US 421 and NC 268/US 421 business Improvements

URS
31824924
June 20,2005
Mr.John Thomas t ✓��?3 D"�
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office i D
US Army Corps of Engineers sr"�c� SOS O
6508 Falls of Neuse Road;Suite 120 q
Raleigh, NC 27615.
RE: Request for 404 Wetland Jurisdictional Determination: US 421 and NC 2681US 421 Business
Improvements,Wilkesboro and North Wilkesboro,Wilkes County, NC
State Project Nos.8.1761901 &8.1761701
TIP Project Nos.U-3468&R-616
Dear Mr.Thomas:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve the US 421 corridor and the NC
268/US 421 Business corridor in the vicinity of Wilkesboro and North Wilkesboro, in Wilkes County. U-3468 focuses
on the section of US Highway 421 from west of NC 16 to NC 268,and R-0616 focuses on US 421 Business from US
421 Bypass to its intersection with NC 268/NC 18.
Wetland and stream delineations were conducted by URS Corporation— North Carolina in May 2005 for the subject
project. NCDOT is requesting a jurisdictional determination on the surveyed wetlands and streams. Enclosed you will
find data and the following information collected during the delineation surveys for your review:
• USACE Routine Wetland Determination Forms
• USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
• NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
• Maps Showing Stream and Wetland Locations.
Please contact me at 919-461-1459 or tina_ra
[e-mail] at your earliest convenience to schedule a
jurisdictional verification of the wetland boundaries or if you have any questions or needs for additional information V
Best regards,
URS Corporation—North Carolina
Tina L. Randazzo
Environmental Scientist
TLR:bkc
Enclosures
cc: John Hennessy—NCDWQ w/Enclosure
Jim Hauser-NCDOT w/Enclosure
URS Corporation-North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 100
Morrisville, NC 27560
Tel:[phone]
Fax: [phone]
0:01824026 NCDOT-ONEIT0 02 31824924WCE lido PacketUD request Ietler.doc

US .42:1 and NC 268/US 42.1 Business _
Improvements
Wilkesboro and`,`North Wilkesboro
.1 Wilkes County;North'Carolina :
State Project Nos'..8 176:19'i &8 1761701 ;
TIP Pro�ect•Nos.:U-3468&
a :Jurisdictional Stream and Wetland
{ Data Forms '
' Prepared for
North•Carolin.Departrhbftt of Transportatioribivision of Highways
US Department of Transportation,Federal Highway Administration
Pr.'epared by ;
URS Corporation North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive
1 Suite 400
M0'''!Ile,' Carolina 27560 r
- V. .� . It 4 ...f •, _ - �-/
e June 20,2005 `

Streams Identified in the Project Study Area
URS Stream Stream as Indicated on DWQ Stream Proposed Stream
Designation USGS Quad Classification Classification
Form Rating
SA UT to Fish Dam Creek 44 Perennial
SC IT to Fish Dam Creek 27.5 Intermittent
SD UT to Fish Dam Creek 33 Perennial
SE Fish Dam Creek 46.5 Perennial
SF UT to Fish Dam Creek 37 Perennial
SG UT to Yadkin River 30.5 Perennial
SO 33.5
SH Millers Creek 44 Perennial
SS 43
SI UT to Millers Creek 34 Perennial
ST 27 Intermittent
Si 48
SX Tucker Hole Creek 47.5 Perennial
SAC 38
SK UT to Tucker Hole Creek 23 Intermittent
SL UT to Moravian Creek 20.5 Intermittent
SM Moravian Creek 31 Perennial
SN Yadkin River 39.5 Perennial
SP UT to Yadkin River 19 Intermittent
SQ UT to Millers Creek 40.5 Perennial
SR UT to Millers Creek 26 Intermittent
Sul UT to Tucker Hole Creek 45 Perennial
(downstream of Congo Rd)
SU2 UT to Tucker Hole Creek 39.5 Perennial
(upstream of Congo Rd)
SV UT to Tucker Hole Creek 23.5 Intermittent
SW UT to Tucker Hole Creek 20.5 Intermittent
SY UT to Tucker Hole Creek 26.5 Intermittent
SZ UT to Tucker Hole Creek 28 Intermittent
SAA UT to Yadkin River 28.5 Intermittent
SAB UT to Yadkin River 29 Intermittent
SAD UT to Tucker Hole Creek 28.5 Intermittent
SAE UT to Mulberry Creek 31 Perennial
SAF UT to Hoopers Branch 29 Intermittent
SAG Hoopers Branch 43.5 Perennial
SAH UT to Hoopers Branch 21 Intermittent
SAI UT to Hoopers Branch 27.5 Intermittent
SAJ UT to Hoopers Branch 33.5 Perennial
SAK UT to Hoopers Branch 28.5 Intermittent

i
t-,
URS Stream Stream as Indicated on DWQ Stream Proposed Stream
Designation USGS Quaid Classification Classification'
r Form Rating
SAL UT to Hoopers Branch 26.5 Intermittent
SAM UT to Hoopers Branch 29 Intermittent
SAN UT to Hoopers Branch 27.5 Intermittent
SAO UT to Hoopers Branch 31 Perennial
SAP UT to Hoopers Branch 24 Intermittent
SAQ Reddies River 51 Perennial
SAR UT to Reddies River 37 Perennial
SAS UT to Reddies River 27 Intermittent
SAT UT to Reddies River 43.5 Perennial
SAU UT to Reddies River 29 Intermittent
SAV UT to Reddies River 25 Intermittent
SAW UT to Reddies River 36.5 Perennial
SAX UT to Reddies River 22 Intermittent
SAZ UT to Reddies River 29 Intermittent
� i

Streams Identified in the Project Study Area (Rank low to high)
URS Stream Stream as Indicated on DWQ Stream .Proposed Stream
Designation USGS Quad Classification Classification
Form Rating.
(love to hi .h).
SP UT to Yadkin River 19 Intermittent
SL UT to Moravian Creek 20.5 Intermittent
SW UT to Tucker Hole Creek 20.5 Intermittent
SAH UT to Hoopers Branch 21 Intermittent
SAX UT to Reddies River 22 Intermittent
SK UT to Tucker Hole Creek 23 Intermittent
SV UT to Tucker Hole Creek 23.5 Intermittent
SAP UT to Hoopers Branch 24 Intermittent
SAV UT to Reddies River 25 Intermittent
SR UT to Millers Creek 26 Intermittent
SY UT to Tucker Hole Creek 26.5 Intermittent
SAL UT to Hoopers Branch 26.5 Intermittent
ST UT to Millers Creek 27 Intermittent
SAS UT to Reddies River 27 Intermittent
Sc UT to Fish Dam Creek 27.5 Intermittent
SAI UT to Hoopers Branch 27.5 Intermittent
SAN UT to Hoopers Branch 27.5 Intermittent
SZ UT to Tucker Hole Creek 28 Intermittent
SAA UT to Yadkin River 28.5 Intermittent
SAD UT to Tucker Hole Creek 28.5 Intermittent
SAK UT to Hoopers Branch 28.5 Intermittent
SAB UT to Yadkin River 29 Intermittent
SAF UT to Hoopers Branch 29 Intermittent
— SAM UT to Hoopers Branch 29 Intermittent
SAU UT to Reddies River 29 Intermittent
SAZ UT to Reddies River 29 Intennittent
SG UT to Yadkin River 30.5 Perennial
SM Moravian Creek 31 Perennial
SAE UT to Mulberry Creek 31 Perennial
SAO UT to Hoopers Branch 31 Perennial
SD UT to Fish Dam Creek 33 Perennial
SO UT to Yadkin River 33.5 Perennial
SAJ UT to Hoopers Branch 33.5 Perennial
SI UT to Millers Creek 34 Perennial
SAW UT to Reddies River 36.5 Perennial
SF UT to Fish Dam Creek 37 Perennial
SAR UT to Reddies River 37 Perennial
SAC Tucker Hole Creek 38 Perennial

