20160253_Jurisdictional Determination_20130221

at srAit o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PAT L. MCCRORY
GOVERNOR
February 20, 2013
Mr. Ronnie Smith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive
Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: AMENDED Request for a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
TIP # B -5360
Randolph County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Smith:
ANTHONY J. TATA
SECRETARY
The N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is submitting an amended Preliminary
Jurisdictional Determination (JD) package for bridge replacement project B -5360 (Bridge
#374 on SR 2481 /Low Bridge Road) over Sandy Creek in Randolph County.
Following the field verification meeting on April 24, 2012 and approved Preliminary JD
issued on May 8, 2012, the study area was expanded during project design approximately
100 feet to the east increasing the project study area by 0.35 acre.
Kimley -Horn and Associates (KHA) environmental staff evaluated the expanded project
study area on January 9, 2013 and determined that there are no additional jurisdictional
features in the project area. The jurisdictional limits of the previously delineated Sandy Creek
and wetland WA were increased due to the expanded eastern corridor area (106 linear feet and
0.01 acre, respectively). These additional jurisdictional areas are included on the amended
Preliminary JD form as well as the accompanying figures.
If you have any questions or need any additional information to assist in the processing of
this amended Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (919) 707 -6151 or driffey @ncdot.gov.
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CENTURY CENTER, BUILDING B
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT FAX: [phone] BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27610

Very truly yours,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT SECTION
ot-"'C'24��" X?&
Deanna Riffey
Central Region Environmental Program Consultant

TIP# B -5360
ATTACHMENT
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD):
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
Attn: Beth Reed, PWS, on behalf of NCDOT
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636 -3068
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES
AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State-NC County /parish /borough: Randolph City: Ramseur
Center coordinates of site (lat /long in degree decimal format): Lat.
35.4706340 N, Long. 79.3957020 W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Sandy Creek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non - wetland waters: 444 linear feet: 2 -60 width (ft) and /or 0.31 acres.
Cowardin Class: Riverine
Stream Flow: Perennial
Wetlands: 0.03 acres.
Cowardin Class: Palustrine
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal: N/A
Non - Tidal: N/A
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 04/24/2012, Ronnie Smith, USACE
1

TIP# B -5360
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre- construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non - reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
This preliminary JD finds that there "maybe" waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
2

TIP# B -5360
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply
- checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and
requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant /consultant:
® Data sheets prepared /submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant /consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Grays Chapel,
1:24,000
❑ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State /Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum
of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):2010.
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):.
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later jurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
Ax^ h�t,ll 01/31/2013
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)

TIP# B -5360
Estimated
amount of
Class of
Site
Cowardin
number
Latitude
Longitude
Class
aquatic
aquatic
resource in
resource
review area
Sandy
35.7853
- 79.6655
Riverine
306 linear feet
non - section
Creek
10 — non -tidal
Sc
35.4708
- 78.3956
Riverine
138 linear feet
non - section
10 — non -tidal
WA
35.7851
- 79.6654
Palustrine
0.03 acres
non - section
10- wetland

Project Study
220 an 22 S 11411141%
64 S
22 Low
of
ca
CO
Legend
ProjectArea
N 49
0 1,500 3,000
goo rq
North Carolina ��
Figure 1: Vicinity
Deparment ^
�
TIP Project: B-536{
of
Transportation Bhdge#374onGR2481 (Low BhdgeRoad) over Sandy Creel
Randolph County, North Caro|im

i /�S „
r i�r
' I
z r
40111 � v � "V,
✓ if f �lTr /i nl
i �� (i -' w,,✓ �� / r
/ r -
p rf
�w
'L
'e
r a
rtWh�IVfa / '� r /V 7
/, /
rPlfl ' u O'm`Ir >) rte@
icy
' ' g ff/f, ��� N gfk ►dge ,ROaCa "
L
a pu>
,t[Dw ,
ism dam'
I
wv-
mA
Ilk
ii
G/ 1�
i�� (G Sri it w �f
r
A" P/
,,�i1�YG;k.m ➢�
All ,
rem
TI.&OF
N,
; r
/ ulr l � ,r
���; „ ��
' irowl�% i, M AIr/
ff (0,
am r m '�fr i %fir
m
�a
ma
fro✓
OF1
li���"I
k'
Of T
Legend OM 1 6
��� fir �� �ru ®,
Project Boundary , J if
Of
/;l
N
0 250 500
w f
i i i Feet OF
; -
r
r
TN ,
North Carolina
Figure 2: Project Study Area Map
Deparment
TIP Project: B -5360
Transportation Bridge #374 on SR2481 (Low Bridge Road) over Sandy Creek
Randolph County, North Carolina

ro�cry�°rr
North Carolina Figure 3: Jurisdictional Features Map
Department TIP Project: B -5360
9 of Bridge #374 on SR2481 (Low Bridge Road) over Sandy Creek
Transportation Randolph County, North Carolina

