U-5515

Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc.
January 10, 2014
■
P.O. Box 33068
Ms. Karen Higgins Raleigh, North Carolina
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 27636 -3068
N.C. Division of Water Resources
512 N Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Request for Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Authorization
TIP# U -5515 - Stadium Drive Road Improvements Projects
Wake Forest, Wake County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Higgins:
On behalf of our client, the Town of Wake Forest, Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
(KHA) requests a Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Authorization for the
referenced roadway improvement project located in Wake County. The Town of
Wake Forest proposes complete street improvements to approximately 1.2 miles of
SR 1930 (Stadium Drive), from US 1 to SR 1954 (North Wingate Street). The
proposed improvements include widening to a three -lane curb and gutter section,
sidewalk construction, multi -use path, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian amenities, and a
single lane roundabout at Stadium Drive and North Wingate Street. The existing
bridge within the project study area carrying Stadium Drive over Richland Creek was
recently replaced and will not be modified as part of the proposed project.
KHA investigated the project corridor on November 4, 2013 and identified two
perennial stream features within the project corridor (Richland Creek and stream SB),
but no wetland features were identified. Stream SB is a perennial UT to Richland
Creek located north of Stadium Drive and east of Richland Creek, but does not appear
on the most recent USGS Topographic Map or the NRCS Soil Survey and is therefore
not subject. There are two stream features that appear on the NRCS Soil Survey at
the western end of the project corridor, but were found to be not present within the
study area. KHA would like to request a field verification meeting to confirm the
absence of these stream features as well as the applicability of the Neuse Riparian
Buffer rules within the proposed project corridor.
To assist in your evaluation, the following information has been included:
• Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form as submitted to the USACE
• Signed Agent Authorization Letter
• Vicinity Map
• USGS Topographic Map R12@90
!1! • Aerial Photograph with Jurisdictional Features JAN 1 3
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

C®F, Kimley -Horn
® and Associates. Inc.
• USDA/NRCS Soil Survey Map
• Wake County Property Parcels Map
• Table of Potentially Affected Property Parcel Information
• NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms
• USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets
If there is any additional information you need to assist in the processing of this
buffer authorization, please do not hesitate to contact me at (919) 678 -4155 or
[e-mail].
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
)00w- faez�
Jason Hartshorn
Environmental Analyst
Enclosures
Copy: James Lastinger, USACE
Candace Davis, Town of Wake Forest
Jason Pace, Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
Page 2 of 2

TIP # U -5515
ATTACHMENT A
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD):
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., ATTN: Jason Hartshorn, on behalf of Town
of Wake Forest, 3001 Weston Parkway, Cary, NC 27513
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT
SITES)
State:NC County: Wake City: Wake Forest
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat. 35.985151 ° N, Long. 78.520518° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17
Name of nearest waterbody: Richland Creek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non - wetland waters:
322 linear feet: 8 -16 width (ft)
Cowardin Class: Riverine
Stream Flow: Perennial
Wetlands: 0 acres.
Cowardin Class: n/a
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal: n/a
Non - Tidal: n/a

TIP # U -5515
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply
- checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and
requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
® Data sheets prepared /submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24,000 - Wake
Forest (1987).
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
Wake County (1970).
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State /Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum
of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):NC Statewide Orthoimagery
Project (2010).
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination (s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
7

TIP # U -5515
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre- construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non - reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
This preliminary JD finds that there "maybe" waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
3

TIP # U -5515
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later jurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
/;, 4AD �f /ly
;finature and date of
erson requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
Estimated
amount of
Class of
Site
Latitude
Longitude
Cowardin
aquatic
aquatic
number
Class
resource in
resource
review area
Richland
35.9848
- 78.5197
Riverine
204 linear feet
non - section 10
Creek
— non -tidal
SB
35.9846
- 78.5190
Riverine
118 linear feet
non - section 10
— non -tidal

Letter of Authorization
Mrs. Candace Davis, with the Town of Wake Forest authorizes Kimley -Horn and
Associates, Inc. to act as our limited agent to coordinate with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and North Carolina Division of Water Quality for the
preparation and submittal of jurisdictional determinations and 404/401 permits
applications associated with the Stadium Drive Complete Street project (U -5515)
located in Wake County, North Carolina. Authorization will terminate on either
final agency action or upon written notification from either parties involved.
Company Name: Kimley -Horn and Associates. Inc.
Contact Name: Jason Pace, P.E.
Client Name: Candace Davis
Client Address: 301 South Brooks Street
Wake Forest, NC 27587 -2901
Client Phone #: 919 - 435 -9513
Client Fax #: 919 - 435 -9539
Client Email: cdavis(&wakeforestnc.zov
(Signature of Client)
! .r ,I, Dc ", E,3
Date

