20071023 Ver 1_Application_20070611

~ ~ Kimley-Hom
~ ~ and Associates, Inc.
Project Summary Sheet

~uN ~ ~ X007
t~~NR • WATER gUALITY
wETUWOa A~'Vp STOR9MMATFR BRANCH
~, ~ ~
Project Name: Holly Springs Business Park Pump Station Project
Applicant Name and Address: Town of Holly Springs
Attn: Stephanie Sudano, P.E., Director of Engineering
Post Office Box 8
Holly Springs NC 27540
Telephone Number:S919) 557-3938
Type of Request: ®Nationwide PCN (NWP # 12) ^ Indivic
^ Jurisdictional Determination ^ Other:
Included Attachments: ®Project Plans ®USGS Map
® Agent Authorization ®Delineation Sketch
® Data Forms (Up & Wet) ®NCDWQ Stream Forms
^ NCEEP Confirmation ®Aerial Photo
^ Agency Correspondence ^ Other:
lual Permit Application
® NRCS Soil Survey
^ Delineation Survey
® USAGE Stream Forms
® Site Photos
^ Other:
Check if applicable: ^ CAMA County ^ Trout County ^ Isolated Waters PAYMENT
^ Section 7, ESA ^ Section 106, NHPA ^ EFH
^ Mitigation Proposed (^ NC EEP ^ On-Site ^ Off-Site ^ Other) RECEIVED
County: Wake Nearest City/Town: Ho11~Snrings
Waterway: Utley Creek River Basin: Cape Fear
H.U.C.: 03030004
Property Size (acres): +/- 12.5
Site Coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.6499 °N
USGS Quad Name: Anex, NC
Approx. Size of Jurisdiction on Site (acres): +/- 1.0
78.8732 °W
Project Location: The project is en~erall~located in a 8,000 foot corridor, located west of NC-55 Bypass and south of New
Hill Road in the Holly Springs Business Park, in Holly Springs, Wake County, North Carolina.
Site Description: The project corridor is located west of downtown Ho11y Springs, in the Holly Springs Business Park. The
corridor follows Green Oaks Parkway and Utley Creek. The surrounding land is primarily forested
Impact Summary (if applicable): The proposed project includes the construction of a new pump station to replace an
existingpump station and the replacemenbextension of approximately 8,000 linear feet of force main and 3,000 feet of
sanitary sewer line. The project will result in permanent impacts to 45 linear feet of stream channel, and temporary impacts
to 163 linear feet of stream channel and 0.058 acre of wetland.
W
t
O tl
W
d Stream Channel
pen
a
er an
e
NWP (acres) (acres) Intermittent and/or Unimportant Perennial and/or Important
# A vatic Function A vatic Function
Tem Perm. Tem Perm.
Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. If ac if ac if ac If Ac
12 0 0 0.058 0 133 0.007 26 0.002 30 0.004 19 0.003
Total Permanent Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.005
Kimley-Horn Contact: Todd Tugwell
Direct Number: 919-677-2104
^ ^
P.0 Box 33088 TEL [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina FAX [phone]
27636.3088

. ~
.~
~ ~ Kimley-Hom
-.'~ ~ and Associates, Inc.
June 8, 2007
Mr. James Shern
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Re: Holly Springs Business Park Pump Station
Nationwide Permit #12 Application Submittal
Wake County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Shern and Ms. Karoly:
07-1023
~.
=- r
On behalf of The Town of Holly Springs, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. is
submitting the enclosed Preconstruction Notification Application for
authorization to construct the above reference project under Nationwide Permit
Number 12.
The proposed project includes the construction of a new pump station to replace
an existing pump station and the replacement/extension of approximately 8,000
linear feet of force main and 3,000 feet of sanitary sewer line. The project will
result in permanent impacts to 45 linear feet of stream channel, and temporary
impacts to 163 linear feet of stream channel and 0.058 acre of wetland. The
following information is included with this submittal:
• Project Summary Sheet
• Preconstruction Notification Form
• Permit Maps and Figures
• Wetland and Stream Data Forms
• Site Photographs
• Agent Authorization Form
~~~~~~~
JUN 1 12007
~)ENR - WATER 4UALITY
W+ETtAND,S ADD STn~a;~.NgTFR BRANCH
^
P.0 Box 33066
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636-3068
^
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

~ Kimley-Horn
': ~ and Associates, Inc.
If there is any additional information you need to assist in the processing of this
application, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Todd J. Tu el
Environmental dentist
Enclosures
Cc: Ms. Stephanie Sudano, P.E., Director of Engineering

~p~,~"~`; 20071023
Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USAGE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(lf any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide Permit 12
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), the ) ~`~
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information JUN 1 1. 2007
Name: Town of Holl S rin s AL1TY
Attn: Stephanie Sudano, P.E., Director of En~Nk~t9~ STATFR
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 8
Holly Springs, NC 27540
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: Stephanie.sudanona~lysprin~snc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Attn: Todd Tugwell
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number:~919) 677-2030
E-mail Address: todd.tugwell(a~kimley-horn.com

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Holl~prinps Business Park Pump Station and Force Main
2. T.LP. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): NA
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): NA
4. Location
County: Wake Nearest Town: Holl~prings
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): NA
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): The project is ,eg_ nerally
located in a 9,100-linear foot corridor, located west of NC-55 Bypass and south of New Hill
Road, in the Holly Springs Business Park, in Holly Springs, Wake County North Carolina.
Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossi ng of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum):
Impact 1 - 35.6499 °N 78.8732 °W
Impact 2 - 35.6484 °N 78.8729 °W
Impact 3 - 35.6467 °N 78.8703 °W
Impact 4 - 35.6480 °N 78.8667 °W
Impact 5 - 35.6501 °N 78.8646 °W
Impact 6 - 35.6503 °N 78.8630 °W
Impact 7 - 35.6506 °N 78.8615 °W
Impact 8 - 35.6510 °N 78.8590 °W
6. Property size (acres):
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Utley Creek

8. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The project corridor is located west of downtown Holly
Springs, in the Holly Springs Business Park. The corridor follows Green Oaks Parkway, an
unnamed tributary to Utley Creek and the main stem of Utley Creek. A vicinity map is
included as Figure 1. The surrounding area is currently undergoing residential, commercial,
and industrial development, though much of the area in the immediate vicinity of the road
corridor is wooded with mixed pine-hardwood stands ranging from 20-50 years old.
Several streams and wetlands occur along the project corridor. The lower portion of the
corridor runs in the vicinity of an old pond that was partially drained in the past. The pond
bottom has returned to forest cover since being drained.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
project consists of the construction of a new pump station approximately 2,200 feet downhill
of an existing, smaller pump station that will be abandoned. The rg avity sewer that runs to
the existing_pumn station will be extended to the new pump station, and the 8" force main
that carries sewage from the existing_pump station will be extended and replaced with a new
16" force main. The project corridor is best described in three sections. The eastern-most
section begins at the intersection of Green Oaks Parkway and Irving Parkway, where it will
connect with a force main that runs south alone Parkway to the Town of Holly Springs
Waste Water Treatment Plant. From the intersections, the corridor runs west for
approximately 2,200 feet along Green Oaks Parkway, which is currently a two lanes wide
but it is proposed to be widened to four lanes. In this section, the proposed force main
corridor was on finally proposed to parallel the south side of the road, but was moved to the
center of the road to reduce impacts. As a result, all impacts to streams and wetlands
associated with this section have been eliminated.
The second section of the corridor runs from Green Oaks Parkwa~g an existin ug tility_
easement that parallels an unnamed tributary of Utley Creek for approximately 3 600 feet
terminating at an existing_pump station at the western end that will be abandoned once the
new pump station is in operation. There is a dirt road that runs down the middle of the
easement that allows access to the existing_pump station. The existing easement current
contains a rg avity sewer that begins as an 8" line and expands to a 10" line toward the
western end, which will remain in use. Approximately 760 feet of the western (downhill]
end the existing ravity sewer is proposed to be replaced in place with new 24" line, which
will be extended to carry sewage to the new pump station. This section of the corridor also
contains an existing 8" force main that will be abandoned once the new 16" force main is
operational. With the exception of approximately 175 feet, the new force main in this section
is proposed to be located on the north side of the existing utility lines in an effort to reduce
i~acts to the unnamed tributary of Utley Creek and adjacent wetlands that are located to the

The third section of the corridor is approximately 2,200 feet in length. It begins at the
existing trump station (that will be abandoned and parallels Utley Creek to the location of
the new proposed pump station This section will require the clearing of a new utility line
corridor Both the force main and gravity sewer to be constructed will be new in this section.
This section also runs in the vicinity of the drained pond bed which has returned to forest
cover Stream F is located within a portion of the utility corridor just south of the pump
station but this stream dissipates into the floodplain and will not be disturbed.
In addition to thepump station and utility corridor maintenance is necessary on an existing
access road located between the new pump station and New Hill Road to allow access for
maintenance~urposes The road surface is currently packed dirt and the overall road
condition is poor The road width will be widened from 8 feet to 12 feet and gravel will be
added to the surface and some of the side slopes will be graded. Additionally, two culverts
will need to be extended and riprap will be added on the stream banks at the culvert inlets
and outlets to stabilize the stream crossings.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the proposed work is to replace
and upPrade the existing sewer service in the vicinity. The pump station will replace an
older less reliable pump station and upgrade the existing ravity line and force main. The
location of the new pump station will allow it to serve a slightly expanded area, however no
new rg avity sewers are proposed so the effective service area remains the same. Upgrades
are necessary to support additional demand caused by residential and industrial growth
within the existing_service area.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. The existing_pump station rg avity line and force main are approximately
17 years old It is not known whether the existing facilities received written authorization for
prior impacts At the time they were constructed Federal and State regulations did not require
written authorization for wetland and stream impacts.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
There are no plans for additional facilities at this time. All proposed impacts are included in this
application

VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identiEable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:
Impact 1 - Re- rg ading, an existing dirt road for maintenance purposes will require the addition
of a 6-foot culvert extension at the downstream end and placement of riprap along the banks of
Stream P for 13 linear feet below the culvert outlet. Impacts are depicted on Figure 1.
Impact 2 - Re- rg ading an existing dirt road for maintenance purposes will require the addition
of a 10-foot culvert extension at the upstream end and placement of riprap along the banks of
Stream H for 4 linear feet upstream of the culvert inlet and 12 linear feet downstream of the
culvert outlet. Impacts are depicted on Figure 2.
Impact 3 -Construction of the new utility corridor will result in temporary excavation, the
installation of a force main and rg avity sewer, and placement of backfill and riprap. The banks
of Stream G within the permanently maintained utility easement will be stabilized with riprap
The total impact to the stream will be 401inear feet. This impact is depicted on Figure 3.
Impact 4 -Construction of the new force main within the existing_permanently maintained
utility easement will require the temporary disturbance of 0.004 acre of Wetland D. This impact
is depicted on Figure 4.
Impact 5 -Construction of the new utility corridor will result in temporary excavation, the
installation of a force main and rg avity sewer, and placement of backfill and riprap. The banks
of Stream E within the permanently maintained utility easement will be stabilized with riprap.
The total impact to the stream will be 16 linear feet. This impact is depicted on Figure 5.
Impact 6 -Construction of the new force main within the proposed permanently maintained
utility easement will require the disturbance of 0.032 acre of Wetland P. This area will be
converted to permanently maintained easement. This impact is depicted on Figure 6.
Impact 7 -Construction of the new force main within the existing and proposed permanently
maintained utility easement will require the disturbance of 0.013 acre of Wetland B and R (0.003
acre of existing permanently maintained easement and 0.010 acre of proposed permanently
maintained easement). This crossing will also result in the temporary disturbance of 30 linear
feet of Stream C and 66 linear feet of Stream D. This impact is depicted on Figure 7.
Impact 8 -Construction of the new force main within the existing permanently maintained
utility easement will require the temporary disturbance of 0.009 acre of Wetland A. This
crossing will also result in the temporary disturbance of 27 linear feet of Stream B. This impact
is depicted on Figure 8.

2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Located within Distance to Area of
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland 100-year Nearest Impact
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, Floodplain Stream (acres)
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) es/no linear feet
1 No Wetland Im act NA NA NA NA
2 No Wetland Im act NA NA NA NA
3 No Wetland Im act NA NA NA NA
Impact 4 Temporary - Herbaceous No 50 0.004
Wetland D Excavation and Backfill
5 No Wetland Im act NA NA NA NA
Impact 6 Temporary - Forested, Converted to No 70 0.032
Wetland P Excavation and Backfill Maintained Easement
Impact 7 Temporary - Herbaceous No 40 0.003
Wetland B Excavation and Backfill
Impact 7 Temporary - Forested, Converted to No 50 0.010
Wetland B & R Excavation and Backfill Maintained Easement
Impact 8 Temporary - Forested, Converted to No 50 0.009
Wetland A) Excavation and Backfill Maintained Easement
Total Wetland Im act acres 0.058
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: +/- 1 Acre
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact Perennial or Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact Intermittent? Stream Width Length Impact
indicate on ma Before Im act linear feet acres
Impact 1
UT to Utley Creek Culvert Extension/
Perennial
6
19
0.003
Stream P Ri ra Dissi ater
Impact 2 UT to Utley Creek Culvert Extension/ Intermittent 4 26 0.002
Stream H Ri ra Dissi ater
Impact 3 UT to Utley Creek Temporary Intermittent 2 40 0.002
Stream G Disturbance
Im act 4 No Stream Im act NA NA NA NA NA
Impact 5 UT to Utley Creek Temporary Intermittent
Stream E Disturbance
Im act 6 No Stream Im act NA NA NA NA NA
Impact 7 UT to Utley Creek Temporary perennial 2 30 0.004
Stream C Disturbance
Impact 7 UT to Utley Creek Temporary Intermittent 2 66 0.004
Stream D Disturbance
Impact 8 UT to Utley Creek Temporary Intermittent 2 27 0.001
Stream B Disturbance
Total Stream Im act b len th and acrea e 208 0.016

5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
indicate on ma ocean, etc. acres
NA NA
Total O en Water Im act acres NA
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the nroiect:
Stream Im act (acres): 0.016
Wetland Im act acres : 0.058
O en Water Im act acres : NA
Total Im act to Waters of the U.S. acres 0.069
Total Stream Im act linear feet : 208
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. The majority of the utility
easement for the project includes a 40-foot permanently maintained easement, and a temporary
10-foot construction easement on either site, for a total width of 60 feet. At each crossing of a
stream or wetland, no work will occur within the temporary construction easements, thereby
minimizing each crossing to a maximum width of 40 feet, as per NWP 12 Regional Condition

#3. Portions of the force main and sewer corridor were relocated in an effort to avoid and reduce
impacts to streams and wetlands. The eastern section of the force main was originally proposed
to run parallel to the south side of Green Oaks Parkway. However, following the identification
of streams and wetlands in the corridor, the force main was relocated to the center of Green Oaks
Parkwa~therel~ eliminating impacts associated with this section. With the exception of a small
section (+/- 175 feet) the middle section of the corridor is located to the north side of the
existing force main and sewer corridor since the southern side contains more wetlands and
streams The corridor was also located along an existing easement to minimize impacts. Several
of the wetland areas that will be temporarily disturbed by construction were likely formed due to
ponding that has occurred as a result of the existing access road and corridor. The new pump
station was also shifted to the east to avoid impacts to a wetland area located just to the west of
its currentlyproposed location Directional drilling is not a feasible option. Within the middle
section the existing force main and gravity sewer along with an overhead power line create too
many obstacles to safely install an additional 16" force main and 24" rg avity line. Within the
new corridor the only proRosed crossing is Impact 3 (Stream G), which is a small
intermittent/unimportant tributary. At this location the cost of drilling and/or boring the stream
channel was determined to be cost~rohibitive particularlygiven the overall low function of the
stream Photos and stream data forms are included with this application.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http: //h2o. enr.state. nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide. html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions

and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No mitigation for the impacts is proposed due to the minimal nature of the impacts to streams
and wetlands Additionally with the exception of stream impacts 1 and 2, which total 45
linear feet all proposed imRacts result from temporary disturbance. Wetlands and stream
channels will be returned back to their previous grade and contour following completion of
the project Finally proposed impacts have been minimized to the maximum practicable
extent and the maiority of the impacts will occur within or adjacent to existing easements.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federaUstate) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ^ No
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ^ No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,

and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multinliers.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feet) Mitieation
3 (2 for Catawba)
1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. No buffers established by state rules will be
impacted. Local Town of Holly Springs buffers which extend to 30 feet from the stream are
in effect and will be addressed directl~y the Town.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. Due to the nature of the project, it is not
anticipated that this project will generate any additional Stormwater The only impervious
surfaces will be those minimal fills necessary for the construction of the pump station The
utility line corridors will be returned to grade and allowed to reveRetate.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
This project is not anticipated_to generate any additional wastewater. Wastewater that currently
flows to the existing pump station will be routed through the new pump station which will
transport the sewage to the Town of Holly Springs Waste Water Treatment Plant.

XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
The proposed project is in response to existing demand for sewer upgrades. No additional
gravity lines are proposed -the pump station will only receive sewage from the existing sewer
line which will be upgraded to meet the current demand. To meet this demand, the pump station
has been designed to a capacity of 1 740 alg lops per minute.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Applica ent's~ignature Date
(Agent's signature i valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)

Appendix A -Permit Maps

lid a
yak ~ o.
- ~
~
~
~
\a~s
~~,
~
a
~
~
~ ~.
:'
~
S y,
m B it Rd ~
~''~
~r
a
d Q r
~ chnologY
°
-~' 1 c
rn
`~
~* a
~ ~ o Rd
1 Z end
{~
Critten e
SR o ~~~r
O\agto Upset Lake R

o
~~54
a
Q th a
d~ to ~
F~~en
al Dr
yon
y
S'p
r~~9SNeW Hil\Ra r t
olly prin9s Ftd
P
e S ~d
~-~, ke Rd
~ 7f
O~
o
y
9
9s ~
~ s ~
~~, ~ 1395
'AQ, e

Z
e
Q,d ms Rd
a
0
Avent F Rd
~ Honeycutt Rd 55
W de Nas Rd
ReXRd Peopi Dr
a R
od ~~\ Rd
~
s
O` ,~:
~OiQ ence arm Rd o
y
Gm f, a
3
$,(~t7(~ i~,~lt;l: in
~ oo
h

Title Vicinity Map
e~epa~~ ro, Wetland and Stream Delineation
t*~ws~ Project Holly Springs
ti
2 Wale County, North Carolina
• Date Project Number Figure
6/8/07 01239012 1
G~-1

~~
O
~~
w /
/\
O

. '~
~
•
"
~
'
~.,~..~ ~~
~y;. 0 ~ !*: r; ~*~,... ~ ,i„#'
..:'~a~
~' ~Y ~
..
r a
~` - ter
. r.r•
+ ~ ~ ~
.•

^
'_

Q
.

_

1;~`. -~ 'd'

~
'"~r~qk.,,
v ~~yy~,~~
6~
~ N
f~
i.
6J
N
7 '-"
z
~ M
U N
6J O
.~
O
L
CL
y r
~ o
O O°
G
0
`~ . ~
a~
G p
N cO
Q U
~ ~
~ o
z
~~
~~~~
.~ ~. o
G ~ U
~~
~o~
3s3
~ w
o ~
~ •=,
o
L
~. a
cC
~.
bq
O
O
a
,~ c° o0
i, v „~
Q ;,,* ca
°' ~~,
'N•
F
Y
~~
11
V