A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 21.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Sco
1". Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thall
0
1
2
3
2
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle - pool, step-pool, ripple-
poollseguence
0
1
2
3
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
1
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
z
3
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
3
8. Headcuts
Q
1 1
1 2
3
2
9. Grade control
0
0.5
.1
1.5
10., Natural valley
0
10.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
-
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
P 14wirnInriv _1QmiK+n+n1 = 1n
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.51
0
1.5
15. Sediment on 1ants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
16. OLganic debris, lines or piles
0
0,5
1
1.5
1.5
17. Soil- based' evidence of high water table? 77T
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
U Biology Subtotal = U.b
18. Fibrous roots in strearribled
3
2
1
0
2
19. Rooted upland 1ants in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
2
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
2
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1
1.5
1
0
25, Algae
0
0.5
1
1,5
1.6
126. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5; Other = 0
0
may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Dense filamentous algae observed throughout channel
covering substrate/rocks. Rapid flow in channel. Freshwater clam
shells observed adjacent to channel.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 10 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Sco
14. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along! thalweg
0
1
2
3
3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step-pool, ripple-
pool sequence
0
1
2
3
1
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
2
5. Active/relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
0
8. Headcuts
Q
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
0
1.5
10, Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =, 0
Yes = 3
.
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R HuHrnlnnvqiihfntnl= A
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
-2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
1
14., Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
f
1.5
1
117. Soil-based evidence of high water table?
No=O
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 6 „5
18. Fibrous roots in strearnbed
3
2
1
0
2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
z
3
2
21. A Auafic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streamb,ed
FACW = 0.75-1 OBL
= 1.5; Other = 0
0
.perennial streams may also be Wentified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Stream reach ohginates outside of pUo ect study area;
feature enters study area at culvert outlet underneath residential
driveway. Crayfish chirrimney observed adjacent to channel. Channel
width -2' ; channel depth -I'; water depth -4-6" with moderate to low
flow. Channel goes subterrain at flag SC-9 approximately Ll 0 feet
from Sandy Creek.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
[11 1111 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHE T
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT, TIP #B -5360 2. Evaluator's name: B.Reed,J. Hartshorn; KHA
3. Date of evaluation: 02/08/2012 4. Time of evaluation: 3:00 pm
5. Name of stream: Sandy Creek (SA) 6. Riverbasin: Cape Year
7. Approximate drainage area: 15 , 0 0 0' acres 8. Stream order: 4 th
9. Length of reach evaluated :, 2 0 0 f eet 10. County: Randolt2h
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees, 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3 5 .7 8 54'7 6 Longituade (ex. - 77.55661 t ): -79.3665718
.
-
determined Method location i beet ho (Aerial) l) 'hotolCl
Otuer CIS Other p
13. Location of reach underevaluation( note nearby roads and 1Zdar lcs
and attach map identifying strcanr(s) location):
Sandy Creek crosses underneath Low Bridge Road.
14. Proposed channel work (if ally) Bridge replacement
15. Recent weather conditions: Light rain ( -.1 11)over last 24 hours
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cloudy and cool.
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries habitat
_Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive "Waters V'uWater Supply 'Watershed X (1 -IV)
�m.
18. Is there apond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point'? YES Nt7bIfyes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USES quad map? Q7 „ ' NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Sail Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 1� 0 % Residential ®% Cormnercial °1p Industrial % Agricultural
720_ % Forested �% Cleared 1 Logged % Other (
22. BankfuLl width: G 0 ° 23, Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 5 ' - 6 u
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2 %p) X Gentle (2 to 4 %) Moderate (4 to 10 %) ®Steep (a 10°/a)
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 scared using the same ecoregion, Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified. in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the strearn 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 stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach, The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest duality.
Total Score (from reverse): 75 Comments: Dense filamentous algae covering
channel substrate /rocks.. Heavy stream flows. Freshwater mussels shells,
Evaluator's Signature' 't Bate 02/08/2012
This channel evaluation form is intended to he used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the limited 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 USAGE approval and does not haply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06103. To Comment, please call 919 -876 -8441 x 26.