URS Stream Stream'as Indicated ow, "DWQ Stream Proposed Stream,,
IDesignat on ' �n USGS Quad; CIamifieatioh-, . Classification
Form Rating
(low to high),','
SN Yadkin River -39.5 Perennial
UT to Tucker Hole Creek
SU2 (upstream of Congo Rd) 39.5 Perennial
SQ UT to Millers Creek 40.5 Perennial
SS Millers Creek 43 Perennial
SAG Hoopers Branch 43.5 Perennial
SAT UT to Reddies River 43.5 Perennial
SH Millers Creek 44 Perennial
SA UT to Fish Dam Creek 44 Perennial
SUl UT to Tucker Hole Creek 45 Perennial
(downstream of Congo Rd)
SE Fish Dam Creek 46.5 Perennial
SX Tucker Hole Creek 47.5 Perennial
SJ Tucker Hole Creek 48 Perennial
SAQ Reddies River 51 Perennial

i
Wetlands Identified in the Project Study Area
'Wetland Wetland Classification Wetland Approximate Area
Cowar,'dian Rahn ' Acre
Wl PFO 28 0.19
W2 PEN"FO 26 0.21
W3 PFO 43 0.48
WA PSS 18 0.03
WB PFO/PSS 27 0.54
WC PFO 11 0.06
WD PEM 14 0.32
WE PFO 21 0.10
WF PEM/PFO 20 0.11
WG PEM/PSS 30 0.40
WH PEM 22 0.09
WI PFO 26 0.02
WJ PEM 37 0.51
WK PFO 22 0.12
Total Acreage of Wetlands 3.18
_i

r
Wetlands Identified in the Project Study Area (Rank low to high)
Wetland Wetland Classification Wetland, Approximate Area.
(Cowardian) Rating ' (Acre) =
(low to high) ,
WC PEM 11 0.06
WD PSS 14 0.32
WA PEM/PFO 18 0.03
WF PFO 20 0.11
WE PEM 21 0.1
WH PFO 22 0.09
WK PEM/PFO 22 0.12
W2 PFO 26 0.21
WI PFO/PSS 26 0.02
WB PFO 27 0.54
W1 PEN"SS 28 0.19
WG PEM 30 0.4
WJ PFO 37 0.51
W3 PEM 43 0.48
ti
Total Acreage of Wetlands 3.18

1 \
�•.�
.� . , •� •�'°'lam
ra'0111 9,
RIOProject Study Area
��
NC Counties
Wilkes
Figure 1
Legend Regional Location Map
Roads US 421 (TIP R-0616)and
1 r

Tv
Iry ir' i j • 4
�y!�'►/ �V�I��• �-w � � s � �y' .!!► '�' ..af' ��, f• irk +
tj
Ok
.''� ' +�2�1''3I�1��+F �`}� s �.F _ �F� � !��►� ; � ��L y iJ)yg, t�.�1�,,yf .:`
Y� } �. ~` '`•,y'�' �,� � r �� (t�f -yr
i*Vk.
f *, ✓A
TDO
Alv .� .G1F y>�i h{•�, �.R`+,r/7x .
` �~ , ref• .7 ~�\, .ti. ,i \ L `V'..;�,AHD' f 1 + i • ar� 3.A\ iA
_'���� � � F fib 'd�Tl1\�'�7'r[, _ <� �.•�., "_:; \. `'�� ,_.__ �� ���
`��•.� �� ,i � ,stir. i t��,, � r m ��> �`�.�� ` /`'� ��� �,� •tee
tar
AK
J �µ
7 M'P
"�+'' 2CA9Ead�11i11(i, Y
Figure 2
�rv�■gi�rt� Legend Project Vicinity Map
- 0. .
>h� Quadrangle
Wilkesboro, Moravian Falls 0 0.25 ,

r.
\tom "j Via' a<' ,''
to ,
;W4' 'rl�
' _} ' ' �- � L � -.. j 1 1 k? 7 .s.'1.•>`y.,,a •.0
1� � � � _ � `,, T•Fi•`y r 11 Y r� ••er i•I� . 4�"� .l{ '
' r
A '� 1.
�1iGR• 1� Y V .� R P! er
�f.d9. }.�,.Gf' a .+r��j ��/ f � , � r f}•`'y't'�d� 4w, �ai
5 ".t-j'. •� 1+•'�••b �. r p,->r..�.._ 44'�:`+s'• �'�` 4Y* �Sr;:�/V� •34
d �.,•._-� .. w.,_..� �.. *�:r/—�..a<. /',•. , _ Y;N'M�.ui�lt�'{e��.[�!.•��.a��t�s_� +.. ��A���`X�®` ' � < .�`- � r�- � !
� ¢ rr )• ''• �,� � i iF' ,. it .t,., �t . •
t� ,. '
IW MR
a �
,'� ••.�,. ,.! •, �, �*' � 'fir � ..OJT,�� � �`s'A'" f �_ ,�,

y.� �r �-� , `�v-=« �' Y •, ��',.y � �( �jv r � silFZ �--• �
■� f 1 �. t
f5 O
ii%6"y ���s�^ "�'4 1�� '•/1 ,v �r �r't..i- + 4\ +>'�]�'�''p�.`�"w.F��f�("��
pr � •� �.® �,�_� �' �� 1rZ71�,�vl r�'�. �,y �" �i;-_s�tiCQ� �= -'��� �„ii ,��1 j'�7�
N. lljA t a % t sM �' q� `y p>i g4'}fir"''�►.
7!f ls`e Y
w $ ,k+ At
((�.1
51A ,
t �✓ r,9l)0 �11r i`!.�!"'. . :r..t�'%` i ��. y,." .Jl F'.�
r, �r � / y
�— f R� ly �y `a .... 17rJ`\F t.�. (- jy Y�, , .� � 7 .�' i�ro►_
241
-47
Y.-' ran'w .'
O' -
Legend N
Surveyed Streams A MIN
M Surveyed Wetlands
Project Study Area 1111111111:�Ml- Improvements
Towns of Wilkesboro and
USGS
7.5'Quadrangle Maps: Wilkesboro,Moravian Falls

Ci M ine
PaD ON PcB2 cC2 P 2
PcC2
PaD
PcC2
PCB2
PcC2 PaD
B2
RnE
Pal)
18
P
PaD
cc 00
DO
PcC2
421
S
Sy CkA [�
PcC2 nE
PcC2 PcC
Legend N Figure 4A
Soils Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
Roads USDA Soils tl*"` " US 421 (TIP R-0616)and
—Wilkes County Hydrology—surveyed streams UM
NC 2681US 421 Business(TIP U-3468)
Q NC Counkes protect Study Area - surveyed Wetlands �' f Improvements
- kas o izs zso �'°*a...•�' Morrisville, NC Towns of Wilkesboro and
sou roes:usoa,uses zna ues. mrbel
North Wilkesboro Wilkes Coun NC

PcB2
PcB2 PcC2
Ma h Li
PcC2
SR
PCC2 `sP
Pa
PaD
Match Line A
CkA PcB2
PC C2 PC 2
PcB2 PcC2
Pa P
O
PCC2
PcB2
PaD PcC2
PaD
PO Pc
PcC2 PaD (2
PrC aB2
Legend /N, Figure 4B
—Roads Q USDA Sous ,\ �,.�•��., Soils Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
—Wllkes County Hydrology-Surveyed Wetlands ry US 42 (TIP and
s NC 268/US 421 Businmessess(TIP U-3468)
NC Ca,nties surveyed Streams Project Study Area Improvements
woke: o tzs zso h`*.,,,s^"' Morrisville, NC
sous.uson,uscsa,n uas. mFa� Towns of Wilkesboro and
North Wilkesboro Wilkes County, NC

Pa
PaD
PCC2 RnE
nE
PcC2 Match ine C
2 PaD PaD
PcC2
PcB2
PaD
2
Match Line
PcB2 aD
N
PcB2
PCC
PCC2 Irc
Pc82
N�
P D PaD P 2
PcC2
{
MaC2 0.
P D D N
N PaD
L PcC2
PaD PCC2 PC
Legend IN Soils,
4C
—Roads Surveyed wetlands n a<!!!•M```www... Soils Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
N US 442 (TIP R-061mess( and
Wilkes County Hydrdogy O Project Study Area • UM NC 268/US 421 Business(TIP UJ468)
'0
fCW,IMk
CountiesSurveyed Streams a 125 250 Improvements
es �'` s' Morrisville, NC Towns of Wilkesboro and
USDA Soils Sowcea:USDA,USGS and URS.
North Wilkesboro Wilkes Coun NC