Y
~E
~~
u
o a o
f ~p way ~ ~J = ~ y~ ' ~ o
4,
~ ~ ~ ~,
,.`' ~ ~ ~ r"" ~ N .,~ d
.~ , ~ a -~..'~ m ~ .i ~ ~
,+ ~-
6 al ` ~ 6Ad' ~' "'~ ~'~~. o
N
~ ~ O
s ~ ~ ~
'`` ,~ ~ '~ ' CA L1~., f6 ~ (gyp O
off" 1 f ~rs ~ ~ > f0 In
-- ' ~ ~ Y ;~'ti _ I IJ,J
y- ash s C C «+ ~ I
~ ~' C D ~ ~ Z
i ~ !
~ ,
-. _' ~ _ ,
,.
.;
__ _ w~_ ;
ft
,~
~, [ ~ ~ ~ ~,
~ ,. ~~ _~. R ~ 111
~ f X ~ ~,
,~ r ~ 4'`~ _ i ~ f ~ a
. ~t - ~ ~
Y ,~.."
r ~ ; b .. .' ''' ~ .® 4 ...
~r ~ a. a
:i
y . w
. _ ~ ~ ~R
~ iA
`` .~
., ,
c'
4 ~ 1 ~¢ ~ ~g
F
.- Ay t
s q
T T
a ... -_"
F ~~
~ _~ ~ N
9a ~
1 "~..'~~
~`~ °~
#' ~ ~~..
S
4,
.rte} ''VV~~'} {,j + ~ ~ ..
~ P y
? ' 6 I f f
.- ,*.fi t ~ z P ~,
~.:
i ~ ~,~
~ ,,
. ~ ~~.
~; ~ :,
p'
,~ ~~
_. ~ . ~ ~~,, ,,, •.k
r - ~..
~ sy 1 - a,4
w
~.-
,.. _.
,~, .. a
~ ~ 6 ., d
t ~"`4..~ .~ ~ ~,r _ ~'~. Y
f
..
r
'~~ ~„ .~~
a ~ ~ r <
y \ ;;~~
,.. - "
ry
~„ ~
V
-- ~"'~x
~4 ~ .
~r
4 ~~ ~
L
~ M
w
L
Gd
E N
~ o
z
~.+ M
U N
~ O
~O
^^L
F~
r
o
A ~
0
~~
~ K
.~ O
CJ R
Q U
z
~ N
ro '~ ~
b a o
c~U
ro ~' ^
3~3
v ~O
~.
0. a
bA
O
~.
O
H
U" ~ • OO
?y'1~ DO
a. .N,H
+.+

~s ~ R ~
~V~ ~ ~;,~.. ~",¢° ~ u ° 'L . _ ~ ~...._ ~~h I~ "~.
~
~~ ~.1 air -N-

~ .~ *,~~h~ fi'11MY~a ~

"
~
% '.~ ~
~ ~ _I'M £
r y r}
>'•t~~~
.~ ~~
~ a ~Vt '~~~! w~, w~ ~` M~F
:~' s ~ ~ ~
C.1 N
_
r 1
l ~
U ~~~ ~
i,
?
~
~ ~
'
~ ~
~ : - 1 °~ ~(p. ~ .~rw.~
},' ~ y`+r
~
r ~iy
_ ~ ~ '
. r
r
W
+y~ p.
1
,
~ ,F
~ ° ~ Q

`rte
~ ~ F.,,t~ ~'~ N y~ .t
'
~ h' 4 . ,~
,

_ ,_
~ ~
~-
"-
! -
s
r
J
x ,~

~ Y

c'
~

~
~ yyJ
m
!y ~
! 'lF~~ jP ~ ~
~ i e
m '~. [~ .
~'•-~l
W, ~' (n '~ ~ y
I
~ _
'~~
~ °
.
"tlr-tom ''
~ ate....
`"
' f m,~(~'~i.
" ~ry~.~H' '~ _~~~~ ~ (aj _ ~ ~ ~
' U ~
• "'a
rF«
te.
~ '
' - =~ I ~'_/^~ ~ (~'(
[~ ~y`F d

-
~
~
`
~ '' (~
.
~ .'~'
; '
~ h +t''s ; a ~r . ~, ~kp
~' ~ N ~ -: a ~'' ` ', ~ C ~ aN.. ~ ~
y -
'
' l~~
' v

~
o _'~.
~
4 ~ M~ ~ hr 'C ~
° Ib .L
..
,~
a;.
'"
1 _ ~
~` 4. T g~~ar
,~
ai 7!
*r'Y R
sJ4
~~ ~ ~ i. J

~ ~
T
~
..rt ~
r
w
y~ z
'~
J a a
~~
A /1~
W
•~,

m `i ' CI
'
°r4" ~ ~~
.
g
4
'
'
a ~ Y
~

'.i
~i
c y

.,~: M ~iY ,. Y

G=,
~.
~•' N
z
+.+ M
U N
~ ~
.~
O
L
a
o i
A
0
~~
0
~~
Q ~
E
~,
o
'- z
~~
~~~
~ ~ ~
~ o ~
3x3
~.+
V
Y
~O
L
a.
o ~ oo•
(n ~ ~ co.
a y
.N.w
6)
~:+
E"~
Y
j€~
$E
~~
u

CL
3
...
~.
O
i
c
0
.,.,
c~
a~
..,
A
b
c~

~ ~~ "
n ~"

C
I
C
O
.r.,
c~
C
.,~
a~
A
'C
C
e~
a~

N
r..,
C
I
C
O
.~
c~
...
A
b
C
a~

W i
~.
~ %;
^~
M
C
I
C
0
.~
a~
..,
A
b

a~
C
I
C
0
..~
C
.,~
A
.b
C

Appendix B -Permit Figures

IMPACT 1 IMPACT 5
OLD PUMP STATION
IMPACT 2
IMPACT 8
IMPACT 7
IMPACT6 07' 123
IMPACT 3
IMPACT 4
SECTION 3 SECTION 2 SECTION 1
NEW PUMP STATION
KEY PLAN
SCALE: 1 "=500'
Z
F' O_
Q~Q
~U~
_O
J
~1.~ Z
Z O
Q
m ~
Na
z~
Q. ~
~a
NY
~a
0
2
z
Q
J
w
Z
0
~_
Q
n.
Q ~
o ~
c
N
d
td
N
~~
~_
T
m
E
Y
ti
w?
~~
~s
UN
~<
W4
K~
a
u~z
a
30
x
~I
x~
U
;Y
K~
7~
U
~Z5
<~
Wt
o;
aw
~m
a~
w
~~
rc
U
~Z
JN
2~
Og
~~
wN
o~
0
~~
_Z
w~
U~
w
N
OY
Z~
~o
~a
z~
~g
~°
WN
~~
€Z
0
3w
~U
W~
O~
~~
W
~o
~~
U-
g0
N~
~O

:~
~ ``~
13 LF RIPRAP -
DISSIPATER PAD
PROPOSED RIP RAP,-
STREAM BANKS ONLY
,.._.
.: ~~,~.
~p ~~ri~ j"~y';.i
~•~~
\l ~
LEGEND
PTCE PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
EPMUE EXISTING PERMANENT MAINTAINED UTILITY EASEMENT
PPMUE PROPOSED PERMANENT MAINTAINED UTILITY EASEMENT
~~ AREA OF STREAM IMPACT
® AREA OF WETLAND IMPACT
~'- SILT FENCE
= _ _' WETLAND
DITCH LINING
DIRT ROAD
IMPACT 1
PROPOSED 6' OF ~
CULVERT EXTENSION
~~
~'
-~~~` ~ •'- STREAM "P»
~' ~ ..,_
Gtr ~~
'`~ _ l
PROPOSED ROAD
w
~ ~
C7 ~ N?
wN
~ z~
S
U
a~
wo
~~
a
z
30
x
(n t 1
(n x~
U
Z ~ ;x
Q ~o
m ~ ~ mgt
(~' ~ U7
z ~ or,
~ ~ ~o
w
UaI o;
~ aw
~m
J ~ a~
W
~N
2
U
OZ
JN
~s
OQ
WN
ON
~<
0
~~
Z
w~
U~
2
I
Z w~
Q ~
J ~Y
~ }m}m
w WZ
(n ~F
?`
o ~4
~~
~ Zo
a Ws
~ _-
0
a
w~
~Z
a~
i~
~;
~i 5
00
c€
r ~3
Q ~ ~~
o ~ Z~
~ U~
wN
~~
z
U 3 O
C W
~U
m w~
~N ~~
~~~ o~
w
0
~_ ~~
~ U'
E o~
Y N
~O