TTP## B -5360
Sandy Creek (SA)
1'
*"These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECORE GION
VOINTRALNGE
#
!CTEIRISTIC S
RIE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of fla w/ persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points)
4
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0' no alteration ^ max poin s
5
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 4
0-4
4
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
-
2
5
Groundwater discharge
0 _
0 -4
0 -4
no discharge = 0 springs, see s wetlands etc. =max oits
4.
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
no flood lain = 0° extensive flood lain max poi) iats
2
7
Entrenchment I floodplain access
0-5
0 - 4
0-2
(deeply entrenched ` 0° frequent flaodYn = max nits
3
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
no wetlands = 0• lax a adjacent wetlands = inax oits
0
J
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
extensive channelization = 0^ natural meander - max points)
3
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0- 4
extensive deposition- 0• little or no sediment= max points)
4
11
�� �
0-4
0 - 5
fine homogenous = 0 • large, diverse shies = max aints
3
12
]Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
(deep! (deep!y incised = 0° stable bed & banks = max points)
4
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
severe erosion = 0 • no erosion stable banks =max omts
5
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
4
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0
0-4
0 -5
15
substantial impact -0• no evidence = max points)3
-5
Presence of riffle- poaUripple -pool complexes
0
0
0 -6
16
no riffles/ripples les or pools = 0° well-developed = max points)
-3
-5
5
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0 • frequent, varied habitats �. max . points)
6
�.
'�
l$
Canopy coverage over streambed
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
no shading vegetation � 0• continuous canopy =max amts
S
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA'O
0-4
0 - 4
(deeply embedded =_O; loose structure = max
4.
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0 4
0-5
0 - 5
20
no evidence = 0• common, es = max points)
-
3
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0` common numerous types = max points)
0
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
N-+I
no evidence 0 • common numerous Ines = max points
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0 - 6
0-5
0-5
o evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
3
Tot'Al "P aints Posslblc
1110
100
100,
'TOT;�'L ter (also enter on first page
7 5
*"These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USAGE AID# DWQ # Site #_ (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -A*
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's naive: NCDOT, TIP #B-5360 2. Evaluator's name: B . Reed, A. Re u s c he KRA
3. Date of evaluation: 02/ 0 8/2 012 4. Time of evaluation: 5 - 0 0 PM
5. Name of strewn: SC 6. River basin: Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area: S acres 8. Stream order: 1St
9. Length of reach evaluated: 200 1 10. County: Randolph
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34,872312): 3 5. 7 8 S 6 7 6 Longitude (ex.-77,556611): -79.665417
. . . . . . .............. ... . -
Method location determined (circle): (zi;.5,�,)q.po Sheet �' ,rtho (Aerial) PhotoZ
1,�>OthcrGIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note - nearby -'roads "'-a-"n-'d"Tan'd'iffgtk-s- and attach map identifying streams) location):
SC flows south into the project area from a private drive.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Light rain in last 48 hours
16. Site conditions at time of visit Cool, cloudy
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 _X L(MV)
18. Is there apond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES(, If yes, estimate the water surface area
19. Does channel appear on USES quad map? YES QKT 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: 10 %Residential % Commercial % Industrial 2 0 % Agricultural
J_Vlo Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other
22. Bankfull width:, 4 1 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1- 2
24. Channel slope down center of stream: —Flat (0 to 2%) —Gentle (2 to 4%) X Moderate (4 to 10%) N)
—Steep ( >10 %0)
25. Channel sinuosity: —Straight Occasional bends X Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2). Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, ter-rain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion, Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown 'for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e,g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 63 - Comments:Stream reach originates outside of
project area. Feature enters study area at culvert outlet underneath
residential driveway. Channel ends and !goes subterranean at flag SC_9
-Approximately 10 feet from Sandy Greek.
Evaluator's Signature . . .... ... Date 02/08,/201-2
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