Z
0
0
0g ��
A
n
0
4C
U
�
Co
F I J ll-% ' L / f V-11 l ) I—1 9a
0
98
I
�e1
v
U _
K o s W
r
� m
i
Friendship Chaps M�na9e Hdl
Q� Liberty � s
Y hS
Nr � (H�\ta9 He\9
98
LL Legend
Ae Streams (DWQ)
401 Project Study Area
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
TOWN of TIP # U -5515: Stadium Drive Road Improvements
WAKE FOREST Wake Forest, Wake County
January 2014

a

�j
I�
v
A C2 Applin sandy loam, 6- 10° %slopes, eroded N
No
CeB2 Cecil sandy loam, 2 -6 %slopes, eroded N
No
CeC2 Cecil sandy loam, 6- 10° %slopes, eroded N
No
soils2445 %slo es No
Legend Figure Soil
TOWN of • . •
WAKE FOREST 1 Project •
a•.
a.
w Y} Z
F! •.' w
7 h
t v�

O
OD
(0
CL
Ln
Ln
Ln
U
a
F-
Ol N W 01 Ln t0 N Ol tD l0 n t0 lD C N N N Q1 N M Vl M Ol
00 m N 00 N .-I .--1 Ln N lD O N 10 .--I o0 M .�-� 00 � N N O N
oo Ln m oo o D r O m M D1 m M m iO W m oo D O rn O m o
74 N N r-1 01 V O rM 0) N tD M N N to R 'T N O . m M m M N Ol
00 t` n 00 n n n 00 m n N n N n n f\ n n N t` n 00 00 Ol M n n n n M r� n oOOO
W 00 W W 00 W W o0 N 00 W N 00 W 0o 00 W (n W 00 0o 00 M C W m oo tD W O N 00 00
ul M M ul N r, to Vl r, M .--I N a N Vl vl LA N Vl V1 V1 a 'i Vl M V1 a lD Vl V1 v1
n n n n n n rn v rn l� rn r_ r, o r, n r r. m � n- n n v n, r. o o n v r� �•
N N N N N N N N N 4' N O N tD N N N N� N N N N C, d N N tD N M N N
U u u u u u u u O u N u O u m u u U U O u U U u . r U (Ji U m � u m 0 u U
Z Z Z Z Z z Z Zml Z tD Z tO z N Z z z z tD Z Z z Z w tD z Y Z N w Z n m, Z z
lFn (Fn lFn lFn VF1 IFn (Fn N Q N N l~n N N M N N N N N N V N N N N N Q N N N to U d N N
W W W W w W W W a W U W U W W W W W W U W W W W U U W p, W W U W W W
w w w w w w w w w z w z o j z cc rr w Z w w w z z z or °� Z cr z w oc
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O x 0 x 0 = 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0== O z 0 x 0 z0 a 0 0
w w w w w w w w x w w w Z w w w w w w w w w g w Z w v1 x w w
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y w Y W Y W Y w Y Y Y Y W Y Y Y Y W w Y Y W W Y Z Y Y
a a a a a a Q a o a Q a Q Q
33333333x3 3ac3w a a a Q a a Q Q a a Q o
�33330.3333 oc303cDw3 a a
x33
01 °
m oc m
00 } 00
00 ac 00
a
m m
0
CL CY 0 CL J O J
J w J
F U F
z z
0_' W w Q Ln N W
cx 0-
F- 0
(7
Q Q w lj O a l7
(Fn d 3 o°c cc o cc z N 3 Fn- Fz G ° d Z a °o: v o!
W W Q J K Y a
> u o Z a° N F,1 N< Z x° u p U Q o I� z Q(°c
01 a Q D1 Z w F `'"� U Q J w a } a rn of Z m w J w w J F W L
Z F cc O n ° 01 Q UO Q Q a 0 N Z° Z ^- u Q ::� Q ON U [0 a J
m (3i, 2 m Z 3 m Cm-7 va~i m Z N Z z 3 vv)i iI , m m N w?� D u m O Q� Z (a~i1
D� N w ow O W o0 O 0 m 1n O N M N ' 1 N N O m (-1 0 0 V1 W W O m 0 0o n Ln I V
0- N .--I 0. v1 w N 0_ N W O_ to M N u N Vl Vl N V w N 0_ m N w (n . w u O_ w .-1 N a 00
O
2
F
D
a
m
Z
cr
W
x
F
Z)
0
V)
J
J
w x wz
u
n z ° oc z
V z O
m u a =' a
J
O O Ln J w F J O U w cc
m 0 h
F F 0 ca 0 J 0 Z cc J ?�
Ln fA w Q F a w w 0
F O
0 0 0 a V Q w 0 u�i J a Q w Q O
O Z z n g Z CC
o Z J F o Z J o
Z F F x a F u Q (7 aWC w Z Y w W x 0
3¢ Z Z o i a 3 LL i a
?FFwwFago�F0�
0 0 W Q 0 m J 0 a 0 a F o Q Q T j
a w ,n (n 2 (n 0 0 3 i z x u oc � 2 J N Q
u
z >;
Y �
w
Q U
Z W J
_ O]
z
� 3 � Z
w cc z
u u a > a
J m W
O 3 O ¢ z
Z
>- 0 u
( Q ° O
Ow (xil U Ow U
0 F u F W 0C co
F V) v=i Fi_1 Q 3 u Z w a
CL OF. u 0 0 Y Fit J (W9 w¢ z
° w w 5 w 0
m m J OC m J Z M} W W
Z Z w cc Q Z} O z N Q 0 cc w
W W m m w OM 0 0! W L D° D Y w
0a 0
Y N a 3° Q O
x x a W x (n z° 0 V Z Q W Z
F- Z O W Q 0 J F Q= =O m >>
LnLOA >3tna(nu2u}Uo_Q
P, N 01 M tD N I\ .-" .-I M O m w (n m Cr N O N m w N Q IT m N VI O O n w M V1 n tD
w O m tD -T M m O O M m-T M tD N m V .--I N m N W r-1 W m .--I M m N m N i\ N V e 4 n
O V tD m w g m. i Vl m .--I O n r\ n w to N m M m lD w V :3 M N N O
m M 00 C t0 V1 01
N N N m V1 V m m to m to V to N V m m m N 4 N N V 'cr m N V (n V 0 N V' to r Vf
O O .--I m .-t O
r-I r-1
oMO o� o� aMO o� ono o$ o9 � 001 001 9 o9 9 � o � o� 01 ;& a`ro 10 g 01 0 omo 00 o`b