~ I
~,
,~
_~ ~ ~ ~~
~~ i
~: y `I
l
PROPOSED 10' OF '
CULVERT EXTENSION \
PROPOSED RIP RAP,
STREAM BANKS ONLY
IMPACT 2
STREAM "H"
t ~ ~, ~
~, ~ i ~
f ;, s
~~~"~ ~ ~ !
I fF
k
~ i
,~
i
~ ~
Y
i l
1
r~~ , ~
~, ~ ~ ,~
..-
r
1a ~
J ` r_
~ ~ .
~.~~
;, ~ ~~
~~
,t~ -~
~G
LEGEND
PTCE PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
EPMUE EXISTING PERMANENT MAINTAINED UTILITY EASEMENT
PPMUE PROPOSED PERMANENT MAINTAINED UTILITY EASEMENT
~~ AREA OF STREAM IMPACT
® AREA OF WETLAND IMPACT
-~`'- SILT FENCE
[ _ _ _ ] WETLAND
t ,t
t 1 't
.,
y t~
3
`~~
t
1 ',
1
1
DIRT ROAD
~'~ l
4 LF RIPRAP INLET
PROTECTION IN PPMUE
~ 1.2-L~n. RIPRAP
~ ` ~-~ ~~ ~ DISSIPATER PAD
~~~
~c
,4
U
fW/! Z
W~
~g
U
w~
~d~
rc~
a
~z
30
t=
x~
U
;Y
~o
0
~~
U
05
~zo
WC
N;
jm
a~
W
~N
U
OZ
~N
og
00
oN
0
~~
~~
_Z
w~
U~
W
N
O}y
~Zm
~F
Z~
~~
~°
Zo
W~
x~
rc
~~
~Z
a~
i~
~5
00
o~
~;
W
~Z
W~
U~
ZO
U~
~~
~z
0
3W
~U
W~
~W
o~
~~
W
~a
~a
~~
U'
o°
Vl Z
~O

Y ~
W?
(' N
~V1
~ K~
g
UN
~N
WO
K~
a
z
30
x
~ tl
(n x
w Z U
Z ~ ;Y
(n ~ KO
~ Q O
m ~ ~~
(~ ~ U~
z ~ 05
~ ~ ~O
~ O;
Y aw
~ rcm
J Q- a
O ~N
U
OZ
JN
Z~
Og
w~
o~
0
N~
_z
W~
U~
Z
I
Z ~~
J ~
a pY
W w~
~ ~F
~ a
z
O ~~
~ ~~
~ zo
wF
~ ~~_
~ rc
~ ~~
rc~
a
is
c~ 3
~i5
00
o€
I~ ~3
O
z
w
w~
D \ is
(p U O
W~
h
2
c ;O
w
rc~
`~ _
U
N O a'
Q F' ~
~ w
~_ ~~
U-
E CZ
Y d
u ~o

~---

/ ~ J
'"
',
/ , -'
~r
1 ~ '`
~ ~ i
~. -' / ./
/ .-y
,~
/ ~
i~ ~
.. ~ , ~..
~,~..d..
~.~
5~~ ~ / ,~i
~~
J
WETLAND "S" 4~ Q~ ~ J
} Q~
{ `}
r~ ~
,' ~ / ~
~; s , ~ ~~ EXISTING PUMP 1 ~ `~v__ _ _._ - ~
,.~ ~ -
~.
Qr
.~ ~ +d~ f s
~.
f/f ~ /
~''~ / ~
+~{"
J~u
Q~
STATION TO BE 1 . ~ / ~e
- - - ABANDONED 1 ~ ~ ;~ _. --,~ ~ _
IMPACT 4 ~,,~ ~t/~ ~ ~ ~ ~
t
~~ ~ ~ ~~ /~~~~ ~ t
~\ ~ ~ °~~ ~ _J a/'' \
,, f'" r
`~ ~ -EPMUE- - - ~ ~ 'f-~~~ ~~'4 _ _ ~~ 1 ~~
~ ~` ~
~_~ / ~
f _ A ~ /
~ .i ~ _ __ .
~~

EPMUE--- ..~
~~
~ ~'.

~~
,,
x.

~/ ,~ ~
_ e
_.
,. /
1 '~
~r
PROPOSED 24" SS
TIES INTO EX. SS
AC IN PPMUE
LEGEND
PTCE PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
EPMUE EXISTING PERMANENT MAINTAINED UTILITY EASEMENT
PPMUE PROPOSED PERMANENT MAINTAINED UTILITY EASEMENT
AREA OF STREAM IMPACT
® AREA OF WETLAND IMPACT
-~- SILT FENCE
[ _ _ _ ] WETLAND

`- PROPOSED FORCE MAIN ---
._r
. ~
i ~ 100 YR FLOOD ZONE
. ~
0.004
WETLAND "D"
~z~~jj
W~
rcg
NU
~6
KZ
aQ
z
3=
t~
U
;Y
~o
W~
U
~~
W;
V1
Km
~~
a
w
~y
~U
OZ
J~
z
og
og
Wy
ON
~<
0
~~
_Z
w~
U~
W
Vl
OY
~o
~~
?~
~~
~°
Zo
W~
_~
~~
~Z
a
z~
~;
~i5
o€
0
~;
~~
W~
U~
ZO
U~
~~
€Z
3°
W
W~
~w
~~
o~
W
a
~a
~~
8-
o
N~
~O

IMPACT 5
NO DISTURBANCE
WITHIN PTCE -'
~-
- /
STREAM "E" - ~ - -
- _~...
- ~ ...-/
- -°
- .~ " ' .
- °' ~,
I - - -~_'~ :.
/ --- ~/j
~ ~~ ~„
- ~~
P~C~ -
i
MBE
' PP
-// ~~,
i
-
~ ~~- ~ MUE
~' , Ep
~- ~~p~.%
- .-
- }- -- ~_
~- ---
__ _ ~,~ ,
_~
4 e , ~p~1Y
~ /
~- ° ~ t .- ~- .•-
~ ~, ~ .,r-- ~p .-
~ ' '"
~, , ,
~, ~,~..
F~ ~ :;' ,,,,,pFIP
,, '1
~ ~ t` ~ ~ ~.
rM" ~ ~- ~ ~ , , ~ ,- ~ .,. -
/~ / ~ / ~.
/` / -" i
/ -- as ( ~ ~~~
/ ~°~/~~~
f ~f ...~ ~, .~ ~ ~ f PMvE
.r-
_--_ - ~,
...
i
r-
...
~„
..
.\ /,
/~
~~,.
. ,
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
'`'~ OF EXISTING CULVERT.
.~~ NOT SURVEYED.
..
.~. ..
;,~
16 LF IN PPMUE
~~
LEGEND
PTCE PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
EPMUE EXISTING PERMANENT MAINTAINED UTILITY EASEMENT
PPMUE PROPOSED PERMANENT MAINTAINED UTILITY EASEMENT
AREA OF STREAM IMPACT
® AREA OF WETLAND IMPACT
-~ SILT FENCE
[ _ _ = ] WETLAND

- ~ NO DISTURBANCE
- - WITHIN PTCE
- -
- ~
- -
I
LEGEND
PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
EXISTING PERMANENT MAINTAINED UTILITY EASEMENT
PROPOSED PERMANENT MAINTAINED UTILITY EASEMENT
AREA OF STREAM IMPACT
AREA OF WETLAND IMPACT
SILT FENCE
WETLAND
-
- - ~, ~"? ~
- L
- ~-~ .~ ~,~~"~. ~~ WETLAND ' P"
-~ .0,02
- ~~,, .,
- - ~ t~
~®
_ ~-,r "~v~j- - -~ ` ~ ` ~ _ ~ ,,~ ` NO DISTURBANCE
,, ,r- ~ - ,~ ~ ~ --__ ___ ,~'' ~ WITHIN PTCE
.~- - `~ r
..
~..
~.
~ ~~
..- .. -°
,.- 1 ~ t
.-, -
~.r
~, ~.,p--~ ~ _ - ~~ ~ ~ ~ -'~_~ ~ ~i PTCE
~E.~
,,~
_~~° ~"'
. ., ~ ~` ~.
1
.~ ~ ~ EpM~~ ~ ~ .
" - . ~. ~ ~ MBE '~ ~~ ~p ~ ~ ~~.~-~
~t~~ ~~~ IMPACT 6 ~ -~~ w~~... ~~`~~ ~ ,

~~
/~- .
.. ~ ,~ ~ ~ , 0.032 AC I N .h 4~,~~
~ ~' \~PMUE
- ,'
II' i ~ ~ ,
Y \
WETLAND "P" \
'I
W
~ U
U' (O NZ
WN
LL a,
5
U
~~
Wa
~~
a
z
30
~, t=
W V~
Z Q ;Y
~ ~ ~o
~Q
m ~ W~
~ ~ ~~
Z ~ ~o
~~
u a;
~m
J d a~
w
O ~N
= U
OZ
JN
Z~
Og
Op
wN
o~
0
~~
Z
W~
U~
Z N~
J oY
W w~
''^^ ~F
V/ ~
o ~~
~~
~ Zo
wF
~ _~
a ~~
~~
a
_~
~3
o€
03
~~
O
w
Q ~ ~~
o ~ _~
~ V~
~~
Z
U ; Q
C w
~U
~ W~
y ~~
w
11 ~ O~
_ ~~
~ U-
E pZ
Y N
~O
PROPOSED FORCE MAIN

/ `~
LEGEND
r~
PTCE ,{'f PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
APPROXIMATE LOCATION 55 LF IN /~~ EPMI~E EXISTING PERMANENT MAINTAINED UTILITY EASEMENT
OF EXISTING CULVERT. PPMUE / °`/ /IMPACT 7 PPMUE PROPOSED PERMANENT MAINTAINED UTILITY EASEMENT
NOT SURVEYED. AREA OF STREAM IMPACT
~~ / ,~ ~
,t / ~, ® AREA OF WETLAND IMPACT
STREAM "D"
-~-
~.~ SILT FENCE
. / '`,
/ / WETLAND "B" [ _ _ _ ] WETLAND
11 LF I N ~ / ~~ ~
PPMUE ~ f ~~ / / ~ STREAM "C" WETLAND "R"
~.
;- :. ~ ' / I
~ ~'~ ~~ '''~__~ NO DISTUP°^"arc
/ ,// ~ ~ ,~
',,~ r.~~~` _ ,~ ~ , WITHIN PTA
1 ~
~, n~,~ , ~ t ~' ~- ~ 1 ~ ~ 15 LF IN P
~~ ~ ~ \
`~~ 15 LF IN E
~ `-~, \
/ / / QIyA ~
`~ / q \
,r ~ ./~ ~ d ... Y \
r
s f
~- ~' A
B`{ ? ~,
~ i ,- r ~ I T
a~° ~ ~ C
r/ ~ ~ ~~ RYA ~ ~` ~ ~~
~~ ~~ ~ '0.009 ~° ~"``~~ ~ Fp . ~. `-~(Vl ~.
~ ..;~ PPMUE ~ `~° ~~~~~`~, ~~ .,
~` \
/ ~ \
1 ~ ~ • \ \~\
/ ~ ~~ ~,
~ 11 ~ `~
~ / ~~ \
~!~ APPROXIMATE LOCATION ~~, ~,
~~ OF EXISTING CULVERT. 0.003 AC ~Fp "~
~~r' NOT SURVEYED.
~~'~ IN EPMUE M~F
,WETLAND "C"
PROPOSED FORCE MAIN , ~
~\ ~
w
U
~ W?
~ N
W ~^
~ ~~
4
U
~~
~~
a
viz
;_
~ t~
~ _~
U
Z O ;Y
~ ~ ~o
~Q o
D] ~ ~
W
V' ~ V 7
Z ~ o~
~~ ~~
a N;
N~ aW
~m
J 4- a
w
o ~~
2 ~U
~Z
J~
o~
5
W~
ON
~<
O
m~
Z
W
UO
I
Z ~~
J pY
~ ~o
~ ~<
o ~2
~ ~~
~, za
wF
~ _~
rc
a ~~
~~
a
i~
3
c~
o€
r a;
W
Q ~ ~~
o ~ Z~
~ U~
~~
Z
~ ;O
~U
W~
~.N o~
a ~~
W
0
~_ ~~
U-
E o~
Y N
~O