TIP# B-5360
SC
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
E4COREGION POINT
GE
CHARACTERISTICS
CCU
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 - 5
0-4
0 - 5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
4
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0- 5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration= max points)
5
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wade buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 4
0-4
4
(extensive discharges - 0; no discharges = max points)
-
3
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
let
(no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points,)
3
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0 - 2
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain max poi nts )
0
Entrenchment/ floodplain access
0- 5
0- 4
0- 2
dee 1 entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points
0
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander T max points)
3
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0- 4
extensive deposition- 0; little or no sediment = max points
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max p Dints)
2
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 -- 4
0-5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
4
�
13
Presence of major, bank failures
J
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
5
14
]toot depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
(no visible roots - 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
4
l5
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
3
16
Presence of riffle- pool /ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well- develo ed = max points)
3
Habitat : complexity
17
0 -6
0 -6
0 -6
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats - max points)
3
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 - 5
0 -5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
5
19
Substrate embeddeduess
NA
0-4
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max )
3
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 5
0-5
20
no evidence - 0; common numerous types = max points)
-
3
Presence of amphibians p '� hibians
0 -4
0 -4
0-4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types - max oats)
0
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points
0
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0 - 5
2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
IN
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
6 3
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project /Site: TIP # B -5360 City /County: Randolph Sampling Date: 04/24/2012
Applicant /Owner: North Carolina Department of Transporation State: NC Sampling Point: WA -UP
Investigator(s): B. Reed, A. Reusche, KHA Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): HIIISIope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope ( %): 1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.7851 Long: - 79.6656 Datum: NAD 1983
Soil Map Unit Name: Pacolet fine San
loam
NWI classification: UPL
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes V I. Nol�. (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓❑ No ❑
Are Ve etation Fl Soil or H drolo E natural) problematic? If needed, explain an answers in Remarks.
9 Y 9Y Y p ( p Y )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes _I V I_ No —F-1—
y No _ V _ Is the Sampled Area
H dric Soil Present? Yes within a Wetland? Yes No, v ❑.
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _❑_ No_ R_
Remarks
The data point for WA -Up was taken approximately 40 feet upslope from flag WA -7. Randolph
County has received approximatley 0.7 inches of rain in the last 72 hours.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Surface Water (Al)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (131)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (133)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Water Present? Yes. No- _� Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes .E1 No _Q Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes —a No 21—
l_
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No wetland hydrology observed. Area is located upslope from wetland.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Acer saccharum
2. Fagus grandifolia
3 Acer negundo
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
% Cover
Species?
Status
20
Y
FACW
10
Y
FACU
10
Y
FACW
40 = Total Cover
1. Lizustrum sinense 10 Y FAC
2. Rosa multiflora 10 Y UPL
3. Cercis canadensis 2 N FACU
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Microstegium vimineum
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
22 = Total Cover
50 Y FAC+
gyp_ = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Lonicera japonica 5 Y FAC-
2. Vitis rotundifolia 5 Y FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
1 n = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Area is dominated by Japanese stiltgrass.
Sampling Point: WA -UP
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
$
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
75
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A /B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals: 0
(A) 0 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 0
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is < -3.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation �
Present? Yes _I r L No _a
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL Sampling Point: WA -UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0 -4
7.5YR 3/3
100
Clay loam
4 -16
7.5YR 4/4
100
Loamy clay
16 -24
7.5YR 4/6
100
Loamy clay
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_❑ Histosol (Al)
,❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
HSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
F-1 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
n Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
No redoximorphic features in the profile.
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes _❑_ No F7_1
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project /Site: TIP # B -5360 City /County: Randolph Sampling Date: 04/24/2012
Applicant /Owner: North Carolina Department of Transporation State: NC Sampling Point: WA -WET
Investigator(s): B. Reed, A. Reusche, KHA Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): HIIISIope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope ( %): 1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.7852 Long: - 79.6655 Datum: NAD 1983
Soil Map Unit Name: Pacolet fine San
loam
NWI classification: UPL
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes V I. Nol�. (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓❑ No ❑
Are Ve etation Fl Soil or H drolo E natural) problematic? If needed, explain an answers in Remarks.
9 Y 9Y Y p ( p Y )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes _II7_ No _ ❑_
y _I V I_ No _ _ Is the Sampled Area
H dric Soil Present? Yes within a Wetland. Yes No, ❑.
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _0— No _ ❑_
Remarks:
WA is a linear, floodplain pool that primarily receives hydrology from the overflow waters of Sandy Creek. WA begins
just south of the bridge on Low Bridge Road. WA flows into Sandy Creek outside of the study area. The data point was
taken adjacent to flag WA -7. Randolph County has received approximately 0.7 inches of rain in the last 72 hours.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Surface Water (Al)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (131)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (133)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Water Present? Yes E No _ Depth (inches): 10
Water Table Present? Yes,i v i— No _ Depth (inches): 2 -6
Saturation Present? Yes ✓❑_ No _Q Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes — ✓a No=—
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Primary hydrologic input is from the overflow waters of Sandy Creek. The wetland is comprised
small areas of standing water in pools. Soils are saturated to the surface.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Acer negundo
2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica
3 Fagus grandifolia
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
% Cover
Species?
Status
30
Y
FACW
20
Y
FACW
10
N
FACU
60 = Total Cover
1. Rosa multiflora 30 Y UPL
2. Ligustrum sinense 10 Y FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Boehmeria cylindrica
2. Microstegium vimineum
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 0
1, none
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
40 = Total Cover
10 Y FACW+
10 Y FAC+
9p_ = Total Cover
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling Point: WA -WET
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
6
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
83
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A /B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals: 0
(A) 0 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 0
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is < -3.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation �
Present? Yes _I r L No _a
Area is sparsely vegetated, likely due to frequent flooding and inundation.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL Sampling Point: WA -WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0 -4 2.5Y 6/2 100 Alluvial sand
4 -14 10YR 5/2 70 10YR 5/6 30 RM M Sand
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_❑ Histosol (Al)
,❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
HSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
F-1 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
n Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
.❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
,❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
,❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes _❑✓ _ No F-1_
Soil becomes too saturated to sample below 14 ". Redoximorphic features were observed at 4 ".
Alluvial deposition was strongly present throughout wetland.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version