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 11/4/2013
Project/Site: TIP# U -5515
Richland Creek
Latitude: 35.9848
J. Hartshorn (KHA),
Evaluator:
County: Wake
Longitude: - 78.5197
L. Virtaranta (KHA)
0
1
Total Points: 38
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
Stream Determination
Other Wake Forest
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermitt t Perennial
.g. Quad Name:
if ? 19 or perennial if ? 30
0
1
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 19.5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
0
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-
ool se uence
0
1
1
3
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
1.5
3
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
1
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 8.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
0
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
1 3
C. Biology Subtotal = 10
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
+'
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
23. Crayfish
0
1 0.5
1
1.5
0.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other
= 0
0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Richland Creek is a large perennial channel that has a good
meander and crosses beneath Stadium Drive. The stream channel appears to
have been restored in the past, and the riparian buffer has been planted.
Substrate is sandy with gravel /cobble present. Crayfish and fish were observed
in the channel.

USACE AID# DWQ
Site # (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Town of Wake Forest/NCDOT ' 2. Fvaluator's name: I Hartshorn (KHA), L. Virtaranta (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation: 11/04/2013 4. Time of evaluation: 2:25 pm
5. Name of stream: TIP# U -5515 - Richland Creek 6. River basin: Neuse
7. Approximate drainage area: 7.3 square miles 8. Stream order:.Third Order
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100' 10. County: Wake
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
1: •:,:11
12. Subdivision name (if any): n/a
Longitude (ex. - 77.556611): -78.519700
Method location determined (circle): �PSQ✓ fopo Sheet rtho (Aerial) Photo /GIS[D)ther GISE10ther
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
The reach runs underneath Stadium Drive, near the intersection of McDowell Drive.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): n/a
15. Recent weather conditions: Temperature between 50 and 70 degrees, with 1.33" of rainfall within 72 hours.
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Clear, temperature in upper 50's.
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ,Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
nTrout Waters DOutstanding Resource Waters 2✓ Nutrient Sensitive Waters ✓LWater Supply Watershed IV (I -1V)
18. is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: n/a
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: 25 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial 10 % Agricultural
40 % Forested 25 % Cleared / Logged % Other (
22. Bankfull width: 16' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 4'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: DFlat (0 to 2 %) 2✓ Gentle (2 to 4 %) DModerate (4 to 10 %) DSteep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight 00ccasional bends R[Frequent meander OVery 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): 55 Comments:
Richland Creek is a large perennial channel with good meander and structures present The reach runs parallel to a utility
easement and the reach may have been restored previously, Evidence of high flow events were observed, however, the
floodplain is elevated and confined
Evaluator's Signature Y. Wa "'`LA°11n Date 11/04/2013
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