~~ ~ ~ y i A `~ " ,~ `~..
~ ~ a
/ ~, ti \
t `. ~\
PROPOSED RIP RAP, ~ ~ ~` ~ ~~~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `` ~~ ~~~ ~~
~.
_ _ STREAM BANKS ONLY ~ ~`" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
PTCE - _ _ _ ~
- -----~ _ _ ~ r,...- ~ ~ 1 ~.
_ _ _- - - ----_ .PPMUE ~- ~~~,, ~~- - - ~` _ ~~' ~~
RAW _ _ _ ___,_ _ _ - / 1' ~ ~ ~ ] _` _1
,... _ , ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~
\ ~ 1•~ ~
----EPMUE-- ~' ~
``. ~~ -~ i ~ ~`
ti. OHp
,,~ ~~
..- w -
P e -
... e ...-OH -- _.. _- _ __ ~ -
~° .~..~ .e,.,m ~..... n...e .~ ~' ~ .~.~ ....,a ...,. ,..w ~dJ ....> +..a. ~~.. ss.w ...~ ~ ~ y ~ m °"" +... n, .'4~ +eu »o...w.,~l"•` , I .~~ '~ ` ~ \
t~ +.a wn- .w ~ ~.a» mv. ~ ` ~ ` . `C'..vn ass'' °°" w«. ~ . .~..
STREAM »B» v ,~ ,_ ~.., ._ - : ,M-- . M ,... „,.,, ` ` -
16 LF IN 11 LF IN PPMUE ~ ~ ~ `~
EPMUE- - _ ___._ _ _ _ EPMUE 0.009 AC IN PPMUE
---____
-_____
~~~ ~~~ - -
IMPACT 8 ~~.., ~ ~~.~
LEGEND
PTCE PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
EPMUE EXISTING PERMANENT MAINTAINED UTILITY EASEMENT
PPMUE PROPOSED PERMANENT MAINTAINED UTILITY EASEMENT
~~ AREA OF STREAM IMPACT
® AREA OF WETLAND IMPACT
~~-- SILT FENCE
[ _ _ = ~ WETLAND
~\ /'• ~
.~• \~~
.,\ \
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~`\ ~
~~~ \\
~ ~
~ ~
U
W?
N
~ (/I
rcg
U
~~
WOZ
K4
a
viz
30
x
tl
x~
U~
3Y
~O
O
W
7~
U
o~
~o
W~
N;
m
a~
w
~N
~U
oZ
JW
C
5
oQ
WFpN
0
Z~
N~
z
w~
5V=
Ky
W I.~
N
OY
~O
~a
?~
~~
~°
zZ
0
W~
_-
~Z
a
i~
~3
o€
0
~;
~~
U~
ZO
U~
~~
€z
0
;W
~U
W~
~~
o~
W
a
wit
~~
o-
o°
~_~
~o

Appendix C -Wetland and Stream Data Forms

07'-1023
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Green Oaks Date:
Applicant/Owner: Holly Springs Coun
Investigator: TJT,AKR State
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
Yes No Community ID:
Yes No TransectlD:
Yes No Plot ID:
3/28/2007
Wake
NC
Forested
Wetland A
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Pinus taeda T FAC 9
2 Carpinus caroliniana T FAC 10
3 Vaccinium corymbosum S FACW 11
4 Alnus serrulata S FACW+ 12
5 Arundinaria gigantea H FACW 13
6 Smilax rotundifolia V FAC 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 100%
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
X Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
X Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 5 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
X FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Worsham Sandy Loam Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Endoaquults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-6 A 10YR 5/8 Fill Material`
7-12 B 10YR 4/1 10YR 4/4 35% Loamy Clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
Fill material composed of orange red clay with gravel in A horizon
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes NO
Remarks
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: Green Oaks Date: 3/28/2007
Applicant/Owner: Holly Springs County: Wake
Investigator: TJT,AKR State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Upland A
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Pinus taeda T FAC 9
2 Rubus argutus V FACU+ 10
3 11
4 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 50%
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: NA (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: NA (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No saturation

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Worsham Sandy Loam Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Endoaquults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-2 A 10YR 4/3 Loamy Ciay
2-12 B 2.5Y 6/6 Loamy Clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes NO
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: Green Oaks Date: 3/2812007
ApplicanUOwner: Holly Springs County: wake
Investigator: TJT,AKR State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Forested
Is the site signifcantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Wetland B
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
minant Plant Species
1 Arundinaria gigantea Stratum
H
2 Quercus albs T
3 Pinus taeda T
4 Juncus effusus H
5 Gelsemium sempervirens V
6
7
8
Indicator
FACW Dominant Plant Species
9
FACU 10
FAC 11
FACW+ 12
FAC 13
14
15
16
Stratum Indicator
of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 80%
HYDRaLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
X Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 5 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
X FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Worsham Sandy Loam Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Endoaquults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
o-s 10YR 5/6 Fill Material*
7-12 A 10YR 4/1 10YR 4/4 35% Loamy Clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
'Surface fill recently deposited
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soiis Present? Yes No
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes NO
Remarks
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: Green Oaks Date:
ApplicanUOwner: Holly Springs County:
Investigator: TJT,AKR State:
3/28/2007
Wake
NC
Forested
Upland B
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
vFr.FrerinN
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 9
2 10
3 11
4 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).

Remarks:
Maintained easement
uvnani nrv
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: NA (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: NA (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Worsham Sandy Loam Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Endoaquults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-2 A 10YR 4/3 _ Loamy Clay
2-12 B 2.5Y 6/6 Loamy Clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes NO
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: Green Oaks Date:
ApplicanUOwner: Holly Springs County:
Investigator: TJT,AKR State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
Yes No Community ID
Yes No TransectlD:
Yes No Plot ID:
3/28/2007
Wake
NC
Forested
Wetland C
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Pinus taeda T FAC 9
2 Carpinus caroliniana T FAC 10
3 Gelsemium sempervirens V FAC 11
4 Liquidambar styraciflua T FAC+ 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 100%
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 13 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 8 (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Along stream banks, ponded water in some areas

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Worsham sandy loam Drainage Class: poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Ochraquutls Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
o-ti A 2.5YR 5/6 Fill Material*
7-12 B 10YR 4/1 10YR 4/4 35% Loamy Clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosal Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
Fill material is red orange clay with gravel
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes NO
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: Green Oaks
ApplicanUOwner: Holly Springs
Investigator: TJT,AKR
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Comm
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transe
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
3/28/2007
Wake
NC
ty ID: Forested
ID:
Upland C
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Pinus taeda T FAC 9
2 Liquidambar styraciflua T FAC+ 10
3 Rubus argutus V FACU+ 11
4 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 66%
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: NA (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: NA (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SAILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Worsham Sandy Loam Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Endoaquults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-2 A 10YR 4/3 _ Loamy Clay
2-12 B 2.5Y 6/6 Loamy Clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes C
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: Green Oaks Date:
Applicant/Owner: Holly Springs County:
Investigator: TJT,AKR State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
Yes No Community ID:
Yes No Transect ID:
Yes No PIotID:
3/28/2007
Wake
NC
Forested
Wetland D
vcr_~TeTinu
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Pinus taeda FAC 9
2 Liquidambar styraciflua FAC+ 10
3 Myrica cerifera FAC+ 11
4 Acer rubrum FAC 12
5 Gelsemium sempervirens FAC 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 100%
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
uvnani nrv
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 1 (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
X Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
X FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Edge of lake bed, below culvert outfall, highly disturbed strea /linear wetland area
Standing water

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Mayodan gravelly sandy loam Drainage Class: Well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-12 A 10YR 5/1 10YR 4/6 25% loamy clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks Fill from construction site, consists of red clay silt
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Yes No
Yes N Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes
No
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: Green Oaks Date: 3/28/2007
Applicant/Owner: Holly Springs County: Wake
Investigator: TJT,AKR State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Upland D
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VFr,FTATIAN
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Prunus serotina T FACU 9
2 Liquidambar styraciflua T FAC+ 10
3 Liriodendron tulipifera T FAC 11
4 Pinus taeda T FAC 12
5 Gelsemium sempervirens V FAC 13
6 14
7 15
g 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 80%
(excluding FAC-).

Remarks:
uvnanl nrv
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: NA (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: NA (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Mayodan sandy loam Drainage Class: Well Drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
o-a A 2.5Y 5/3 loam
12-Aug B 2.5Y 6/6 7.5YR 4/6 45% clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface La yer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Yes No (Circle)
Yes No
Yes No
this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
(Circle)
Remarks
Yes NO
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Green Oaks
Applicant/Owner: Holly Springs
Investigator: TJT,AKR
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
Date:
County:
State:
Community ID:
TransectlD:
Plot ID:
3/28/2007
Wake
NC
Forested
Wetland F
needed, explain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Vaccinium corymbosum T FACW 9
2 Baccharis halimifolia T FAC 10
3 Rubus argutus T FACU+ 11
4 Pinus taeda S FAC 12
5 Myrica cerifera S FAC+ 13
6 Juncus effusus H FACW+ 14
7 Quercus alba T FACU 15
8 Quercus phellos T FACW- 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 50%
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
x Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
x Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Micodepressions with standing water

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Mayodan Silt Loam Drainage Class: Well Drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-3 A 10YR 3/1 loam
3-12 B 10YR 5/1 10YR 7/8 45% IOamy Clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes NO
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite:
ApplicanUOwner:
Investigator:
Oaks
Holly Springs
TJT,AKR
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
needed, explain on reverse.
Date:
County:
State:
3/28/2007
Wake
NC
Forested
Upland F
Yes No Community ID:
Yes No Transect ID:
Yes No Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Pinus taeda T FAC 9
2 Pinus palustris T FACU+ 10
3 Liquidambar styraciflua T FAC+ 11
4 Rubus argutus S FACU+ 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 50%
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: NA (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: NA (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Mayodan silt loam Drainage Class: Well Drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
o-~ A 10YR 5/3 10YR 5/8 25% loam
7-12 B 2.5Y6/6 2.5Y6/8 45% loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface La yer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes NO
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: Green Oaks Date:
Applicant/Owner: Holly Springs County: _
Investigator: TJT,AKR State: _
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
3/28/2007
Wake
NC
Forested
Wetland G
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Pinus taeda T FAC 9
2 Acer rubrum T FAC 10
3 Liriodendron tulipifera T FAC 11
4 Vaccinium corymbosum S FACW 12
5 Osmunda cinnamomea H FACW+ 13
6 Carpinus caroliniana S FAC 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 100%
(excluding FAC-).

Remarks:
uvnoni nr_v
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
X Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: NA (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 8 (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SDI~S
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Worsham sandy loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Endoaquults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Mo ist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-6 A 2.5Y 5/2 10YR 5/8 15% clay loam
7-16 B 2.5Y 6/2 10YR 5/8 15% clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
(Circle)
this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes NO
Remarks
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: Green Oaks Date:
ApplicanUOwner: Holly Springs County:
Investigator: TJT,AKR State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID:
on reverse.
3/28!2007
Wake
NC
ID: Forested
Upland G
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Pinus taeda T FAC 9
2 Acer rubrum T FAC 10
3 Vaccinium corymbosum S FACW 11
4 Liquidambar styraciflua T FAC+ 12
5 Asarum shuttleworthii H FACU 13
6 Fagus grandifolia H FACU 14
7 Ilex opaca S FAC- 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 57%
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: NA (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: NA (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Worsham sandy loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Endoaquults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-3 A 2.5Y 4/2 10 YR 6/3 10% clay loam
3-15 B 10YR 6/6 10YR 5/8 5% clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol X Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
B Horizon has gravel
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes NO
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator:
Green Oaks
Holly Springs
TJT,AKR
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
on
Date:
Yes No Commi
Yes No Transe~
Yes No Plot ID:
3/28/2007
Wake
NC
ty ID: Forested
ID:
Wetland H-3
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Pinus taeda T FAC 9
2 Acer rubrum T FAC 10
3 Quercus alba S FACU 11
4 Liquidambar styraciflua T FAC+ 12
5 Chasmanthium laxum H FACW- 13
6 Eulalia viminea H FAC+ 14
7 Ilex opaca S FAC- 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 71%
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
X Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: NA (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: NA (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Worsham Sandy Loam Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Endoaquults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
o-s A 10YR 4/2 10 YR5/4 10% clay loam
18-Jul B 2.5Y 6/2 10YR 5/8 20% clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol X Concretions
_
_ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes NO
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Green Oaks Date:
Applicant/Owner: Holly Springs Coun
Investigator: TJT,AKR State
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
3/28/2007
Wake
NC
ID: Forested
Upland H
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Pinus taeda T FAC 9
2 Acer rubrum T FAC 10
3 Smilax rotundifolia V FAC 11
4 Liquidambar styraciFlua T FAC+ 12
5 Ilex opaca S FAC- 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 80%
(excluding FAC-).

Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SAILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Worsham Sandy Loam Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Endoaquults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
o-a A 10YR 3/2 clay loam
5-8 B 10YR 5/4 clay loam
9-14 B 10YR 6/6 clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
(Circle)
Yes NO
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site:
Green Oaks
ApplicanUOwner: Holly Springs County
Investigator: TJT,AKR State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Comm
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transe
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
3/28/2007
Wake
NC
ty ID: Forested
ID:
Wetland P
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Pinus taeda T FAC 9
2 Acer rubrum T FAC 10
3 Vaccinium corymbosum S FACW 11
4 Gelsemium sempervirens H FAC 12
5 Carpinus caroliniana S FAC 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 100%
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: NA (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: NA (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

cnu c
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Mayodan sandy loam Drainage Class: well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
o-a A 10YR 4/2 10YR 5/8 20% clay loam
5-10 B 2.5Y 4/2 10YR 5/8 15% clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes NO
Remarks
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site:
Green Oaks
Applicant/Owner: Holly Springs
Investigator: TJT,AKR
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
needed, explain on reverse.
Date:
County:
State:
Yes No Community ID:
Yes No Transect ID:
Yes No Plot ID:
3/28/2007
Wake
NC
Forested
Upland P
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Pinus taeda T FAC 9
2 Cornus florida S FACU 10
3 Lonicera japonica V FAC- 11
4 Ilex opaca T FAC- 12
5 Prunus serotina T FACU 13
6 Liquidambar styraciflua T FAC+ 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 33%
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: NA (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: NA (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Mayodan sandy loam Drainage Class: Well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
o-s A 10YR 4/3 clay loam
7-15 B 10YR 4/4 gravel/loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon _
_ High Organic Content in Surface La yer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes NO
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite:
ApplicanUOwner:
Investigator:
Holly Springs
TJT,AKR
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
on
Yes No Community ID:
Yes No Transect ID:
Yes No Plot ID:
3/28/2007
Wake
NC
Forested
Wetland O
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Salix nigra T OBL 9
2 Baccharis halimifolia T FAC 10
3 Lonicera japonica T FAC- 11
4 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 75%
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Worsham fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Endoaquults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-1o A 2.5Y 3/1 10 YR 4/4 20% Clay loam
10-16 B 10YR 6/4 10YR 4/6 30% clay with gravel
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes NO
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator:
Holly Springs
TJT,AKR
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
on
Yes No Commi
Yes No Transe~
Yes No PIotID:
3/28/2007
Wake
NC
ty ID: Forested
ID:
Upland O
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Prunus serotina T FACU 9
2 Liquidambar styraciflua T FAC+ 10
3 Pinus taeda T FAC 11
4 Smilax rotundifolia V FAC 12
5 Vitis rotundifolia V FAC 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 80%
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: NA (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: NA (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Mayodan Silt Loam Drainage Class: Well Drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
o-a A 10YR 3/3 loam
8-14 B 10YR5/4 clay with gravel
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma C olors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Yes No (Circle)
Yes No
Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
(Circle)
Remarks
Yes No
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite:
ApplicanUOwner:
Investigator:
Green Oaks
Holly Springs
TJT,AKR
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
needed, explain on reverse.
Date:
County:
State:
Yes No Community ID:
Yes No TransectlD:
Yes No PIotID:
3/28/2007
Wake
NC
Forested
Wetland R
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Pinus taeda T FAC 9
2 Liquidambar styraciFlua T FAC+ 10
3 Acer rubrum T FAC 11
4 Vaccinium corymbosum S FACW 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 100%
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: NA (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Impounded by roadway

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Worsham fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Endoaquults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
o-a A 2.5Y 5/2 10 YR 5/8 15% Clay loam
s-16 B 2.5Y 6/2 10 YR 5/8 30% clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes NO
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Green Oaks Date: 3/28/2007
Applicant/Owner: Holly Springs County: Wake
Investigator: TJT,AKR State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Sit uation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Upland R
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Pinus taeda T FAC 9
2 Liquidambar styraciflua T FAC+ 10
3 Acer rubrum T FAC 11
4 Vaccinium corymbosum S FACW 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 100%
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: NA (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: NA (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Worsham fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Endoaquults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
o-a A 10YR 6/8 loam
8-16 B 10YR 6/8 10YR 4/3 15% clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes NO
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite:
Date:
County:
Applicant/owner: Holly Springs
Investigator: TJT,AKR
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
needed, explain on reverse.
Community ID:
TransectlD:
Plot ID:
3/28/2007
Wake
NC
Forested
WS
WET S-1
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Salix nigra T OBL 9
2 Acer rubrum T FAC 10
3 Quercus alba T FACU 11
4 Liquidambar styraciflua T FAC+ 12
5 Vaccinium corymbosum 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 75%
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
X Drift Lines
X Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 1 (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 6 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
gh itlhas laready been flagged. Novatis was charged with cleaning silt out of stream above Wetland S. Currently a 1 inc

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Mayodan gravelly sandy loam Drainage Class: Well Drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-1 5YR 5/6 silt
1-5 A 10YR 5/2 10YR 5/8 10% clay loam
5-12 B 10YR 5/3 clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
soil has been disturbed, areas in wetland are indundated to the surface
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes NO
Remarks
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite:
ApplicanUOwner:
Investigator:
Holly Springs
TJT,AKR
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
on
Yes No Community
Yes No Transect ID:
Yes No PIotID:
3/28/2007
Wake
NC
ID: Forested
WS
UP S-1
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Prunus serotina T FACU 9
2 Acer rubrum T FAC+ 10
3 Quercus alba T FACU 11
4 Liquidambar styraciFlua T FAC+ 12
5 Polystichum acrostichoides H FAC 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 60%
(excluding FAC-).

Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: NA (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: NA (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Mayodan gravelly sandy loam Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-1o A 10YR 4/3 Clay loam
10-12 B 10YR 7/6 Clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
(Circle)
this Sampling Point Within a Wetland'Ye NO
Remarks
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/19/2007 Project: Holly Springs
Business Park Latitude: 35° 39.1' 1.37"
Evaluator: Laura Lang, Anna Site: Stream A-1 Longitude: 78 51'40.22"
Reusche
Total Points: 48.5
Stream is at least intermittent County: Wake Other Apex
e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if z 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 27.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3 °° 3
2. Sinuosi 0 1 2 3 ~ 3""'
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool se uence 0 1 2 3 °° 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3 ""` 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3 2
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 ~ 2
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3 0
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3 2
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3 1
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5 °°` 1
12. Natural valle or draina a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5 '°°" 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3 °'
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 11
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2 3 """` 3

~
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0 1.5
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
18. Or anic debris lines or files Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5 i.
C. Biology Subtotal = 10
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted lants in channel 3 2 1 0 3
22. Cra fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3 0
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 i.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversi and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h on 0 1 2 3 2
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5 !'
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; snv = z.o; Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/19/2007 Project: Holly Springs
Business Park Latitude: 35° 39'3.39"
Evaluator: Laura Lang, Anna Site: Stream B-1 Longitude: 78° 51'32.64"
Reusche
Total Points: 21.5

Stream is at least intermittent
County: Wake Other
e.g. Quad Name: ApeX
if z 19 or perennial if ? 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3 ,,,,,,,,,, 1
2. Sinuosit 0 1 2 3 1 .,
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool se uence 0 1 2 3 ~~~ 0
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3 !!%~ 0
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3 °°° 2
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 """' 0
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3 0
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3 0
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3 ,,,,, 0
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 0
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5 ,,,,,,,, 1
12. Natural valle or drains a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5 ,, 0
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes - 3 ~~~~~~~~~
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hvdroloav Subtotal = 10
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
/
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or rowin season 0 1 2 3 3

~
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0 1.5
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
18. Or anic debris lines or Iles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biolo Subtotal = 6.5
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0 3
21b. Rooted lants in channel 3 2 1 0 1
22. Cra Ish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3 0
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversi and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
29-none observed
Data point taken at B-4

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/19/2007 Project: Holly Springs
Business Park Latitude: 35° 39'3.20"
Laura Lang, Anna °
Evaluator: Site: Stream C-1 Longitude: 78
51'41.50"
Reusche
Total Points: 30.5
Stream is at least intermittent County: Wake Other Apex
e.g. Quad Name:
if ? 19 or perennial if ? 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 12.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosi 0 1 2 3 . "1
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool se uence 0 1 2 3 °~ 1 ,,,
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3 ""' 2 ~~~~%
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3 1
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 ~ 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3 "" 0.
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3 0 0,
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3 0,°~`
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 0
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valle or draina a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS mao or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes - 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 10
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel --dry or growing season
0
1
2
3 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0 1
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 n,
18. Or anic debris lines or files Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5 ~ 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal =
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21b. Rooted lants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Cra Ish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3 0
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
26. Macrobenthos note diversit and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h on 0 1 2 3 2
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other= 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
at stream point C-3
Caddis fly casing observed (leaf, stick, rock)
mayfly observed

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/19/2007 Project: Holly Springs
Business Park Latitude: 78° 51'41.93"
Evaluator: Laura Lang, Anna Site: Stream D-1 Longitude: 35° 39' 6.25"
Reusche
Total Points: 21.5

Stream is at least intermittent
County: Wake Other
e.g. Quad Name: Apex
if ? 19 or perennial if ? 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 6 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosit 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool se uence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3 °~°°°°°2
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3 % 0
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 ~ 0
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3 1
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3 0
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3 0-
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.
12. Natural valle or draina a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes - 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal = 8.5
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel --dry or growin season 0 1 2 3 ~ 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0 1
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
18. Or anic debris lines or Iles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5 1.5'
C. Biolo Subtotal =
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0 ~"~~.
21 b. Rooted lants in channel 3 2 1 0 ~ 2
22. Cra ish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
26. Macrobenthos note diversi and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h on 0 1 2 3 1
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5 ,, 0
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
at stream ooint D-2

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/19/2007 Project: Holly Springs
Business Park Latitude: 35° 39'0.81"
Evaluator: Laura Lang, Anna Site: E-1 Longitude: 78°51'52.37"
Reusche
Total Points: 29.25
Stream is at least intermittent County: Wake Other Apex
e.g. Quad Name:
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 10.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3 7
~
2. Sinuosit 0 1 2 3 ~,
2
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool se uence 0 1 2 3 1'
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3 1
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3 2
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 0
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3 ~" 0 9,,,,,
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3 0
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3 0
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 1
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5 ° 0.5
12. Natural valle or drains a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5 %%%~ 1,,,,,,,,,,o
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes - 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 10
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel --dry or growing season 0 1 2 3 ~~~~~~~~ `~`°°°
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 "
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 '` 0.5
18. Or anic debris lines or files Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5 1.5 ~%
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav Subtotal = 8.75
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted lants in channel 3 2 1 0 3
22. Cra Ish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3 0
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversit and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h on 0 1 2 3 2
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
Data point taken at E 4

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 4/19/2007 Project: Holly Springs
Business Park Latitude: 35°38"52.21"
Evaluator: Anna Reusche Site: Stream F Longitude: 78°52'3.83"
Total Points: 19.5
Stream is at least intermittent County: Wake Other Apex
e.g. Quad Name:
if ? 19 or perennial if ? 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 7 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosi 0 1 2 3 2
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool se uence 0 1 2 3 ~ °
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3 ~~~ ~~~
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3 ~~~
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 ,1,
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valle or draina a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5 1 0
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes = 3
e Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal = 8.5
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel --dry or rowin season
0
1
2
3 ~~ 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0 ~ 0
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 1.5
18. Or anic debris lines or files Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5 ~e 1.5""""""
C. Biology Subtotal = 4
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted lants in channel 3 2 1 0 0
22. Cra Ish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
26. Macrobenthos note diversi and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other= 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/19/2007 Project: Holly Springs
Business Park Latitude: 35°38'48.19
Evaluator: Laura Lang, Anna Site: Stream G Longitude: 78°52'13.26"
Reusche
Total Points: 21
Stream is at least intermittent County: Wake Other Apex
e.g. Quad Name:
if ? 19 or perennial if z 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 8 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosi 0 1 2 3 1,",,
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool se uence 0 1 2 3 ,,, 1 ~~
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3 0
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3 1,
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 ~ 0 ;
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3 0
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3 %%'''' 0
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3 ""` 0
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 1
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5 ,~
12. Natural valle or draina a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes - 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal = 7.5
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3 ~`
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or rowin season 0 1 2 3 2
~"~~yy
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0 1 ~~
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
18. Or anic debris lines or files Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = 5.5
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21b. Rooted lants in channel 3 2 1 0 2
22. Cra Ish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3 0
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 ~ ` 0
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
26. Macrobenthos note diversit and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h on 0 1 2 3 0
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
taken between G-2 G-3, Found few amohipods