C
Palo Ma $P
RnE
PaD
PcC2
PCC2 PcC2
SAV
Pao
PaD
RnE
cB2
PcC2
PcC2 P PaD
S
PcC2 ��
S.q2
Match ' e C
PaD N
(CC
RnE Pao
MaC2 PCC
MaC2
PaD
P B2 Pa RnE
Ma PaD 9 PaD
C
Figure 4D
Legend N
41
die„ Soils Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
Roads -Surveyed Wetlands ,�` �9a, US 421 (TIP R-0616)and
Wilkes County Hydrology O Project Study Area NC 268/US 421 Business(TIP U-3468)
UM
O Nc cwmcies —surveyed streams o 125 250 q�y- Morrisville, NC Improvements
-wakes US�ASOiIs sourcea:uSOA,uSGSenauRS. mF" Towns of Wilkesboro and
North Wilkesboro Wilkes Coun , NC

aD W
PcB2 Pal) RnE Ma
PaD PcC2
RnE RnE
PaD
PcC2 W
Z
PaD PcB2 U) Pal)
BUB p
RnE
PaD
PcC2 Pal)
Matc ne D
RnE
D MaC2 W
SP al)
Mac
9] WhA oD
PcC2
RnE
MaC2
P PcC2
PaD PcC2 n
PaD
PrC
Legend N Figure 4E
Soils Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
Roads - Surveyed Wetlands „*°'`�`'vt
Wilkes coup Hydrology US 442(TIP in ss( and
ry y oyy Q Project study area � � NC 268/US 42f Business(TIP U3468)
O NC Counties Surveyed Streams ti 125 250 $ Improvements
�vrsk� mraet dN,t Mor sville, NC
Q USDA Soils s ms:USDA,Uscsandun. Towns of Wilkesboro and
North Wilkesboro,Wilkes Coun 16.
NC

PcB I aD x
atc Line F
RnE PrC
RnE
R
PaD �
PcC2
PaD
W PaD
RnE
PcC2
9v
Ma h Line c�P
r
Q Pal) H
PaD
RnE
PaD
PaD
RnE
PaD RnE PrD
Legend ^N Figure 4F
—Roads surveyedwedands `\ �> Soils Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
—Wilkes county Hydrobgy Project Study Area A US 421 (TIP R-0616)and
NC 268/US 421 Business(TIP U-3468)
Q Nc cawroes surveyed streams o 125 2s ' Improvements
M WYkes Q USDA Solis mF�' Morrisville, NC Towns Of Wilkesboro and
Sous:USDA,USGS end URS.
North Wilkesboro Wilkes Coun NC

PcC2 C2
Pc 2 PCC2 PaD
RnE PaD
PcC2 me
Pa
cB2
PrC
D dC
18
6
RnE
SAE R
P
PcC2 UdC
RnE
2 PcC2
Q� RnE
5
PaD PaD
tch L' e G (R?nE
Legend N Figure 413
—Roads - Surveyed wetlands Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
nds �.°"'�q"�qk
—Wilkes County Hydrology Project Study Area S US 421 (TIP R-0616)and
NC 2681US 421 Business(TIP U3468)
0 Nc C.-OW.- U SDA SOIIs Swress:USDA,USGS and URS.Surveyed streams o 12s 2so Improvements
wakes amreer ` Morrisville, NC Towns of Wilkesboro and
North Wilkesboro Wilkes Coun NC

Ud
Pc
S 6 tch L' e G PcC2
RnE
PaD
PcC2
PaD RnE
RnE
RnE
PrC PrD
Match Line F 18
PcC2
PaD PaD
RnE
RnE
rD
UdC
RnE
rD
Pr
PrD
r
Figure 4H
Legend N
d,,,,, Soils Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
Roads _ Surveyed Wetlands uF
—Wilkes County Hydrology Project Study Area US 442 (TIP messR-061 ( and
4 � NC 268/US 421 Business(TIP U3468)
Surveyed Streams Improvements
0 NC Coumles y a lzs zso `3a„ar Morrisville, NC
mFaal Towns of Wilkesboro and
-Wilkes USDA Soils Sources:USDA,USGS and URS.
North Wilkesboro Wilkes Coun NC

I _
cB2 Pc132
PCB2 PaD PaD PcC2
PcB2
PaD PcC2
aD
PcC2
PcC2 P
C
aB
PcC2 PaD S
421
cC2 N�
PrC
PaD
Ud
tch Lin A
RnE h Line
2
Pt Rn
PaD
PaD PaD nRnE
PaD
nE
Legend N Figure 41
—Roads Surveyed weuands � Soils Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
/,r ` US 421 (TIP R-0616)and
Wilkes County Hydrdogy Q PmjectSWdyArea NC 268/US 421 Business(TIP U-3468)
0 NCCaunties Surveyed Streams o Izs zw m"`, Morrisville, NC Improvements
Sourtes:USDA,USGS entl URS.
USDA Soils Towns of Wilkesboro and
North Wilkesboro Wilkes Coun NC

c
P 7PaD n
PaD
Pa PcC2
PcC2
PcB2
PcC2 PaD
Sy
PrC fn
421
C
PaD UdC
Match Line C
tch
RnE
Pr
PaD PaD PcC2 7RnEPaD PaD RnE
Legend N Figure 4.1
—Roads surveyed wetlandsa�^�, Soils Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
Wilkes CounryHydrology PrgectStudy Area US421 (TIPR-0616)and
UM NC 2681US 421 Business(TIP U-3468)
Q NC Counties Surveyed Streams ... Improvements
WOkes 00 tmF,ar Morrisville, NC Towns of Wilkesboro and
USDA Soils Sources:USDA,USGS end URS.
North Wilkesboro Wilkes Coun NC

Pc62 PaD
MaB2 rC RnE PaD
PcC2 PrC
kA PcC2
MaC2
PaD
PaD
P
nE
S
PaD
SU PcC2 UdC
PcB2
RnE PaD
MaC2 a
PaD
PcC2
PcC2 C PcC2
MaB2
PaD
PaD
Match Line C UdC
UdC PaD
ch Lin PaD
cC
Legend N Figure 4K
A Roads surveyed wetlands "oy,
Soils Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
_ ,!° US 421 (TIP R-0616)and
Wilkes County Hydrology Project Study Area UM NC 268/US 421 Business(TIP U-3468)
ORCCoaotle% —Surveyed streams o 125 25e > Morrisville, NC Improvements
mFW Towns of Wilkesboro and
�"ekee �USDASOiIs Swe%:USM.U5G5aEUR5.
North Wilkesboro Wilkes Coun NC

PaD Ma
PaD
PcC2 PaD MaB2
PcC2
PaD
UdC
az1
PcC2
Pa
RnE
f6
Match Line C
t
UfI3 To
RnE ToA
Match Line H
ToA tch Line D
CkA
UfI3
BuB
StB U
Legend N Figure 4L
eg n Soils Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
—Roads - Surveyed Wetlands N � US 421 (TIP R-0616)and
—Wilkes County Hydrology M Project Study Area 0 250 UM NC 268/US 421 Business(TIP U-3468)
O NC Counties 125 t
surveyed Streams mP.t Improvements
`'� ,s'$ Morrisville, NC
Saunas:USDA,USGS and URS. Towns of Wilkesboro and
North Wilkesboro Wilkes County,NC

cC2 PaD Tao
MaC2 BUB
PaD PcC2
MaB2
RnE
421
To DoB WhA
UdC
SIB RnE
C Uf8
MaC2
PcC2
421
LIfB
PaD
oA nE
UfB h L1 H
atch Line D
ToA Mu
C
Legend N Figure 4M
�,,,,� Soils Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
Roads —Surveyed Wetlands .;�` `ti US 421 (TIP R-0616)and
Wilkes County Hydrology[=]Project Study Area NC 2681US 421 Business(TIP U-3468)
ONcca,�5as _surveyedso-aams 0 to 250 a Improvements
0
Wilkes mFaa , Morrisville, NC USDA Soils swRa.:USDA,USCS and URS, Towns of Wilkesboro and
North Wilkesboro,Wilkes County, NC

T U
Uf8 Pal)
UfB ToA tch Lin H rC
atch Line D
CkA ToA
BUB 421
RnE
MuC
ToA
SIB
UdC Pip
fB
6
UdC
RnE S�
PrC
UdC
Pci
PaD u
PaD RnE PrC C
P
E
Legend N Figure 4N
A m, Soils Surve ed Streams and Wetlands
Roads -Surveyed Wetlands
—Wilkes County Hydrology Proect Stud Area US 421 (TIP messR-061 ( and
H Y o9Y Q t y NC 268/US 421 Business(TIP U3468)
O NC Ceunres —Surveyed Streams o 12s 25c wn�,£ Morrisville. NC Improvements
Wilkes
mFaB` Towns of Wilkesboro and
USDA Soils S ni USDA,Uscs and URS. North Wilkesboro Wilkes County., NC

