics within the range shown for the ecoreg►on 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 amy 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) 174 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 28 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
0 These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
gig WHOOZ,
� ,� �
4 t
Coas%
ieVdmon
oun�ta
n
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
3
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
4
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive floodplam = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
2
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
2
2
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max pomts)
0 6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
2
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
-"U � rAt
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max pomts)
T NIX `
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
5
3
Impact by agriculture livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
2
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripple- or nonk = 0 well develo ed =max omts)
0 3
0
5
0
6
5
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
5
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
4
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max pomts)
0 4
0
5
0
5
4
Presence of amphibians
Q 21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Presence of fish
«o
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
4
4
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
5
o a1�Potsossible�
��
1
+0©
t�00"
©0
TOTAL SCORE (also enter oh page)
74
0 These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 29 06
4 Time of evaluation 1525
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
2
9 Length of reach evaluated —
2 200 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
north corridor west of SR 2423
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions sunny
/warm
16 Site conditions at time of visit
cloudy & — 70 degrees
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
oint'?
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 10%
residential
85% forested
5% impervious surface
22 Bankfull width —
4 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
3 — 7 ft
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
Frequent meander
x
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 74 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 2906
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
` These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
..1 S 1
C®
®
O B
�10
rCoasta
=wont ied
oun ain
C®
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
4
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lam = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
2
2
Entrenchment / floodplam access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
2
1
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0
6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
1TW
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
3
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0
3
0
4
0
5
3
Impact by agriculture livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0
5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well develo ed =max oints)
0
3
0
5
0
6
5
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0
6
0
6
0
6
5
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0
5
0
5
0
5
5
Substrate embeddedness
r
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0
4
0
4
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
5
0
5
5
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
4
2
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0
6
0
5
0
5
5
r V �
o a� � o�intaf oss><ble
:N eft
00 �
®d©
®0
��� n���
W 'TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
74
` These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 2906
4 Time of evaluation 1210
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated —
750 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GiS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
north corridor west of SR 2423
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions warm
sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
cloudy and — 68 degrees
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 20%
residential
80% forested
22 Bankfull width —
3 '/2 ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
1 'h ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 15 5 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 29 06
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
C C�� �RIS`I�C�S
��'1
Coa taI #
ie mon
oun nn
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 5
1
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max oints)
0 6
0 5
0 5
4
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
1
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive floodplain = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 2
0
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
3
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
FN
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max points)
-MA* A
0 4
0 5
3
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 5
4
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max oints)
0 3
0 4
0 5
3
Impact by agriculture, livestock or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
4
Presence of riffle pool/ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles /ri les or ools = 0 well develo ed = max oints)
0 3
0 5
0 6
5
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
3
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
NA*
0 4
0 4
2
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
1
Presence of amphibians
Q
21
no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
®
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
3
IMINNIM,
o�ta�l ts�ossYble
�o>ln
10000
00
IV
z� TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 4
55
I These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluator s name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 2906
4 Time of evaluation 1322
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate dramage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated
—200 ft
10 County
Gaston
1 I Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
north corridor west of SR 2423
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions cool
/sunny
16 Site conditions at time of visit
cloudy — 68 degrees
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
oint9
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey9
no
21 Estimated watershed land use 20
% residential
80% forested
22 Bankfull width 2
ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
1 5 ft
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 1 45 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 2906
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
0 These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
� I-es0>
C CTERNTICS
Coasta�l
4exnont
ounta><n
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
0
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max oints)
0 6
0
5
0
5
5
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
4
0
Presence of adjacent floodplam
6
(no flood lam = 0 extensive flood lain = max points)
0 4
0
4
0
2
0
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max oints)
0 5
0
4
0
2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0
4
0
2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
3
4
Sediment input
10
(extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
{
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max oints)
N-A
0
4
0
5
0
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0
4
0
5
3
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max points)
0 5
0
4
0
5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0
5
0
6
3
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0
6
0
6
2
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0
5
0
5
4
Substrate embeddedness
4 4,
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max points)
N "A*
0
4
0
4
0
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
(no evidence = 0 common numerous es = max points)
0 4
0
5
0
5
0
Presence of amphibians
(no evidence = 0 common numerous t es = max oints
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
[23
Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0 common numerous es = max oints)
0 4
0
4
0
4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0
5
0
5
4
ota +l o ntsPossible
®TA SCOT& (also enter oii first page) C
45
0 These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Applicants Name
NCTA
2 Evaluators name Jennifer
M Freeman
3 Date of evaluation
11 30 06
4 Time of evaluation 1535
5 Name of stream
UT to Crowder s Creek
6 River basin
Catawba
7 Approximate drainage area
8 Stream order
1
9 Length of reach evaluated —
250 ft
10 County
Gaston
11 Site coordinates (if known) prefer in decimal degrees
12 Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude
Longitude
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13 Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
north corridor west of SR 2423 on west side of D18 mamstem
14 Proposed channel work (if any)
n/a
15 Recent weather conditions
sunny cool
16 Site conditions at time of visit
overcast & — 67 degrees
17 Identify any special waterway classifications known
Section 10
Tidal Waters
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters
Outstanding Resource Waters
Nutrient
Sensitive Waters
Water Supply
Watershed
(I IV)
18 Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point
no
If yes estimate the water surface area
19 Does channel appear on USGS quad maps
no
20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
no
21 Estimated watershed land use
20% residential
80% forested
22 Bankfull width 2
ft
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
2 — 3 ft
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
I
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 characteristics 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 amy 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) 147 Comments
Evaluator s Signature I (Jennifer M Freeman) Date 11 3006
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

USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
` These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams
,CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION PoPtr
TG
s
Coasfal
Piedmont
U i "n ain�;
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streams
1
(no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
1
Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration = 0 no alteration = max oints)
0 6
0 5
0 5
4
Riparian Zone
3
(no buffer = 0 contiguous wide buffer = max oints)
0 6
0 4
0 5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Groundwater discharge
5
(no discharge = 0 springs sees wetlands etc = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 4
1
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
(no floodplain = 0 extensive floodplain = max oints)
0 4
0 4
0 2
0
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 2
0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands = 0 large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0 6
0 4
0 2
0
Channel sinuosity
9
(extensive channelization = 0 natural meander = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 3
2
Sediment input
10
extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 4
3
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
(fine homogenous = 0 large diverse sizes = max oints)
NA*
0 4
0 5
0
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
(deeply incised = 0 stable bed & banks = max points)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Presence of major bank failures
13
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion stable banks = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
4
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout = max points)
0 3
0 4
0 5
3
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
(substantial impact = 0 no evidence = max oints)
0 5
0 4
0 5
3
Presence of riffle pool /ripple pool complexes
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well developed = max points)
0 3
0 5
0 6
4
Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max points)
0 6
0 6
0 6
2
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points)
0 5
0 5
0 5
5
Substrate embeddedness
19
(deeply embedded = 0 loose structure = max oints)
NA*
0 4
0 4
1
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
20
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 5
0 5
1
Presence of amphibians
21
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max points)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Presence of fish
22
(no evidence = 0 common numerous types = max oints)
0 4
0 4
0 4
0
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max points)
0 6
0 5
0 5
3
i lota41 'Pomts Possible
100
100
pp&
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) "
47
` These charactersitics are not assessed in coastal streams