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/19/2007 Project: Holly Springs
Business Park Latitude: 35°38'54.24"
Evaluator: Laura Lang, Anna Site: Stream H Longitude: 78°52'22.78"
Reusche
Total Points: 16
Stream is at least intermittent County: Wake Other Apex
e.g. Quad Name:
if ? 19 or perennial if ? 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosit 0 1 2 3 ~,, 1
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool se uence 0 1 2 3 ~~~ 0'
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3 °° 0
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3 ~ 0'°
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 ~ 0~~%!
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3 r 0 .'~
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3 ,,, 0 ~
/
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
~~ 0
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 0
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
12. Natural valle or draina a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes = 3 ~
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or rowin season 0 1 2 3 ~~ 2
~~~
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0 0
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 0. """'
18. Or anic debris lines or files Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5 '°~1
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = 4
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted lants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Cra fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3 0
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 ~ 0
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
26. Macrobenthos note diversit and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; s,av = 2.0; Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/19/2007 Project: Holly Springs
Business Park Latitude: 35°38' 54.48"
Evaluator: Laura Lang, Anna Site: Stream P Longitude: 78°52' 22.0"
Reusche
Total Points: 40.5

Stream is at least intermittent
County: Wake Other
e.g. Quad Name: Apex
if >_ 19 or perennial if z 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 24 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosi 0 1 2 3 2
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool se uence 0 1 2 3 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3 ,,,,,,, 3,,,,, -
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3 ~~~ 3
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3 ""` 0
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3 2
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3 %///~ 0 y
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 °% 0
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
12. Natural valle or drains a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5 ,~,1.~,,,
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No - 0 Yes = 3
e Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal = 10.5
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel --dry or rowin season 0 1 2 3 ~ 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0 ~~°~ 1.5
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
18. Or anic debris lines or files Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5 1.5
C. Bioloov Subtotal = 6
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0 2
21b. Rooted lants in channel 3 2 1 0 3
22. Cra Ish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3 0,
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 Oa~
26. Macrobenthos note diversi and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

07-1023
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached
1 1
1 ~ ~ ~ 1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Town of Holly Springs 2. Evaluator's name: Anna Reusche
3. Date of evaluation: 03/12/07 4. Time of evaluation: 9 am
5. Name of stream: Stream A-1 6. River basin: Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area: 200 acres 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Wake
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35 ° 39' 3.27", 78° 51'26.84" 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
North of Utley Creek, flows to same reservoir (unnamed as Utlev Creek
14. Proposed channel work (if any): sewer line
15. Recent weather conditions: sunnv cool
16. Site conditions at time of visit: sunnv 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? YES N~ If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO
channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 0 NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
60_% Forested
22. Bankfull width: 20 feet
20. Does
Commercial 40_% Industrial % Agricultural
_% Cleared /Logged _% Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 10 feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X_Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends X_Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 72 Comments: Stream runs the entire length of the study area and flows into reservoir. _
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
A ORE
S
# RACTERISTICS
CH C
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max omts
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 3
no buffer = 0• Conti ous wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 3
extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints
5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 3
no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 3
y, no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max oints
F~{,," ~ Entrenchment /floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 3
a" dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 3
no wetlands = 0• lar a ad
acent wetlands = max oints
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 2
extensive de osition= 0• little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
fine homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints
"'~ 13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 3
q severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max oints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
E~ no visible roots = 0• dense roots throu out = max oints
~
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
3
substantial im act =0; no evidence = max oints
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 4
no riffles/ri les or ools = 0• well-develo ed = max oints
Habitat com
lexity
1 ~ p 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6 5
little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
4
no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max oints
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 2
dee 1 embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 4
~ no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints
~ 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 3
Q no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints

22 Presence of fish
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4
2
no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) :. 72
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached
I I
I ~ ~ ~ I STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET =,
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Town of Holly Sprin¢s 2. Evaluator's name: Anna Reusche
3. Date of evaluation: 03/12/07
5. Name of stream: Stream
4. Time of evaluation:
6. River basin: Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area: 10 acres 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50 feet 10. County: Wake
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35° 39' 4.10", 78° 51'32.43" 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Southwest of Green Oaks Parkway, north of Utley Creek, just below construction staging area
14. Proposed channel work (if any): sewer line
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? YES ~ If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES
channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES N~
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential
10_% Forested
20. Does
Commercial 90_% Industrial % Agricultural
Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 10 feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3 feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X_Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X_Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 37
Comments:
Evaluator's Signature

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
CH
C R
ARA
TERISTICS SCO
E
Coastal giedn4ont Mountain
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max omts
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 1
no buffer = 0• Conti ous wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 2
extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints
5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 3
no dischar e = 0; s rip s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints
U
-~
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 2
1
y no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints
~, ~ Entrenchment /floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 1
a dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 2
no wetlands = 0• lar a ad
acent wetlands = max oints
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 1
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 1
extensive de osition= 0• little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
fine, homo enous = 0• lar e, diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
~+ de 1 incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max oints
Er.,f+ 13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 3
a severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max oints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
H no visible roots = 0• dense roots throu bout = max oints

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0
5
4
0
0
5
1
substantial im act =0• no evidence = max oints - - -
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 0
~
~ no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints
Habitat com
lexit
.y 17 p
y 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6 1
~ little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max
Canopy coverage over streambed
18 no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 2
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 2
dee 1 embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 2
~ no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints
G7 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 2
O no evidence = 0; common numerous es = max oints
~ 22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE 4atso enter on first page) 3~
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE A1D# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached
1 1
1 ~ ~ ~ 1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Town of Holly Springs 2. Evaluator's name: Anna Reusche
3. Date of evaluation: 03/12/07 4. Time of evaluation: 9 am
5. Name of stream: Stream C 6. River basin: Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area: 10 acres 8. Stream order: 1st
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Wake
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35°39'2.06" N, 78° 51'41.86" 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
South west of Green Oaks Parkway. approximately 1500 feet north of Utley Creek
14. Proposed channel work (if any): sewer line
15. Recent weather conditions: sunny, cool, 60 °
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES ® 20. Does
channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential _% Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
100_% Forested % Cleared /Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 10 feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3 feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X_Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X_Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 51 Comments: Stream C flows through fringe wetland system along Stream A.
Evaluator's

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

T
S
A ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# IC
CTERIS
CHAR SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
3
no flow or saturation = 0• stron flow = max oints

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0 - 6
0 - 5
0 - 5
2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 2
no buffer = 0• Conti ous wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 3
extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints
5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 3
no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands etc. = max oints
U
~ 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 2
y, no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints
Fri 7 Entrenchment /floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 2
a'+ dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 2
no wetlands = 0• lar a ad
acent wetlands = max oints
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 2
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 1
extensive de osition= 0• little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
fine homo enous = 0• lar a diverse sizes = max oints

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
2
~+ de 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints
'"'F 13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 2
a severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max oints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
H no visible roots = 0• dense roots throu out = max oints
~ 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
substantial im act =0; no evidence = max oints
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 1
~ no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints
~ 1 ~ Habitat complexity 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6 3
~ little or no habitat = 0; fre went, varied habitats = max
Canopy coverage over streambed
18 no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 2
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 2
dee 1 embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 3
~ no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints
(~ 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 3
~ no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
© 22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
- Total Points Possible 100 I00 100
...TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) s l
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

07-1023
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Town of Holly Springs 2. Evaluator's name: Anna Reusche
3. Date of evaluation: 03/12/07
4. Time of evaluation: 9 am
5. Name of stream: Stream D 6. River basin: Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area: 10 acres 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50 feet 10. County: Wake
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35 ° 39' 2.78", 78° 51'42.25" 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Southwest of Green Oaks Parkway north of Utley Creek
14. Proposed channel work (if any): sewer line
15. Recent weather conditions: sunnv cool
16. Site conditions at time of visit: sunnv 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? YES N~ If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES ~O
channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES N~
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial
20. Does
Agricultural
100 % Forested _% Cleared /Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 10 feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3 feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X_Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X_Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 41
Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
S
R
# CHARACT'EEItISTICS ' E
CU
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
no flow or saturation = 0• stron flow = max omts
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 1
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 1
no buffer = 0• Conti ous wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 1
extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints
5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 3
no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints
U
~ 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 3
y, no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints
~i ~ Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 3
a dee 1 entrenched = 0• fre uent floodin = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 0
acent wetlands = max oints
no wetlands = 0• lar a ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 1
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 1
extensive de osition= 0• little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
fine homo enous = 0; lar a diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
~ dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints
'H" 13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 3
d severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max oints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
E,,, no visible roots = 0• dense roots throu out = max oints
~ 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
substantial im act =0; no evidence =man oints
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 2
no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints
i ~ Habitat complexity 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6 1
~ varied habitats = max
little or no habitat = 0; fre uent

18 ,
Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
1
no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max oints
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 2
dee 1 embedded = 0• loose structure = max

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
2
~ no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints
(;~ 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 2
O no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints
'"'~
O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (atso enter on'firstpage) 41
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Town of Holly Springs 2. Evaluator's name: Anna Reusche
3. Date of evaluation: 03/12/07 4. Time of evaluation: 9 am
5. Name of stream: Stream E 6. River basin: Cave Fear
7. Approximate drainage area: 20 acres 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Wake
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35° 39' 13.01", 78° 51'53.00 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
North of Utley Creek
14. Proposed channel work (if any): sewer line
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? YES N~ If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES ~O 20. Does
channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES N~
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
100 % Forested _% Cleared /Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: 5 feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1 foot
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X_Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X_Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream maybe 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): 46 Comments:
Evaluator's

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

C ECQREGION POIN'I ''RANGE
C
# CIiARACTERISTI
S S
ORE
Coastal .Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
3
no flow or saturation = 0• stron flow = max oints
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 3
no buffer = 0• Conti ous wide buffer = max oints

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 4
2
extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints
5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 3
no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints
V
~ 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 3
y no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints
~i ~ Entrenchment /floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 3
a dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 0
no wetlands = 0• lar a ad
acent wetlands = max oints
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 2
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 2
extensive de osition= O; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
3
de 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints
,rte,
13 Presence of major bank failures
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
3
d severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max oints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
E„~ no visible roots = 0• dense roots throu out = max oints
~ 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
substantial im act =0• no evidence = max oints
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 2
no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints
Habitat com
lexity
17 p 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6 1
~ little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
2
no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max oints
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 2
dee 1 embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 0
~„r no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints
~ 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 2
~ no evidence = 0; common numerous s = max oints
Q 22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 2
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on fast page) 46
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached
1 1
1 ~ ~ ~ 1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Town of Holly Shrines 2. Evaluator's name: Anna Reusche
3. Date of evaluation: 04/19/07 4. Time of evaluation: 12 pm
5. Name of stream: Stream F 6. River basin: Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area: 10 acres 8. Stream order: 1st
9. Length of reach evaluated:50 feet 10. County: Wake
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35 ° 38' 52.21", 78° 52'3.83" 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
North of drained pond
14. Proposed channel work (if any): sewer line
15. Recent weather conditions: Rained three day a og sunny ,cool, 60 decrees
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? YES N~ 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 N~
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
100_% Forested % Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 3 feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 6"
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X_Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X_Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream maybe 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): 44 Comments: Stream runs the entire length of the study area and flows into reservoir. _
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
RE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCO
Coastal Fiedmont Mountain
Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 5
0 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
I no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max omts -
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 4
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 3
no buffer = 0• Conti ous wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 2
extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints
5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 3
no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 2
2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints
,~", ~ Entrenchment /floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 2
a" dee I entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 3
acent wetlands = max oints
no wetlands = O; lar a ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 2
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 2
extensive de osition= O; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
fine homo enous = 0• lar a diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
~+ dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints
'~'' 13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 2
a severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max oints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 0
H no visible roots = 0• dense roots throu out = max oints
~
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
4
substantial im act =0; no evidence = max oints
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 0
no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints
E
~
1 ~ Habitat complexity
0 - 6
0 - 6
0 - 6
1
~ little or no habitat = 0; fre uent varied habitats = max

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
3
no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max oints
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 3
dee 1 embedded = 0• loose structure = max

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
~ no evidence = 0• common numerous t es = max oints
~ Presence of amphibians
21 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 1
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
Q 22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
no evidence = 0; common numerous es = max oints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
Total P+uints Possible 1t?0 t00 100.
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 44
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

07- 1023
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached
1 I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Town of Holly Snrin~s 2. Evaluator's name: Anna Reusche
3. Date of evaluation: 03/12/07 4. Time of evaluation: 9 am
5. Name of stream: Stream G 6. River basin: Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area: 15 acres 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Wake
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35 ° 38' 48.47", 78° 52' 13.27" 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
North of Utley Creek reservior, flows to same reservoir (unnamed) as Utle~Creek
14. Proposed channel work (if any): sewer line
15. Recent weather conditions: sunnv cool
16. Site conditions at time of visit: sunnv 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? YES N~ 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: _% Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
100 % Forested _% Cleared /Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: 10 feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1-2 feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X_Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X_Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 46 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max omts
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 3
no buffer = 0• Conti ous wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 2
extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints
5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 2
no dischar e = 0; s rin s see s, wetlands etc. = max oints

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 2
2
yy~~ no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max oints
,7,,' ~ Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 2
p'+ dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 0
acent wetlands = max oints
no wetlands = 0• lar a ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 2
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 1
extensive d osition= O; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
fine homo enous = 0• lar a diverse sizes = max oints

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
2
y
~ de 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints
C
-
~ 13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 3
a severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max oints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
E„ i no visible roots = 0• dense roots throu out = max oints
~ 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
substantial im act =0; no evidence = max oints
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 2

l ~ no riffles/ri les or ools = 0• well-develo ed = max oints
Habitat complexity

6
0

0
6

6
0

2
M little or no habitat = 0• fre went varied habitats = max - - -

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
no shadin ve etation = 0• continuous cano = max oints
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
4
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 2
dee 1 embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 2
~ no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints
Presence of am
hibians
~ 21 p 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 3
O no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints
'~
Q
22 Presence offish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0 - 6
0 - 5
0 - 5
3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also ester on first page) 46
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Town of Holly SnrinQS 2. Evaluator's name: Anna Reusche
3. Date of evaluation: 03/19/07 4. Time of evaluation: 9 am
5. Name of stream: Stream H 6. River basin: Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area: 0.5 acres 8. Stream order: 1st
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50 feet 10. County: Wake
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35 ° 38' 54.43". 78° 22.63" 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
North of Utley Creek
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Improvements to roadway
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? YES ®O If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES N~
channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
20. Does
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential
100_% Forested
22. Bankfull width: 15
Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 10 feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X_Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X_Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 34 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGIUN POINT RANGE
CT
e E
# cHARA
ERISTI
s SeoR
Coastal Piedmont Mountain.
1 Presence of flow !persistent pools in stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max omts
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 3
no buffer = 0 • Conti ous wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 2
extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints
5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 2
no dischar e = 0; s rin s see s wetlands, etc. = max oints
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 1
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints
~ Entrenchment /floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 0
Q, dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 0
no wetlands = 0• lar a ad
acent wetlands = max oints
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 1
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 1
extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
fine, homo enous = 0• lar a diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
de 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints
13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 2
d severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max oints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throu out = max oints
I
b
i
l
li
k
i
i
~ 15 mpact
y agr
cu
ture,
vestoc
, or t
mber product
on 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
substantial im act =0• no evidence = max oints
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 0

~;

1 no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo d = max oints
Habitat complexity
~ little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max 0 - 6 0 - 6 0 - 6 1

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max oints
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
3
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 3
dee 1 embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 0
~ no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints
~ 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
Q no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints

O
22 Presence offish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 2
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first pale) 34
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USAGE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached
1 1
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Town of Holly Springs 2. Evaluator's name: Anna Reusche
3. Date of evaluation: 03/19/07 4. Time of evaluation: 9 am
5. Name of stream: Stream P 6. River basin: Cane Fear
7. Approximate drainage area: 100 acres 8. Stream order: 2nd
9. Length of reach evaluated: 150 feet 10. County: Wake
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35° 39' 0.07", 78° 52'23.64" 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
North of Utley Creek
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Access road to pump station
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? 0 NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 0.2 acres-
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? 0 NO
channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial
20. Does
20_% Industrial % Agricultural
80_% Forested _% Cleared /Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 20 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 10 feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X_Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X_Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 61 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION FAINT RANGE
C
# CHARACTERISTICS S
ORE
Coastal Fiedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max oints
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 3
no buffer = 0• Conti ous wide buffer = max oints

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 4
2
extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints
5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 3
no dischar e = 0• s rin s, see s, wetlands etc. = max oints

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 2
2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints
,~ ~ Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 1
p" dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 0
acent wetlands = max oints
no wetlands = 0• lar a ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 2
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 3
extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA'' 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
1
dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints
13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 3
a severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max oints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
F no visible roots = 0• dense roots throu out = max oints
~
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
4
substantial im act =0• no evidence = max oints
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 4
no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints
Habitat com
lexity
1 ~ p 0 - 6 0 - 6 0 - 6 5
~ varied habitats = max
little or no habitat = 0; fre uent

18 ,
Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
4
no shadin ve etation = 0• continuous cano = max oints
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 3
dee 1 embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 2
~ no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints
Presence of am
hibians
C7 21 p 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 2
~ no evidence = 0; common numerous es = max oints

22 Presence of fish
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4
2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Pwslble 100 100 i00
TOTAL SCARE (also enter on fast page) 61
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

Appendix D -Site Photographs

~i1 -r
frr ~T~~a,"..

t~

Wetland A, facing north
Upland A facing west
Title Wetland A
P~erafe~ F~* Wetland and Stream Delineation
>` ~K ~ '" Project Holly Springs
°, i1- , ,,~ ,~
~~ Wake County, North Carolina
~~ 111 °a
= V,-

mWNCA),71114", Vk.
i
h
l �� �:� � ♦ r .. � � �'. �l" 9 viii ��G
1 n
w
r
im
r
-sr .
l_ r
ow,
w

( / y' 4 j 11
+�+ • �ro � � �( 1 t� r,v zV�� v�' � �'1T ,�( � i 'r n � a'�. ti y �'
44
LAIr
a , tip- y v ,.A '- .1.�..�•, , / i
. I
r "TI •" y`
i'
\ r
wt ,�•af,� �� s v
ri1 x ►.,y � ,� .^� r �,,, � C: '� 'rS.�... add r

r ~ ,~ Sr.. yt fit' t~~ t - # ~ ~ ~, ~.
~` ~ ~ 2 ~ ~
~a t ~~ ; t ~ ~, '.
R ~ ~ ~~'~f ~ t5at' 1 of t.i '' '~ ' a 1 .+ ~.yJY ~i
_ ~
l} 1 ~ ; (
a ~ 'x" ~
§ Fa~`
j/I f ~~ ~ emu' ~t ~~ ~ f }"~~b~ y., Tt ~ H" 1'~
'
~ ~
Y
L {
.. L .
~ ~ YL{.
3
' >`.: ~ x ` ~
.(
~y
~
~
J
~
~
~~ ,
~ r
' '
f
.~
~
~
~
,
S'q
n
;~ ,y
,~y
t~~;
Y
l*
~
$ ~
x
g
7
~?~
~ i'"„~
~
.:~w
~ ~~+
~~t iC ~
~
Y
~wH ~'y
f
'
~
y~ A
._ ~ '. ~ fr pr,~'~i~'~ ~. ~~ t 1
* ~~~ t ~ t '`5 ~' f ~ f~ '~~'S b y .
~ ~"'~ ,k ~ !