16
J >
t Jim I 1{ � l •
Legend N Figure 5A
aY,,,, Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
Surveyed Streams A US 421 (TIP R-0616)and
- Surveyed Wetlands o xso sm a � NC 268/US 421 Business(TIP U3468)
0 r+c c«,nnes Project Study Area A `b,,,,,,,„� Morrisville, NC Improvements
-wixas 0 Towns of Wilkesboro and
USGS 7.5'Quadran le Maps: Wilkesboro Moravian Falls North Wilkesboro Wilkes Coun NC

h Line A
• 111 If
• ..— T ��
d r _tif
r�
-9 INN
f � A
Legend N Figure 5B
Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
Surveyed Streams US 421 (TIP R-0616)and
- Surveyed Wetlands o zw sw sS NC 268/US 421 Business(TIP U-3468)
ONlC--MW- �r.x s Improvements
Project Study Area �a,„ ,,,�' Morrisville, NC
� Towns of Wilkesboro and
USGS 7.5Quadrancile Maps Wilkesboro.Moravian Falls North Wilkesboro Wilkes County,NC

f
ch
' ❑ �' _1
is
at
1�i Ati ff�`J1
r16
ti ■
r � "
! %
All
Legend N Figure 5C
A Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
Surveyed Streams s°�� "
US 421 (TIP R-0616)and
— Surveyed Wetlands o 250 soa US NC 2681US 421 Business(TIP U3468)
�NCCounOes Project Study Area FBO' '•.,, , Morrisville, NC Improvements
vnikas Towns of Wilkesboro and
USGS 7.5'Quadrangle Maps: Wilkesboro, Moravian Falls North Wilkesboro Wilkes Coun NC

+ L.
+ T �\ � ✓ram
in W
S IF
#/f ■ /'"
NJ
Legend N Figure SD
d ^
Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
—Surveyed Streams ar US 421 (TIP R•0616)and
- NC 268/US 421 Business(TIP U3468)Surveyed Wetlands p zw soo MS
0 Ncc�❑� O Project Study Area ter«` ,d.y Morrisville, NC Improvements
Wilke, Towns of Wilkesboro and
USGS 7.5'Quadran le neaps. Wilkesboro,Moravian Falls North Wilkesboro Wilkes Coun NC

A ` ,��•�_1 55 4II f
I 1 1 1 t
.- � �!~+ �,� �� � fir' � � ��1, t '--^ •- :�r �,
I
rf
Ire-
4 f 5 YY f r
`
L �
fly ` �-~L �••' �� � � ,1` l
Legend N Figure 5E
A a ym� Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
Surveyed Streams et �, US 421 (TIP R-0616)and
- Surveyed Wetlands o zso Tim NC 268/US 421 Business(TIP U3468)
cc
O Project Study Area `0�.,,,,, Morrisville, NC Towns of WilImprovkesboro
Nfilkes and
-
USGS 7.5'Cuadran le Maps: Wilkesboro, Moravian Falls North Wilkesboro Wilkes Countv.NC

y
j � r
�r
T 1,
'_ �^. d.�•y_9�°`,'ai "'+,��d;�.•r�.5'' lY.� _ •"' ?ram
rr QySurveyed Streams
' '.'p},Y'I� ��,r"'^}y.��"'TYft X�e..1�.�`, ti.,t$±• r t
Surveyed Wetlands
W-� -� '� � 'y � S.•i •�-1 Vie` + 9!•"�.•'r y,' rid t_^_'.'.
r fir' + �,.,.�� t. ;� �'�+?-"Yt� +•�.�.v . �.._.iW,*a +
A' Project Study
� . Aaps: Wilkesboro,Moravian Falls

:11 V,
ZRI
V t
"y •rl
94
— '� .
/// r �" 't rem �,��. .,�.' r v `��•"f'[.
Legend N Figure 5G
Surveyed Streams Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
� r`� �T .}�(r^3Pr..r ,hv�''r1.`t 'rr ry� •4..'ax' ,}x '�'
��. 7F a1�7#.�-.' C'''�, �yitrX ��-•�l+;tf''��IP�i..1+S7j� � - N
„I �.p' �17 � �tvh'�ri�:+' 'i'r.'tils=�ti 1 � �..-.- r .�•
.1 K ��� �: `�:::'.(�'.yy '�%�'•ig�iel4��•. �':y`` ......•.ty�?'•.�ti'..i,. � .���� ti ■Y
�n����R

�� y,y Ln.r 4 tiAr�a£�a- /r S'.�' r` '�c•. �L� .y
r.IPL�� ."�• Rie�"�447W��� `YYy a�p .yl�d_��
� �� ,•y ' of
��„�,. . .J��AT'��•}tl<�"a.'r1f,k^ftn�,°�' ti T"/�.4'ifS���F"�L*L' c+
�,r r oL' Y ' ,.k ..•..�. � t 'sue ��
�; j��'>.,-��•<1 �ry���7C".,�Ob 't� p`••f"'�7..�^r�A ° +'-r ..�4••4�' a�£Y;,-`- 1
`C,+' ♦ mom, `7d.'-. '. - . � . r� .-f.��-_'''-.✓1
'444.
•fg' b �y-A 4l♦. ('�,`, air ,i�,yL ♦ E•
-�/.r.-:.%P`A•,�.��Ly. .. •s�"-S
-A*'�
1":_,,�y'��•� ti
N��.n� -r�E �: - � 7•.. �I r+.,n�Wty:� � ��i ; •: i 4 � �a4•+:At .•��.,;.-_. t
'
:fs
�'•" 1 r- 'lfyb L L'''�Ay`i• ct fir, {Qsb fQ -. �sqr,,•. 4_h,1�
Y' wh
, ,-M& L1y. �• yy''
rP441Syti•� �iil.l �{'S�•� I r,�±�..
s`� T� ;:.Q�i� "1`.'�..• +ti
�b'^' � • �7��. /•��,�(yi�a r vi T.r'r6 1, 1
yN
1.40 'C S I G x t• rye.✓` ` >� �( .e "•1y'a. M' tix'b y.Yr
1� , ��' (�A1� f� ����•�'t�,..'� -RL_:�. ^�1+a�Z i"r. " .1�■1.F v�- � �
lil':wr'snr,.f.l. •Ys r L•.r _ .R G'hf'F a r`--x C� '�q''1^`�'rL�1.'r�i 'i S,:j�j
�� R • '�g39fo �9rrr � ,1.tiS, ��.'"" �.���4 �l,"t�k�6p.'',a �c
�' •4�•��t� 1 1.�� t� `� ` v�•' �G�l�•O•i• G` t 9��•" ram_ , b + Y
45 I �,
��s » t1¢y'��n .», • ?s'�`.'.�r.>�'.w-;€�a�i•eo�S;T�.;:� • .�crrr '.t'�
Legend Figure 5H
Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
Surveyed Streams �F" Improvements
` r.
Project Study Area Towns of Wilkesboro and
USGS
. .

i
10
_z -,�.r i
�`J
tj.•/#�' L•I
. J fN
'
? Jor�
/ Legend N Figure 51
A a�.
Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
—Surveyed Streams � US 42 (TIP and
_ Surveyed Wetlands o zso so o s NC 268/US 421 Businessmess(TIP U-3468)
O NC C-rlw-
USGSProject Study Area �FCe1 "a, ,,,a'` Morrisville, NC Improvements
veikas Towns of Wilkesboro and
7.5'Quadran le Maps: Wilkesboro,Moravian Falls North Wilkesboro Wilkes Coun NC

_ 10
l
d
ll
Ji
Ma h�Li
tw^
t .✓�� J �� �� if
Legend N Figure 5.1
Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
Surveyed Streams A 3° � US 421 (TIP R-0616)and
- Surveyed Wetlands o zw soo TIRS NC 2681US 421 Business(TIP U-3468)
0 cc
Project Study Area Poet \`" , ,, ' Morrisville, NC Improvements
W, Towns of Wilkesboro and
USGS 7.5'Quadran le Maps: Wilkesboro.Moravian Fails North Wilkesboro Wilkes Coun NC

i
r 61
r� ■ {*�f
ell
1 tch Line
` v ch Li D
Legend N Figure 5K
Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
JJJr
Surveyed Streams A
US 421 (TIP R-0616)and
- Surveyed Wetlands o zso ;oo aS NC 2681US 421 Business(TIP U-3468)
uc ca,�,r�es project Study Area "�`� `w, Morrisville, NC Improvements
vnu<es Towns of Wilkesboro and
USGS 7.5'Quadran le Maps: Wilkesboro,Moravian Falls North Wilkesboro Wilkes County,NC

ti
w 1r
Ilk
40
C Line
r
Match Lin e H
ine D 1
Legend N Figure 5L
Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
—Surveyed Streams �9°
US 421 (TIP R-0616) and
- Surveyed Wetlands o M soo US NC 2681US 421 Business(TIP U-3468)
ec covrities Project Study Area y = � Mornsville, NC Improvements
wsikes Towns of Wilkesboro and
USGS 7.5'Quadran le Ma s: Wilkesboro Moravian Falls North Wilkesboro, Wilkes County,NC