TIP# U -5515 - Richland Creek
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
I
Presence of flow / persistent pools n stream
i
o -s
0-4
o -s
3
(no flow or saturation — 0; strong flow — max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0 -6
0 -5
0 -5
2
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
2
(no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
3
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 - 4
0-4
1
d
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
V.
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
1
no floodplain = 0• extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
2
p"
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0 - 4
0-2
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max p oints
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
3
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
3
,y,
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
,F.
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
4
0.4
(severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max points)
QRoot
14
depth and density on banks
0-3
0 -4
0 --5
3
H
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout -- max p oints
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 4
0-5
4
15
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
-
Presence of riffle - pool /ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
4
16
no riffles/ripples or nools = 0; well- develo ed =max oints
d
1
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 - 6
0-6
3
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
1
(no shading vegetation — 0; continuous canopy — max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
o-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 5
0-5
2
20
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
-
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
O
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max oints
O
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
2
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
55
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 11/4/2013
Project/Site: TIP# U-5515 Stream SB
Latitude: 35.9846
J. Hartshorn (KHA),
Evaluator:
County: Wake
Longitude: - 78.5190
L. Virtaranta (KHA)
0
1
Total Points: 32.5
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
Stream Determination
Other Wake Forest
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermitt t Perennial
g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if ? 30
0
1
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 16.5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0.5
3
2
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-
ool se uence
0
1
2
1.5
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
1.5
3
5. Active /relic flood lain
No = 0
1
2
3
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
1
3
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0.5
2
3
1
8. Headcuts
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
i
1.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
Yes = 3
0
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 8.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
0
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
t
1.5
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 7.5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: SB is a perennial channel flowing through a topographic crenulation
parallel to Stadium Drive. SB has a very rocky substrate, and flows over
bedrock at multiple points with steep elevation changes. Crayfish and algae
were observed within the channel.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Town of Wake ForeSt/NCDOT 2. Evaluator's name: 3. Hartshorn (KHA), L. Virtaranta (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation: 11/04/2013
5. Name of stream: TIP# U -5515 - Stream SB
7. Approximate drainage area: 16 acres
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100'
IL Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
35.984600
4. Time of evaluation: 3:00 pm
6. River basin: NeuSe
8. Stream order:. First Order
10. County: Wake
12. Subdivision name (if any): n/a
Longitude (cx. - 77.556611): -78.519000
Method location determined (circle): APSE I'opo Sheet00rtho (Aerial) Photo /GISE]Dther GIS❑Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
The stream runs parallel to Stadium Drive, beginning on the west side of Wake Forest High School.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): n/a
15. Recent weather conditions: Temperature between 50 and 70 degrees, with 1.33" of rainfall within 72 hours.
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Clear, temperature in upper 50's.
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters OEssential Fisheries Habitat
IITrout Waters .Outstanding Resource Waters Z Nutrient Sensitive Waters ✓LWater Supply Watershed IV (1 -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: n/a
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 8' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 6'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: DFlat (0 to 2 %) OGentle (2 to 4 %) ZModerate (4 to 10 %) ELSteep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Z✓ Occasional bends Fl Frequent meander OVery 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): 47 Comments:
SB is a linear channel flowing through a topo4raohic crenulation parallel to Stadium Drive SB begins at multiple groundwater
seeps at the top of a slope, and the channel flows over bedrock throughout much of the reach The channel has steep banks
that are near vertical, and It does not appear to overtop Its banks.
Evaluator's Signature Y. �Ea "' �'�' �' °" Date 11/04/2013
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