:. ,
'~
' ~
~
~~~~

'
~z r, }. q». ~ ~t~r~ ~~~5, L ~ ~r a
~
F^ ~~ ~~~ uT 5R 6 i - ~ ~ ~ 7x ff~`SS
~ 1 l'~ i ~ ~ ~~, r~,s. x ,,,;'~~,t.~
~t ~3 3
.s~/~p
'S' S~ ~* ~~ '{,
_
~
~
1 !t .~ ~~
J '4 yt
t ~•
~
~
}
"
~
~i~
~
`~
~
-
`'4 Y' r.~ "~ 'y~ ~},",~~ a
'ti
.Y ~
` A r, ~ ,~ a ~ -~d ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ «, ~~
.~. ~
~
~
y
~
y
,r~~ ~ .
~n
~
1~ry~
."_1~ • .~ J ~ T
~"'~e
'~ ~
ie~ r 7~` y *
3 ~~y 't. E '' :~
i • } ' ' ~r 1 ~ q
~ ~ _ s rt~SX ~+ j 1 A.~IA° = n "~~. ~~~ ~? ~ 5 ~-; =~" y(
(
4 ~~' . , ~R •..: tQ ~, #*x a jY$t ~
..

r
~'
y
~ t
', -
a
fw`
.I~+(~ ~ ~~~X~xIL'+~"'~ ~~13 ~~ j{-5~fti ~~ ~ ~+~~ P~~ 1 ~t~~h''
~

P I
~r~ 1 3 klP4 ~.'N
I~-4
w

;~,,
~ . a.
~~ D rtta9~ .tom v~~:
~ ~

4°
'
A.
y. T ~.

4
~a 1 Y

1t~ C!~' ~ p+yF ems, ~• „

u
ae
~ ~ A
w "~. ' d~~
T~ x~~~~~'~'n' ~¢4~~ ~~~+ ~"' ~

4

-
~ ~
~ i
s,
..' f
~{' p ' *. w . ~
~ G
J[~j

."T
~.F ron { ~~.r "
t -° r
~ '~i

t' Yl.
yp
£
., F
.~
.~
a
`'Y ~ .~ '~~, ~, -q,V ~, .- w,
~~ ~ ,.
..-
••k ..., ~.b, ,
r-
Wetland D facing south

Title Wetland D
r~ePare~ F~~: Wetland and Stream Delineation

•. ~ ~;~ - ,
'"
~
~ Project Holly Springs
'~ ~
~
?mlllu Wake County, North Carolina
-

~~ ~ ~ M t~
'I ,¢
~ ~ ~ i X ~
'' y
`" ~~ Y ,• 1 a"}
X~
'~ ~ t
y`~( ~
(k
~ }
~
,~~
b
f
,., ~a ~~ fl.'+i iq ; .` i { i
,
\x
. ,,.,,.~
y
_ w"
~
i
Y~ ~I~ 4 ~
~~ r•~' X
~
\ P', i
~
~
~ b
~p ~
~
<
/
"~`+ Y' ~~~
\ } ` ~ ^~
x
+ ~
.
~~ s ~~
//jj z
.
"" ~fY ~~
yy
+~
.
~~(,~
gyp. 5{...~~Y~~
,~ t #`"" ~ i Rw a
!
~
£- r`" 1, ~
x s~~5
x
1
` ~ '~M)7 t~ ^-e, ,• .9
a 1 ` x 7Y
~ ~~' ~e
„
"F
f ~
'
,
j{{
~~ ~ x~~f ,i 4
~ ~ ~ ~g i ~
~ ~
~ . G~ _.
r
~
y
f~
(Y }
~~
~r
M~
~
~ i ~ .
fP^F`~
c~
F~
~'M b
`~ k ! ~
}
. ~
~ i~
~~
:
d'
' ~q..f! xi"
~Y~ '~
~ ~ tom,
Y'
~P
x ~ ,~ i 1 ~
h
~.:. t ~ ~:~4
, r
~
,
,
2
:
A 1~
~a'~ ~
! ff ~ ,.
k
f f ~~S . s
. t 1 !'. ^_ ~ I ~` l~
&~
-~ e
x~ s
~
~~ t~
y
~
j
( ~ ~~ ~~ ~ (~ ,
k`i gi• ~
l
r
"a
`~
~
~ ..
~ ~ a ~_ c ~ ~.µ~ ,
,
.
A! aft ~ si ~,~ .,~ y i ~ ~,. '..{ y . 9,,f y, ~. a
~i.,~k~. ~-
1 X
tY4 f 4~~r y i~ , i, ~k
~~i~:
~,~ ~ ~. '~
Fd @ ~ ~
~ _.
r.
~
X ~1 ~
~ ~`*
~
} }
} ~ ~
~
~
~ t '
~
~
kit. i'~ t yy ~
f
~ 4
~ L
f~
..
3
~
! t ~~
~ ~y ~
.. ~
9di.
i d iV- 2
~
~
a /g
i~
y !~
~., ~ ~,~v~~„~ y, 4Y.-~+IC-f ~yy q~. k ,~ .4
o
. xf}. ~~~ 1
.
i
J.~
~,~t. i~ "'~~ r~
$ t ~
~
~
,
~' ? ~ ,~ ~, t .
~
.
y~g 1
w ~
~
.t ~ r~
..
F ,.
...4
~~, i
r ~
P
:'"~ ~`5 . ;~.
+'
' ~
~~~ ", ~+fl~ ._ .a
~
~
+" ~ , ,,~ ~ r
~ ate. t
.,
a
~'~-~,+.r
k _ h~~. ~ r.. +.Y. >s- .r .
.
~y ~ a ~~
~ t .~F~~» ro ''4. '
" ~
r~ 4.. ~7i ~~, ~..., ...,..,na.'ew~""°° `P j
"
~'f'
g
~/
a
~'
,i1 ~

.~

y
~_ °..S _ /'~
.r )~ e a i
,

_
1j 1 x.~

~

~'
l x~
y
.~.

,~
~ 4
~ ~

.. _ ~
_ y

.e
r
i~ _

... .... a
' ~
.,.
..... y v
?I4R. r ,'~.'~:

.
~f1
r
-v: ~.

y,
~
~~
'
~ ~
~ ~ '
~~ ~
.w ~'
~ , y
x
f
r
t ' r
,. ?y rt
~
F
; sF
3~r '
'

' C s m4'
ti' ~1 `
p +
~ ~
~r q~ s r.
_
i r
r . f
}^"
~~. ~ Yli
~~
w
+S "
~ •
Iii' .
s.
~
~

y+ ~i~:
• '~ ~

{ '
: tVM,
.
~
.` "`~'
' ~
;r }
x, ~ '
!1 ~''".'
:. ,.
7 ~~
~ '/'
~
i
; A
~.
,~
1( ~
y
-
~
y ~
~~
'„~Y
;
C;
~
~~
.,____ ~~
'~`¢A' .- s'`• qq^~. ~
x+< a sa- c,
{
~p .
~ 413 '~ ~yy b4'~,', Sg^a ..rt j ,p.3 ,
.
# °?r

Wetland G and Stream A, facing west

Title Wetland G
P~e~„~ea H<,~ Wetland and Stream Delineation

1~~ ~ Project Holly Springs
*`
'~- ~`
Z ~~__~~
~ 111 ~~ Wake County, North Carolina
"-~i~ .

'
"
~ ,~
'xt%~' .~ t
y '~ ~ ~ .
I
~~F
v
t }
i ~
I f a f

1
1
to
~~ ~ ` {~ ~

l t ~ t~ _~
d~; fi~ ~
~
111 ~~` ° ~ r~{
t ~ q, ° ~.
i
y ~
T~' ~s. x ~ i s ~.' ,~
4

, .,

v r
`~
~ "9
~
~
5 ~
t
+~ ~

/~ R ,.t ~
"~' 1 ~ yf) -9,'n'W .,y~~ ,~~h,
,
,it h
~
~ * ~v'~i ~'
'
*
.
~~y`
r~ ~ ~
~ ~Mf """'~ h,~ 1~ ~ +4'Pr' o
'
r r +

Facing wetland flags WH-1 and Wfl-2
t~ - I~ i

{.* tin
~...
4 y .e Q
~ ~ ~ o

k:
X,_.

v
"
a
?iht.~r.
G
r ~ n, ~ ~
y
~ iK - •.
'
j ~ ~ ~' .~. -.~
'
~°•
~ {
t .1
:Y ,r~,yg
< ~
4
~
~
y;',:yt Q

~ ~
~
Y ) `"q qe yam{ ~,?~

~~l
Y e,~Y~ ,.may
~ ~ r ~ ~ j ~ ~~•
t1 ~ '~
~h
'P
~
.l

•
-rte ~ .. P e
A u~
~~,y,~~, M.I t1... ~
«.. ..
&~p ,rv
~ I
..