... . ........
V
CO
--w
atch Line H
Jne D too
Legend N Figure 5111
A Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
Surveyed Streams
US 421 (TIP R-0616)and
Surveyed Wetlands 0 250 5W TTRSNC 2681US 421 Business(TIP U-3468)
r--J Project Study Area Poe` Improvements Morrisville, NC Towns of Wilkesboro and
USGS 7.5'Quadrangle Maps: Wilkesboro.Moravian Falls North Wilkesboro,Wilkes CountV,NC

etch Line H • JV i Ilk
neD
L
t16
4e,
wi
N.
Legend N Figure 5N
Surveyed Streams and Wetlands
Surveyed Streams
A US 421 (TIP R-0616)and
Surveyed Wetlands 0 2W 500 TIRSNC 268/US 421 Business(TIP U-3468)
cowxles
Project Study Area Morrisville, NC Improvements W" Towns of Wilkesboro and
USGS 7. North Wilkesboro,Wilkes County,NC

l
USACE AID# _ DWQ# Site# (indicate on attached map)
I ,
FL
3 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I' Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: WhO-T 2.Evaluator's name: P-(l!/1&I'L-W #Bode'.
3.Date of evaluation: 5 ID2.I C 4.Time of evaluation: DD.QYYI
- 5.Name of stream: lUJ {v %V1 ►b r'i1 Cr aft 6.River basin: I Gld ILl In - Pee bee ''V.l,\]e K
7.Approximate drainage area: 1 A i 2 8.Stream order: US 6cL$ - 154 f Fl e Id - 2 na
9.Length of reach evaluated: Q�RYOK V-WOfk 10,County: IIICPS
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name.(if any):
Latitude(e).34.872312): ate" 1y%cell Longitude(ex.-77.556611): —•$l . 2`ISo55
Method location determined(circle): GPS .Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
VBY- UMIA q21
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent Weather conditions: Cool . CADUILl . b 01
16.Site conditions at time of visit: SCI MP 0,% a bwe-
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 J (I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation,point? YES NO f yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential 20%Commercial _%Industrial %Agricultural
%Forested _%Cleared/Logged I'D %Other( ` nn ri - e I "L47=1 )
22.Bankfull width: 5 . 23.Bank height(from'bed to top of bank): y 1�
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) Gentle(2 to 41/o) _Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instruction¢,for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,teq'hin,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.
iTotal Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature k Date&/95
This channel evaluation form is intended to be tAtAd 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.
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
..... .. ....._.........
z
b _1 x EC®REGION Q T}RANGES a -
# CHARACTERI§XICS p SCUR `
ONO ;.t"mac' i COaSta "a
qx,
l Presence of flow;/persistent pools m stream 0 5 0 4 t 0 3
no flow saturations 0,stron flow max pomts)s
,� 2 " ' � Evidence of past human alterationfi k£
0 � 5
(extensive alterati& 0,no alteration max points)
6 0 S 0 5 s
Riparian zone
�- (no buffer-`0,contigu65is,wide buff_er'. riiaz'pointsj s. 0 4 �`
0 0 iJ
Evidence ofnutrienttor chemical discharges 0
IBA (extenswedischargl s, 0,no�discharges ,max points) 0 0 :
a 2
Groundwater discharges
" S no,discharge 0 springs,seeps;wetlands,etc max omts)' 0 3 f 0 3
"f Presence Of adlaCent floodplain
14
no.floodplain 0 eXtensive:floodplam max points)
' Enfrenchment/floodplain access 0 fl
(deepl eat"reached.'O,fregiierit floodm max point"s). 0 4r x;
2
y 8 Presence of adjaeent wetlands" .,
(no wetlands 0 Tar�'e adlacenttivetlands=inaX'points}„ 0 6 0
a
z x Channel S1pU0Slt' N c r
(extensive channehzation D,natural meander max points) 40 0 4 0 3
2
69
Sedimentrnput k
l0 (extensive deposition 0,little or no sed'meet .max oints
"u l Size&diversity of channel bed substrate k _` r t'
(fine homogenous 0,large,diverse sizes max points) ixk £� 0 U
Evidence of channel incision or widening a 3
�� 2 (deeply incised 0,stable bed&banks max points) �T 4 0
3
'F'' 13 Presence of ma,or bank failures 0 S r
,�i 4 (severe erosion 0,no;erosion stable panks� "max nts) 5f '.
Root depth'and density o
kil banks a -
i4 (no visible roofs 0,dense rooI ifou'hout .'max oin
5
F p ts) © 3 0 Ofi
IS Impact by agriculture, hvesfock,or timberiroduction
{substantial impact 0,no'evidence max points 0 5 0 4 0 S x
a" Presence of riffle pool/ripp5e p ool complexes
WE
16
(no raffles/ripples or pools 0,well developed max points) 5
17 h Habitat complexity an
s y , (little or=no habib t,,. .0 fre ueiif;`varaed liabitats;=max points), s t b 0 b �� 0 S
q a xzr
8,
Canopy coverage over streambed M
(no shadm ve elation 0 nti conuous canoe max points) s
19 Substrate ernbeddedness ley �9
s N � 0 4x 01(deeply embedded D,loose structure maxOR
Pz
r Presence of stream i7777
nvertebrates{see page 4) '
2D
evidence=0,cominon;'numerous types inax=points) ai 0 S, + 0 ,
n
D y
Ui 21 Presence of amphibians 0
O no-evidence :0,common ntimerous` pes Max omts)
O J22 a Presence of Tish 3
}..i
(no evidence `0,common,numeroils types` max points) 0 4 0 4 0 43
23 Evidence of Wildlife use` v
(no evidence 0,abundant evidence max points)
0 6 0 S 0 5
N"A"'MPAhf w try v�
- 4P§Iti� "' '� sh r3 x% ,u x 3—� �„' ,.� 3.sz333 *.�RAW
T��AL�CORS, a50 Cnf2T 031tag� � ,' �
h
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

' j
c� ... _
USACE AID# _ DWQ# Site#cR, (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
i
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name:'( 2.Evaluator's name: TQ n Z'7h .1 aadP
3.Date of evaluation: S ?-1 05 4.7ime of evaluation: c? :CEO P
5.Name of stream: UT AV J14h bM C.V-Pe.V 6.River basin: Ld Lin Qee hee F-,,ycc
7.Approximate drainage area? 2
pp g 1►� �'►+ 8.Stream order: Feld WtF- 17rl T0120,
9.Length of reach evaluated:AVgmx 300 F+ 10.County: W l tes
11.Site coordinates(if known):,1p
prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3(o. I"I 0 S&& Longitude(ex.-77.556611): -81 a?yq ZAZ
Method location determined(circle): GP Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other.
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
J114 JM� D F . qZ I Try b tp Fish �a.rat (-A"k
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: CD . G OtA4 , (0 W F
16.Site conditions at time of visit: CLS G bNe
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
(Tout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed J(I-IV)
18.I i 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 E0 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES O
21.Estimated watershed land°use: ' _%Residential 30 %Commercial _%Industrial. %Agricultural
�%Forested _%Cleared/Logged .10 %Other( `Load )
22.Bankfull width: 3k 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 3�
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 20/6) _Gentle(2 to 4%) Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends V 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): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date_ 11©1.os
This channel evaluation form is intended to be tge'.h 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.