TIP# U -5515 - Stream SB
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
o -s
0-4
o -s
3
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0 -6
0 -5
0 -5
4
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
1
(no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
4
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
*4
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
1
d
no discharge — 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 -4
0 -4
0 -2
0
y,
(no floodplain = 0• extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
1
p"
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
4
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 4
0-5
1
12
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
-
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
2
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
Q
Root depth and density on banks
0 3
0-4
0 5
2
H
14
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
-
—
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 4
0-5
3
15
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
—
16
Presence of riffle - pool /ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
4
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
F
d
17
Habitat complexity
Habitat
0-6
0 — 6
0-6
5
or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
18
(no shading vegetation — 0; continuous canopy ° max points)
�.
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
3
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0
0
0
0
20
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
-4
-5
-5
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
O
(no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
*4
O
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
0
no evidence = 0; common numerous es = max points)
H23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
1 47
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

TOWN of
b
WAKE FOREST
January 13, 2014
301 S. Brooks Street
Wake f=orest, INC 27587
1919.435.9400
wwa . ��al :eforesu�c.gov
To: Crystal Best, NC State Clearinghouse
Renee Gledhill - Earley, NCDCR (SHPO)
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Clarence Coleman, FHWA
Felix Davila, FHWA
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE
Kevin Hart, NCDCM — Northern Coastal
Rob Ridings, NCDENR -DWQ
Sheila Gibbs, NCDOT
Chris Lukasina, CAMPO
David Eatman, Capital Area Transit
Patti Hamler, Wake Forest High School
Mike Barton, Town of Wake Forest
From: Candace Davis, Senior Planner —Town of Wake Forest
RE: Project Initiation for the Proposed Stadium Drive Complete Streets Improvements Project, Town
of Wake Forest, Wake County. NCDOT TIP Project U -5515, WBS 55056.1.1, Federal Aid Number
STPDA- 0527(14)
The Town of Wake Forest is starting the project development, environmental, and engineering studies for
the proposed Stadium Drive Complete Streets Improvements project. This is a Surface Transportation
Program (STP) project and is included in the NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as
Project U -5515. The Complete Streets improvements on Stadium Drive include widening to a three -lane
curb and gutter section with a potential single lane roundabout at Wingate Street and Stadium Drive
intersection. It also includes sidewalk, multi -use path, bicycle facilities, and transit amenities along
corridor.
Attached for your review and comments are several maps for the subject project. We would appreciate
any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating potential environmental impacts of
the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or approvals that may be required by your
agency /department. An agency scoping meeting is not anticipated for this project. Please provide written
comments by February 28, 2014 via mail or email to me at cdovis @wakeforestnc.gov or Wake Forest
Town Hall, 301 S. Brooks Street, Wake Forest, NC 27587. Environmental documentation (anticipated to be
a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion) will be prepared for this project in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act.
Thank you for your assistance in the project development process. Please feel free to contact me if you
have any questions concerning the project.
Thank you, r
Candace Davis
Enclosures

X%0- N ..
� :� mesa; E
S
A x • •♦
of •
•
Begin Project U -5515
I
i •, s
Wake Forest Crossing �. fdo• '
Shopping Center • AGO,
End Project U -5515
• • i
■
G� �•` Southeastern Baptist Lea Labor ry
�a�a•• Theological Seminary
•
•
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Town of
Wake Forest
WAKE COUNTY
Project Limits Existing Greeay Figure 1
Etin nw
J � Historic Place Vicinity Map
,�•
s Town of Wake Forest ' ' Proposed (Future) Greenway Stadium Drive
i Historic District Complete Streets Improvements
Public School River /Stream TIP Project No. U -5515
Wake Fnrest- Wake County

Project Limits Existing Greenway
* , Public Schools Proposed (Future) Greenway
* Historic Place
Historic District
Figure 2
Aerial Map
Stadium Drive
Complete Streets Improvements
TIP Project No. U -5515

> 1�f N 1 1).1 -,
350 � 7�c �"r S
,— � � 00".1-1 .j f/, _ e� .`e •. •
/ `.,,ter' � �„�- -' � /i: � + • • _ �` +,
'"IDt
// •
�j ! lam' rJ � � ♦ • ` •
L 14
Q ..
0 1,000 2,000`rr"` I + �• \�
Feet
r �
�^r Figure 3
— Topographic Map
Project Limits Stadium Drive
Complete Streets Improvements
TIP Project No. U -5515
Wake Forest Wake Count

Existing greenway on Stadium Drive, looking east
Bridge along Stadium Drive, looking east
Stadium Drive, looking east
Intersection of Stadium Drive and Wingate Street, looking west
Stadium Drive, looking west
Bridge along Stadium Drive, looking west
Figure 4
k Y:'
Photos
.1
Stadium Drive
t'cp
Complete Streets Improvements
!4 'T.tO
TIP Project No. U -5515
Wake Forest, Wake County