", ~'
i
A
~
T c~
l
T. ,wly
-~.•ua r~
1M
-. '~..
s µ
a
?: '~ - '~: m,< 't;
c
~ ~ ,k
. '
.. ... /
S r"~.
~ a[
1
w
~`~~,1yw. / ~
Wetland H facing west, view of surface indicators
Title Wetland H
r~ePa~ea r°~: Wetland and Stream Delineation
,~~,~~~~~~,y~~t Project Holly Springs

a o Wake County, North Carolina
'O 111 ~~
S

,..
~.1 I, ' ~ t
1 ~ Aa ~ tliy
x ,~r t
"~ V s~+ < t >w 1 A+ Y ,: `~, ~ 14 .` ~ ~ Al~ x.~ ~°e t +;( ~ 4 1 ~ 1
' t + ~ ~'~
: R ~1 1.
~(µ ~
~
~
'
~
6
~
~' 1~ • i 'dT>
~
#
~~
A. ~~`
y S ~~ ~+ ,$' ~ ~3 ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~~y '~ ~ ~ yn' ~ ~ ~~ f
~A. f~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
h
Rr
..
~'t t ~
44 rt < f i K
~
~
~
~

F,.
~
,,
wy ~
I! P $~,
~ g~ .~,~ k s.(._v~ ~•,j ~i.ro+ ~~5~~
1.,r; } d.* I+I
1 ~''} Mkt ^# ,r3~`%4~
P= id ; ~ ~Y' 4 "4 4 i .t' rM t ~ 5 i!'i ']u' a r 1 i \ ~M ~~
i
P a ~^
t
~
ti
i
)
~ r~. d 4 "~ ~ '1 ~e
.~ A t ~ ~~
1 T ~~~~i. ~ 'Yµ1 ~ A+ _ .4~ ~ µ,: f/ _ y rt ~4 ~ t ~ T ~-,.
~
j
~~ k ~~ ~ a ~ ~ ;t4 r ~ r a53 r4'~v~p ~ Y e.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~;.~ ~ ~.
~ I
9k ~ ,q
~ 9s
+m ~I
j t1.,. ! `+ tw~~ Y+,p`
~ / 4~.}.
"~ ;`' fY: ' ~.
'6'
2
'~h
T
~
~
~
t
~
gp~
y
~, s i, ~ i Y ,cy Y ~~,A ~ ~ t
,,t~,., Vim,
~ ~
~5' '
'
~ •~p - "~,qt
" y~„ ~~~~ i
Y~^ ~~
~
,
:;
~ °s" y ac#
-~{s~ s
~
'~
4
~
,~y.
y,
/(
p
~~',1,
~f.
~
y
X it ~ a~
f NAY ~~„ ,~ ! .?~ YP~^,~
'~' 5 ~ p i
A .F.,' pg T' ~yd 'f `7 ~ F
}
~ P~ ~
. yF~
~
~
~
,.
~g R O j~
~~
j
~ P~ Y.i~ ~ a~ Itf ~} ~ ~ ~ ~n '~ u+/~`~. ( p ~ "~~' ry
~~y.
1. ~ ~,'~~>A Y~ ~d ~l,ra~~ ~
~
~
~ lY o-# ~' ~ r~ r y{~ ~ Y' ~ w -
"
r ~-, i~' ~. ~ a r 8 ~ dr'• ! e j w µy*i ~
.
!
w
~
~
~ '. t
~
~ t.~ '"'~"' `4 (r.~ ~ V. ~r . ~'if~~ ~
N 't
r. j7,'`~ ~ 1
,,
-
w t
~

1 ~
* ~:! ~~
,
y
~ F
~~, f ~~ ~'C rtb ~ °V b4~~'~. yG1t fb~ M. # S N~ ~
r 9
k
~•~ `lF ~'~
)
..
I
R ii ¢L.. err a`Y'~' ~ 1 +'i ~ Aq~~ ~ `~JSA'~ ~'4 r.~.' °'"7
~ ~ ` ~.
~y~l
~~r
s
,
~ Y M w
~ c
r'~~ ~~
.
~~
`
~
.e~
~,
..
. ,~
~,
.. ~
~ ^~ ~ ~
.
,
~
b ~ 4 ~ 'R' ~ 1 Y ,~ ^s ~ It ~}~ # '~ A t MMI ~,w ~ K i.
'~ -K y q~ 1 9
"~ z a~ ? ~ ` 4'~}p .5~l+rymauc. 1yd 4 ,g . T V ~!.„ y, k
~ ~
.y i ;1°'i ~ 1~ I .~ ~. .~ ~ 14N_
4 .. ~
Ar4 k'~ ~ 7 ~ w.l F ~~ ~ ~
~
~
:
'~
' l ~
M1
°
~
'
~
~
i ,~
~
_ ~, r*
i L
d t
~
'{
~ A
.
, JY iy ~. }~ 1~, 'RM .ft{~. to- v~ y ~ q, y4v:.
¢~,~ r "8 +
. ~ ...~ :F ,".~~~y drr 8~~~7~ S~I~W ! ~. `rS '~ V ,~~~~''.^a'p~~}- ~ d Ntl }'~v
~ , ~'L ! ~
~p ''p^~~ ~p ~...~ >"~ V k !j •T ~5 ~ ~ ~5` ~ • 7'•`~".~ yti.~ f Y .X ''h ~r + ._i
'
E
~
~,~ T ~ ~i4 ~' f 7 #1n 'i 'A Rt 1 >' # ~ . Ak J y~"~#,, ,~
.t~ ~~~~1 ~ ~_ 2 ,may, .4 ~, & ~ ~ ~ '"~ t ,! 4 a c, ''w``'' ~~' ~ "7'# ~ ~,%
''77
~
~
~
~
~• _ w ,Ix~e ~§y~~."~ '
/~+~.,At~~~ x: -d 4,Sa ~
s
4r
.a~'~ a k ~ "~~. ~q~~ ~I,
,<
~t
~"~
'
~
t
'
`
~^~
'
i
f>~
s
-~ • k}4a~ ~) '~
. 4yti., {
~, l~„
'wr i~~r Ta
~ n
i n'
~
~ J5~' #yY
«p
4r K"

Wetland P facing west

Title Wetland P
v~epa~ea Foy: Wetland and Stream Delineation
~~"~"~
' ~ ~~ ~ ~~ Project Holly Springs
~
~
u u
~~ 111 Wake County, North Carolina
SA- ..:

Y t 1 I I , I A V�,
- M1 � , '�( )wr � :>•
A r
AJ
'Ay �11
M1
k
f
• �. eM1t
( 1 � .ai-+;`' t ' fir, �; ,� s,r.. � t.•p
'It r D � i 1 t'1 � �3 �� ��' 1�`-'a _1
♦ r r�
'�ly{ 1 J
"� ' f �" l,. M1 ) M14. { .,f.
• '�� �� ��' �.a �N 6 �fL. a._
i�.i.
ilk
,1r■
' ,. "
!a r
��. A 1 � /.. _ ,R' g +kms' ��
� � � `i
q 4, ♦. ,D{.,,e
•°w
f 1 ,�, ^' ri �� �
!
•
•� � �v
% *'�� tib: �
y � D
1.w"R •�
! f(( ( ^+Yll y !� �Je. 4•'A'v *+ � ,
ice- • � �.. � d' '�+
g
IIII�I
x� F
M1V Y' A7r',-.�
1
Wetland Q
Title
Wetland Q
Prepared For:
Project
Wetland and Stream Delineation
Holly Springs
Z o a
Wake County, North Carolina
�o n
2

i• � :f� .� ,� qtr` I e�� '
r. M,
:"14` '' +'fit, a+�'-,'i •�.. '�,'..'`', y.,,y
_71 f7
+ of.,
'�`
F�
rl\
Upland view of Wetland R, facing north
1
. r
Y �+
p`. Thr e
•
P
\
♦♦ t,
,
Wetland R facing south
Title
Wetland R
Prepared For:
Wetland and Stream Delineation
�s a
Project
Holly Springs
Wake County, North Carolina
o a
5

.w,:. ~ F#~ ~ ~ ~~ 1 t y~d{13.'~ ~:. ~ 4 c""~ ~}4 ~ a... U p ,,.ir ~~
t ~5 i l #

,
•
"~ s ~1.#~ M w ,.~~ 4 m~'~ a +x ~
d++~~.. y i ~ h y YrC ,
~
IF"'~~`y ~ ~ F ~ "!~I
~ ,~~vre yip ~ ~' k~ ~
,ta'. ~ +"' "` ~ 'r? 6.et'
!~ ~ ,.
":.'~j
~t ~1t 5 "r~,,t~.n-~~ der '*
i~
~"
4
_
Yh ~
' ,
file ii Y~ ~ h

,~• .,

~ ,~t
~ •;:

w
t~
~ ~„ ;~
S ~ g

Wetland S
t ~' 3 t`, ~
44 5 / t ,
S A s
~.
q .
er
~
~
~ i~ ~

.Pr c
~ ~,
~"~ dy
~`~
~
~'- ~~ ~
~4{. ~ y( ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ a ~ ~~+~ ~ F 3 '~ ~, #
t e~ ( ~ '~ l
,.
iT ( x N ~ * x~~ ~ ~ s
Y
d
~
t ~
111
i
e ~+
~

art
4 ~'
y .
{ a x
' f f ~ ~ fi:
~ f i { : ;
i~ "A a rt a
y'~a 9 l
~

€
Y ^
~
R {-
f
`~.~ tp~~ { .~'L*y~ r~ f ~ h ~~}~l' ~
~ R°~ ~ ~
// ~4 5 ,' E ~~~ ~
A
~
~ ~ jf
{
,
j~~ ~Y ~1~, ~
Ir i
` r~
AK. ~ $~ ~t7S
,~~ ~
/
ii at ,/9
r d
g
Y
~
..
~
:~a a~R f a2. ~ ~*~ ~ 7~SE aZ P
.,r,.~ ~ ~ ~ ~,.4Y /~ ~
x ~ a~$ w ~ ~ .
w
,
~ e
-~
y
~
,~
/
~
~ ,~ ~~ ~ ,y
,
~ ,.~
b..
h
^F
;
~
~
~'4
`~
V ~ p
~idy4 w4
~~ I ~p.,,'~
'
-.1 .~
,/ J,~y~.. , r ~ ~ s~
,~~ tr1~
~ ,1
~

lie r~1..1 » .
~ p
~. a~~ Sr1Y ~ `y7° 4 a ~ .~,y1 4( 1~ ~ 'f F U -.s ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ q; ~ ~
d
7
':
~
'~ ~
/
~
r
4 ~`~'~,
q
'
~ `
~y~ 1'
~'N ~
`f d
.t'`
~ Y
fd 1.f l
f
e ~y y h.~ ~~ .-. ek
~l
l ~
M
~
~
_ ..~~
+
/n
1
~
•
r y
.
. f
t~,H.
l~
~
~~py i~
_~ :I~
+
'
q
t~
,f
a
y~
~e~fy
~i~.Y ~_ ^.aR"n s~
,
_fi
~ J~~ • Gr'1:'y4 ~ ` +.a `1 ..x~?~. ~'RFL
~
fits ,~ b, ~a' °~ ~ .1~. i" h ~.~ lq,
Upland S
Title Wetland S
P`eparea F°`=
~ Wetland and Stream Delineation
,, ~
~'-~,~.>,. Project Holly Springs

o-
n
Z Wake County, North Carolina
_
n ~~~a
i

Stream flag SA-4 facing downstream
e: ~

Stream flag SA-4 facing upstream
Title Stream A
P~ePa~ea Fo= Wetland and Stream Delineation
,~~,~~r~-''° Project Holly Springs
Z Wake County, North Carolina
O O
O ~~~U
S

i ' >; - i ,
3' -,a• .i 1�� i '"`;�
� Dom'' j
,?`Y
n
j r
M-
View of Stream B facing upstream
e
G
r
.
yq �;�
AI
r
} # D:
• P S'.�
Y
1Fi
rl, .� if a a iY Y, �1N
_J
View of Stream B facing downstream
Title
Stream B
Prepared For.
Wetland and Stream Delineation
,,•�e1s
Project
Holly Springs
Wake County, North Carolina
i

~, r , n~
~ '
~ 1 p i r ~ y ate'.. , '~{,, "' a ;Y ' ~ ~ '~ ,~ a°"`°'.. -
t I'4 Y r d f Y J ##¢¢ ~' +~y
r
~.- ~ ~~ s.~ ~ kris ~ ~~. ~z. ~ ' ~ • ' ~, ~~. ~ ru.•
Stream C, view of culvert at road crossing upstream
Title Stream C
P~ePa~ea r~>*. Wetland and Stream Delineation
" ~~~ "' Project Holly Springs
~ ~ ~ Wake County, North Carolina
Z ~ 111 ~
t +>

z_
*�.r' ,` _• `iii
R'
XL
Downstream view of Stream D flowing to Wetland B, facing southeast
Or f
4�A�4 i
ti
4 + art
i y
a�
i
. w
Upstream view of Stream
D
"Title
Stream D
Prepared For:
Wetland and Stream Delineation
1V76
Project
Holly Springs
Wake County, North Carolina

::; ~`''
~~ , o '•:
.e.~:}.
t
„<i

r~. H'f~;±~~
,.
Stream E, facing downstream
Title Stream E
v~e~a~ea roe: Wetland and Stream Delineation
,,~~~~~-'%,~>t Project Holly Springs
~ Wake County, North Carolina
a, a
a 111 a ,

VA
'M_rr+�� n �tMI1b,�P� �1a ,�•t* ,-i� �41�i
� lr _' �s. l.'� DY► iYL I J'�i�lv.� a's' �•ilq �ti.�' 6t�.
1 Y ;`t 4
�
>f ', Y � �'A^���./t' �'�� '�"x 'tom �,��,•�!
Y#� �1�` A ' �� ✓ W�yf+. dbi +{C yY
t �Y.' FnS�� y: Er�.r^..�i,' ,f^ � t �
�,�� ♦
/ "J.'°'j '.'r�y►ii..
�.��lPi
^��Y�.y�b', ♦ � .�IE� :t r. ���. Jirc ..
Stream F facing downstream
IZU
1.14VA
Stream F facing upstream
Title
Stream F
"aredFor:
Wetland and Stream Delineation
,e s
Project
Holly Springs
Wake County, North Carolina
2 0

` �\` 1 \ � � � � •..� %�y �h�1i ��W� Rt '� „vin°+.
n � ,
� w
ti -
r � s Dr Fr 4 ^' ♦ rt d r.... ^,' '`
a, t
.. .{ lr` `. '."��. � to •i� L sY.r
ya
w. q h l�iC
fa ,+i-tq�� �� �.' aK . ♦'1 �Ls
. w
✓ C
„
s
�p��� v
i
> 11(SJJ[S,
tet..• \'.`,..-• .�ae� t °'""` mM«. tl` M, ia.ti ,� .. � ���ry �v t
.. u
`'4 �4 +rM

Stream P facing upstream
Stream P-facing downstream towards road crossing
Title I Stream P
P~eP~~ea roe: Wetland and Stream Delineation
"`~~~~~''~ ~ Project Holly Springs
~ Wake County, North Carolina
Z ,1110

Appendix E -Agent Authorization

o T_
123
Letter of Authorization
The Town of Holly Springs authorizes Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to act
as our limited agent to prepare and coordinate in the application to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for 404/401 permits and jurisdictional determinations
associated with the Holly Springs Business Park Pump Sta#ion project, in Wake
County, North Carolina. Authorization will terminate on either final agency
action or upon written notification from either parties involved.
Client Address:
Town of Holly Springs
Attn: Ms. Stephanie Sudano, P.E., Director of Engineering
P.O. Box 8
Holly Springs, NC 27540
(Signature of Client)
Date