i
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
13 r' ECOREGION POINT RANGE ' g}
, 'r£ CI3ARACTERISTIGS r OgE
{ SC o
'�- N F� �� 3 .�„ ,. Castal y )'iedm Oilt £ ,1onntain� '� rr" -v"
l Presence of flow 1 persistent pools m stream '
(no flow or.saturatioi 0;strong flow max points);; 0 0 4
x Evidence of past human alteration
2
(extensive alteration,=0,no alteration max points)
t Riparian zone 0 (
(no buffer 0,contiguous,wide buffer rriaX points) �j
r
Evidence of nutrienf or chemical discharges
,I a 3
;IN (extensive dischar es 0,no dischar"es max points) 0 5 0{fi �} k 0
A' � ai � Q^ironnWa dter d1SCbaTge �
5 3 0 h0(no dischar a 0 spsmgS,see
nu etc` max points) £
x Presence of adjacent flood'plain y
s
FEE
(no floodplair 0,ex'tenMWA6odplain wmax pomts)>
0 4 0 4 0
Entrenchment/ffoodplain`access r
(dee 1` entrenched 0,frequentfloodn max DO A4 e I
0 5 0 0
y Presence of adjacent wetlands
� " o z(no wetlands 0,large adjacent wetlands max points)
Y Channel sinnoSlty r <r a
0 $ 0 d 0 3
(extensive chan>�ehzation 0,gatural meander=max points)
� ro
U
(e s de Sediment input s 0 0 � � b J
xtenive position 0;tittle or"no sedime nt ;max points)
� s
l l fine"homonoiusrs 0 large,diverse" substrate � ��3 �'
tyof
( > 205..-rn�dx`pOlnts) ° _ 4 S
ds,Y 0£f
r Evidence Of Channel 1nCIs10n Or wldenlpg > a
l2
`� � (deep] incised 0,stable bed&banks max ouits)� Oz S£
Presence of ma,or, a,"nk failures 3
s 711
(severe erosion'=0,no erosion:stable banks , max°points), , 0 5 0 0 5
/y� f
Root d ept h'"and density on,banks
LI
(no v�sable loot s 0 d`Ose ot in
roots throe hoax points)
ImpacYby agriculture, livestock,or timber production
` (substantial Impact 0,no evidence, 5
i6 Presence of riffle-pooUripple pool complexes
(no nffleslripple5 or pools 0,viell developed max points)
)� y Habitat complexity s �t
r-r (tittle or no habitat 0 frequent varied habitats max points)
18 CanoPy goverage over streambed
05
X
(tid shadin ve`etation=;0,continuous canoe ,=max-points) S
0 t)
19 '�Substrate embeddedness
"(deeply embeclde 0,loose 'structure=max) ..„ � z
0fl
r 20 t Psence of stream invertebrates(see page}4
re
s
no evidence 0,common numerous types iiiax points)
Uf „ Presence of amphibians
,,r n 0 Ll.r
t
(no evidence 0,common,numerous,types=max points),
Z
Presence of fish
O�
`(no evidence U,common,numerous types in ax points) 0 4 > 0 4 0 C)
AffEvidence of wildlife use � >
23
(no evidence 0 abundant evidence max points) 0 6 t) 0 5 3
� `k r, 3,, u°F, 3i
Total Points Possible ¢ '�' MR
�� ,a r - i
3 7& s "#, af f?'4 r ' f �vF •1 7,� FPS ��z�` rz NOW
Mvltllf A
ah ......
,
v s
TUTAI SCORIi (alsq enter on first pabe' y �i� jw ,
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

Ps E AID# DWQ# Site# St) (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
i'
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: 2.Evaluator's name: 7-ar Gl?-w Bode-
3.Date of evaluation: 5 IO2`OS 4.Time of evaluation: S:00 hM
r
5.Name of stream:_l l 1 r51/1 barn C rPP jl_ 6.River basin: y0&1 V1 - Pee he C 1 V u(
7.Approximate drainage area.: AR 12MX -��� M i Z 8.Stream order: P� - ;eld (i p f- on Tb p o)
9.Length of reach evaluated:aR6m25 "35 1+ 10.County: LQ VeS
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 310• iHq q'4`i Longitude(ex.-77.556611): —5�V 1, 2-H555S
Method location determined(circle): PS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other -
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
�U VC SMXA-VN D+ U H 21 �@Z)ws MAD .5C.
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: C00 I GDIAd�► (g d'
16.Site conditions at time of visit: YJmp: n (I Vwe
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
_'Iirout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18.I there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? ,YES NO If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19. oes channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential 30 %Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural.
0%Forested _%Cleared/Logged 1,0 %Other'( RO A )
22.Bankfull width: �2 �k 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): "Z
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to•2%) , Gentle(2 to 4%) _Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional-bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on,
location,terr in,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each chaacteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristi6g'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.' r�
Total Score (from reverse): / Comments:-
i l
Evaluator's Signature Date (o �101 QS
.This channel evaluation form is intended to be usbWonly as a guide to assist landowners an�onmental 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.
I �
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
i x n �� x,, ECOREGIN POINT RANGE � `r �
" M§ CIIARACTERISTICS= r y SCORE
..
�x,<y '°"x Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream 0= 5' 0 4 '�'�'� 0 5 �� `
(no�flow or saturation 0`stron flow ma
1ntS) _
x a x
y; Evidence of past human alteration h '�
2 (extensive alteration 0 no alteration ..max` omts 0 b 0 5 0
m p )
R10
1parlan
� � _ (no buffer b,contiguous,wide buffer—rnaz points) ,,r
� ' Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 'd ?�
r (extensive dischar es 0,no dischar es max points)
,1Ulil"� rF
0
(no dischar a 0,span s,seeps;wetlands etc
of adWKI
jacent
(no floodplaui 0,ettensivefloodplam ' -max=poirits)x x
04r 0 r 02
x� � � �
Q+( (dee ly entrenched 0,frequent floodm max pomts
a;$ PleSenceAf ad)aCCnt Wetlands , _
(no wetlands 0,jar a adjacent wetlands max pomf§) 0 6 �, D 4 0 77
lw� 2r f Z
'✓
0 5 0J� 3
�. (extensive channehzation _0,naturali5it ander=°max pofngg-
ts),
3
£ 10 m Sediment input d q 0 3 p 4 0 4 3 -
_ (extensive deposition 0,little or no sediment max points 4 r
R
Size&diversity of channel bed substrate " � x
( ,11 a'r �` s a ;' x s" i n•,m.,, z ,T:.� ..•� �1i N �k �+ - 5= Sa r %
z
Meii j12 Evidence of clyannel incision or ividenang ,4 3
�+F Y (deeply incised 0 'stable lied&.banks.maz:points), 0 5 4 05
13 r Presence of mayor bank failures " k � ' _
T b TP .- s^ G
i (severe erosion 0,no erosion stablebanks max points) ,
":l4 �� ` Root depth aad—densrty on banks 0 fl _� 0
g
{ ° no visibI roots 0 dense rd6tS thrUli-694 max° Dints e
$ Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production § > z ° _
0
(substantial:impact 0,naevidence
z �j P.resence of raffle poollnpple pool complexes r
no,nf3]eslripples or pools 0,vell developed max Dints) 0 3 0 5 17 y
Habitat COIlipleXity' 4: "` a
r
,�,� a 7 (tittle or no}iabitat 0 frequent vaned habitats=max points r ,
O GF O b r3r 0
i�t'';18 _ Canopy coverage over streambed " k41
shadin ve elation 0 continuous ano max points) 0 5> 5 0
K (deepl bedded 0 ,100Se'.StRlCtllre,--maX r< D .
20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4) `a g ,
evidence 0,common,numerous types max points) P , ,
21 Presence of anphibaaps
O r (no evidence 0 common nuinerous,types max'pomts) 4 D 4' 'Pt.
4-0 6 ': Presence offish' x, k
O 22 ,� fl4
(no evidence 0 common,numerous ty es max Dints) D r '
0
23 F Evidence of wildlife
Tw
no evidence 0,abundant evidence max points) 0 G 0 5 rk 0 r 5
.,'l' r` ' a,ll� m i, ,'kar. 'u i .;,! '�'3 ,, r rr a z. .. _ s,-`.#�.a xs sr. x x - �i v m•a.r
,� .,..:' a , 1.d !, ip •, 7r t 3 3 r .]„r s sa,� '"./r� ' �x�x' ''; 3 a u i.:,1 rr -. -
a Snxs;` ,�, ..n, y.,-Y 3 •sx. :� TOtaIePQI71tS P(issi)ile�,«.:..
ari"c"1
'ss 3�. �'` .�✓ �� :: x� ����,f�r i�il t .:_a3ut :���� t'�. �{yr ..��� i'. ri"t'�Y�it J '��. p y. €"� r i E3� �a # _,.ar 7a�,y�.nS;,v.�.
n §g � ,TOTAL SCORE ( lso,en#er on fist page r � ,��a �' z '�L�
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2 —

..._ _._.._._.__.._.-.-.__.._.___.....---..._...-_.._........_._........_......._._............---_.__.___._ _.._.-...-'---_.._..-...__.�.__.....--"--- �.-_....._.-_._._.........-'---�...................
_ USACE AID# DWQ# Site#-St (indicate on attached;``
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
I.Applicant's name: �yzo`C 2.Evaluator's name: Jltrld _-Lo /Bcde
3.Date of evaluation: 515105 4.Time of evaluation: ' x) Cam
5.Name of stream: �5h dam C,ree, 6.River basin: 1114 y.[:�''i - I�Pe 1�P� �lyer'
7.Approximate drainage area: kemx J ryY l 7- 8.Stream order: 3 Toeo o-nc( F 66
9.Length of reach evaluated: 'N_Dmf, 2 000 F� 10.County:_ Lo8I V.eS
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3U. 15 Longitude(ex.-77.556611): ^ $1. ZL4I 111
- Method location determined(circle): Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map.identifying streams)location):
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: �Ml C leor s 15.6,F
16.Site conditions at time of visit: SL(. nf_ i*LS aboWl
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 1 V (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? ES NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: 110%Residential I-io__%6 Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
5a%a Forested _%Cleared/Logged 10%Other( MA-1, )
22.Bankfull width: J�D�k 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank):
24.Channel slope down center of stream: =Flat.(0 to 2%) Gentle(2 to-4%) _Moderate(4 to 100/o) _Steep(>100/6)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight ✓ Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous `Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terrain,vegetation,stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each 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): Comments:
Evaluator's Signatures Date �F f I DOS
This channel evaluation form is intended to be usYdonly 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.

i
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
3a
� Ck3ARCTERISTICS
CORE I N POIN RAN 'CO
An illi
GO yT RE
1 Presence of flow/persistent pools m stream N
;.
(no flow".oi Saturation ,. 0,strong"flow "max points).
� �� '2 , ;1 Evidence ol;past human alteration r
(extensive alteration,=0,no alteration max points) 0 b 0 5 a 0 5
Riparian Zone E
3 a 0 bf 0 4` k 0 5 *
(no buffer0,contiguous,wide buffer max'points)= K 3
�k 4
Evidence of nutrien#or chemical discharges
(extensive dischar es 0,no discharges max_ points) 0 5 K 0 4 0 4
3
iUn�'5 Wtrd
sr 1SCharge,osch{ndi , , 0 3 0 4 0 4
�V-r b Presence Qf adjacent floodplain� � ,
(no flood laic 0 eXtensive.flnod lain 'rnax° omts 0 4 0 4 0 2
Entrenchment/floodplain""access
(deeply entrenched ©,frequent floodn max points) 0
$ Presence of adjacent wetlands < 0 6 '
% (no wetlands D,tar"e adjacent wetlands max points)
' 9 Channel sinuosity x
r (extensive channehza ion 0,natural meander max points) 0 5 N,, 0 4 01 3
02-
z' d
e r
i
.a
(extensive deposition 0 little a no sediment max"points) Shy `,
0 0
Size&diversity of channnel bed substrate
(fine,homogenous 0 large,diverse saes max omts) `'
���-Ir2 � Evidence of channel mcision`or widemng� � ' t
mused 0 stable bed&banks max points 0 5 D ti 4 a 0 S
O
13 Presence of ma,or bank failurekA
(severe erosion;` 0,no'erosion,stable banks „max points)
},
14 Root depth'and density on;banks
visible roots 0,dense roots throu bout.�max points „�„ 4�P � D 514
Impact by agrAculture, livestock,or timber production 0 4 0 $ram
x (substantial impacf D;no'evidence>=mx
a `pomts)"
os 5
31,
i 6
Presence of riffle_Poo"T�Pp_e pool complexes U 3 0 5 0 6
(no riffles/apples or pools 0,well developed max points)
44
17
Habitat complexity9
(tattle or no habitat 0 frequent vaned habitats max points) 0 b 0 b Db 5
IS
�` (no shadin ve station '0 continuous canoe` max points) 4 0 5 0 5 0 �
z
3
•(des ly embedded 0;loose structure�max) � �N��"'�f�,.�",„
0 4 b 0 4
" Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4) t
20 fi �} 0
(no evidence D common,numerous types ifax points) 0
o s
lS 21 Presence of ariiphibians a 0 4 4 0 4
3 O no evidence 0,cornrnon,numerous types max omts)
Presence of fish ' �
22 .aN
(no evidence D,common,numerous types max points) _ 0 0 4 0 4
�f 23 � � Evidence of�yildlife use ..< 2
(no evidence 0,abundant evidence max points) 0 b D 5 0 5
` "' �lr,SrdaR
-.r
Total Points PosSibl s 100 ]00100
'i 3 nr 3 MNN, `¢ y k, x NO
ng
g � TOTAL SCORE{lIso'en#er�o�first aee s y,� �rJ�
,"'WARR,
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

..........................._.............._._.._....._..___._.._._._. -.---.---.....___.__ u.-.--..-.-.---...---........_._....._......__.._.._....._.____.-.........._...._..._......____.-._...__..
USACE AID# - DWQ# Site#� (indicate on attached map)
E-3 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: NCDl7T 2.Evaluator's name: Ca KX� -tz)mP
3.Date of evaluation: 5U�Ias 4.Time of evaluation: -00C "
5.Name of stream: UT -kv FtS�) tym Cam. 6.River basin: ICtl un - Pee- bee. Fwen'
7.Approximate drainage area: lk m1 2. 8.Stream order: l5� - '0�
9.Length of reach evaluated:."K FOOD 47+ 10.County: Wt 1LZ5
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3u, 15 Longitude(ex.—77.556611):
Method location determined(circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location).
14.Proposed channel work(if any)-
15.Recent weather conditions: %And t 0,S bP I O LJ
k- 16.,Site conditions at time of visit:_ J(1 nnY . 0-tat 0-tav, , W *
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters ZWater Supply Watershed- V(I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES elf If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ES NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil.Survey?' ES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential 4%Commercial _%Industrial %Agricultural
CC �%Forested, ' _%Cleared/Logged __%Other(_ 1
22.Bankfull width: EJ T� 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank):
24.Channel slope down center of stream: —Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 4%) v1 Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>100/.)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight �//Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terrain,vegetation, stream classification,etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each 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): -I Comments:
Signature t.1/klt_
g l Gn t� Date 61 t d/
Evaluator's Si
This channel evaluation form is intended to be use&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.
1

°r
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
m
CHARACTERISTICS
1 3
r 7 - '� <.zz •rf, r ray,3� n ',;. ^ e ` 15 ra k COasta R Piedmont, E'-iV.onntain,�,? - +"
7 Presence of flow/persistent pools m stream 0 � 0 4 0 5
(no flow or saturation 0,stron flow max points)
s '2 Evidence of past human alteration s 0 16 0 5 x
(extensrve alteration: 0,no alteration max points
`lt
Li
D
y (no Duffer=0,conf�guous;wade buffer.>- max points)- 6 0 0 4
Evidence ofnutt�ent or,chemical discharges 0 $
(extensrve dischar es 0,no dischar es max points) D
c Groundwater discbarge3E
7 5
L no discharge D,springs,seeps,'wetlands eie max points) 0 =3 0 4 0 4
6 Presence of adjacent floodplam , :
} (no floodplam 0,extensive floodplam max points) x 0 0 -2r�
sir Entrenchment/floodplam access z yQ
x
(deeply entrenched 0,frequent floodin max points)
� 8 ' r Presence of adjacentwetlands� � r ` 0 6 0� 4�
Qno wetlands 0,larEe adjacent wetlands rnax points) D
9 Channel sinuosity 03§
7 (extense channelization
ry 0,natu eaD
_ef=max points) 0 4
,T -ssr - " Sedlm C�It input °` - !-. 3 "• e
1D ( xtensive de osition 0 little of no sediment max o�nts 0 5
e i
a P p 0 D 4
1 Size&diversity of cbanel bed substrate
u
,�f � (fine hOmO eIlOAS �,large,diverse S]Z0S Max, Olig
nts)
d 2£ Evidence of ebannel,pp o 1den�ng
�+� (deeply mused 0,stable bed&banks
N g t Presence of major bank faalures a
y
(severe erosion 0,no erosion.stable banks max points OT S` 0 5 g D 2
44 Ropt depth and dehsrty on an ~ p � J
� (no visible root'�s D,dense roots throuehoutts
Maxmax poi D a 0 4
i
Impact by agriculture, livestock,or umber production 4 7`, i5 0 5 0 0 f5
(substantial impact—0,no evidence max points a
Presence of raffle pool/rpple pool complexes 0� 3 0 5 0 5 5�
16 (no raffles/apples or pools 0 well developed 'max points)
Hab"'b' eOmplexl
17 c U 6
1 :. e or no habitat 0;frequent;`vaned habitats-
-max points)
�x Canopy coverage over streambed 0
18
(no shadm ve etation=0 continuous canop -anax points)- 0 S r 0
k 19 Substrate embeddedness5 y
(deep] embedded 0;loose stricture=;maxfi
�� 0 4 0 a 4>
;20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4 0 4 0 5 D 5 x (no evidence=0,common,numeroustypes,=fitax'"points)
F 3
Presence of ampb�b�ans � ` � „ � ,
O� o evidence 0,common numerous types max points) D 4 DD
.22 r Presence of fish q 0 }- 0 4 0 4
(no euidence 0,common,numerous ty es max points)
2 Evidence of»ildbfe use
� 3 E
(no evidence 0,abundant evidence max
yiF,3f +ta x K �w Y°?,� ' �,. ,St. g ig
Poss�blW"V_�. �'�'� s�`'s.. �"�` �x�''�,a IDDfi:.� � E�:h �.
s` r wa:.�l�sKA ' ",:ER
�� f
�`� ��5
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

--�._..... _ ..
............. ._..__..__:._ —--_.__._... -..._..—..-----._......._..__.......
_-__....__...__..._...__.._._-..
[7U�A�CE
ID# °r DWQ# Site#� (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name:_ NGDOT 2.Evaluator's name: C�x1d.0�Z`D �
'
3:Date of evaluation: S W DS 4.Time of evaluation: 11.,Oo oan .
5.Name of stream: LIT b 10,diLtR R cy 6.River basin: J60 V In — Be - bP.e Q lo/e—K
7.Approximate drainage area: �vvr i 8.Stream order: ZA L 1 o Pa)
9.Length of reach evaluated: AeymX I OOD-F 10.County: LO l 14(eS
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3(Q. lS, Longitude(ex.—7.7.5'56611): —`cal• 2z33g8
Method location determined(circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: Sll Y1L( ClS bel010
16.Site conditions at time of visit: �4f,h1�
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Tout 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? ES NO If yes,estimate the water surface area: wu
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES O
21.Estimated watershed land use: 10 %Residential 3D%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
_%Forested (01%Cleared/Logged fD %Other
22.Bankfull width: 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): Z Fi
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) ✓Gentle(2 to 4%) _Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight ✓ Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions,for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,to 'ain,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
characteristid 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): �• Comments.,
Evaluator's Signature Date (Q lolo"5
.This channel evaluation form is intended to be us9d 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.
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGIOI�1 POINTS RANGa 4 5
CIiARACTERISTICS ' x g�COR
� l no flow ore of tlow-/'persistent pools m str,eam , � �,� ,
Present
;v
( saturation 0,stron flow max pomts) 4
����� Evidence ofhpast human alferat�on x �
2 a
(extensive alteration- O;.na alteration-max points
gr r RlparlaniZone s
� �.. 3 (no liuffer="0,contiguous,wide buffer='max points) , 0 6 0 4�� 0�5 ',
� Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges - � s , �' �
4
"B� ,: '� (eXtenSlve d']$Cliar eS 0,no,;dlSCliateS„ .1S'11x pOlnts)
n
3 Groundwater 5 discharge P �Y
}
no
discharge 0,sprmgs,seeps'wetlan ds eic max points) ,-
6 Presence of acllacent floodplairi
(no floodplain `0,extensive floodplam max points) 0 2 x .
0 4
x t Entrenchment/floodplam access s
�' (deep] entrenched 4,frequent floodin max points) ' 0 5 0 4 0 2
8 Presence'of adaacent wet)ands „ �
r (no wetlands 0,]ar �e adtace�rit wetlands max pomts)' £0 6 4� O
0 0 2
9 Channel sinuosity
a (exten'sive chariiielization .0,natural meander
� Sed1mC11t_mpU �._': .s N�
m IO {extensive deposition-0 tittle or no sediment-max points,)
0 0
ijrversity,of channel bed substrate3� f `5x
(fine,homogenous 0 large,diverse sizes max omts) Al
A �
l2 Evidence of channel incision or widen�n
(deeply mused 0,stable bed do banes max points) 0 5 0 4 0 5 s
}:.i gl3 Presence of ma,or bank is' �544 K Z
(severe erosiork 0,no�erosion stable lanlcs inax points)
Root depth and density on ban7icg� �
0 3'
H (no vlsible roots 0,dense roots throuehout-max
13 Impact by agriculture, livestock,or ti
vid mber Pro,max po in duc �� 3
riw ,.rx a 0 5
ub
{sstantial Impact eence ts)
16 Presence of r�file poWHOJ-1e pool complexes x
(no raffles/apples or pools 0 well developed MAX points)
. .
17 a_ Habitat COrnplexl 'k ,� .'.
(tittle or no habitat Q,frequent,vaned habitats max points) 0
s
'l$ Canopy coverage over streambedr 0,'
5 0 3 © �S Z(no shuilin ve"etation fl writ nuous°cano =` ax'"p m points)
' 19 Substrate embe Ad"ed»eSs %� ' "
N 0 4
(dee ly..embediled - 0 'loose structure="max - lr a
zngg
.20 Presence of stream invei tebrates(see page 1
0
no"evidence=0,common,numerous'types, "maz points) a' r �' 2
� 0 5 0
�a
�' Presence of amphibians x 0 4 0
2I (no evidence 0,common,numerous pes max points) Z
O� '.22 _f :° � ` �� Pi•esencewof f sh 0 4 0 4 x � � 0� 4
(no evidence x 0,common,numerous ty es� max points)
�� Evidence of wildlife use r
23 ' {no evidence=0;abundant evidence-rnax`po`ints); 0 � 0 5 ' 0 5 Z
sfa. r Sv" an ,a Total Points Possible ra t k f �. 3 E'r� , ]� 3 2:.. z lOUM"'t' 1 ;✓ x tE az :'.
;�. v y 9 a` x t a 1 *.^es.. i vz„."s'-,rP-�"�"y�3 3 x�l.''£ `5,., £.� _ �n� 4' �r a# 4 Y 1`,r:�.ia ,r'r:
8 Flu M fi
nth
3 3a h
�, a TOTAL SCORE (also enter onfirst pa�e}53
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

�f
USACE AID# DWQ# Site# (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: WOWT 2.Evaluator's name: Rand_0_z,10 1 P_
3.Date of evaluation: 513105 4.Time of evaluation:: 1 0-n-1
5.Name of stream: Mlt S Utt'J' 6.River basin: ladUn —pee_ bec p lVP,r
7.Approximate drainage area: .3 YY1 ` 8.Stream order: 2 nd Lapo
9.Length of reach evaluated: IV)500 1-? 10.County: d IMPS
v
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any): — . 2 l Z 5
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3(o• q 7 2 Longitude(ex.—77.556611):
Method location determined(circle): CGPS� Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evalua (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: suny%,q, IA, ,1'm ; l<
16.Site conditions at time of visit: SQtm P a5 A boye
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— V (I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 0 If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ES O 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? &NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential J®%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
00%Forested _%Cleared/Logged 10%Other( V—Oad )
22.Bankfull width: 20-�k 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 2
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to.4%) -Moderate(4 to 10%) ZSteep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight V 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): 9D Comments:
Evaluator's Signature "L"A Z,,14 rr t./)n...7) Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to bcPused 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.
1

i
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
3� k
� 9'x
{ ECO]2EGION POINT Rr�NGE k
CHARACTERISTICS CO
��,�� l Presence of flow/persistent pools m stream� 0� $ - 0 �} 0 5
(no flow-or"saturation ,0,stron flokv� maz_ponits); J�
y� Evidence of'past human alteration� r �
(extensive alteration=0,no alterafion max points)
�' Riparian zone s � � U 6 0 4 0 5
(nq buffer ;"0;contiguous,wide buffer<maz points}
ay Evidence of nutrienf or chemical discharges 0 5 0 n 0 4
(extensive dischar es=0 arkes max points) z P •,•, ,
Groundwater discharge T
,, ace � ...
z
(no dischar e w.D,springs seeps etland's etc max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain" ` 0
C
0 4 0 2
(no floodplain 0,extensive alp p max pmnts)
'>�'r f �� Entrenchment/floodplam access ri ��
(deeply entrenched=0 frequent floodin max points) 07
5
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0 6 0 4
ono wetlands 0,Aar,a adjacent wetlands max points)?D 2i• y l.1
9 :
Channel sinuosity
0 5 0 4; m D 31
(extensive channelization ,D,natural meander—"max points)
7 l0 Sediment input ram d
extensive deposition 0,lrnle o>no sediment max pomi�) D 0
l Size&;diversity of channel beG substrate N 0 4 ,
r
r
(fine,"hOmO enolis, ..0 large,diverse sizes., ,ma7C pointsp ��3 �,,, ? �4 •,. r y,x,,; .� $,
b T,i Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 �" 0
,4001
2
+ i deeply incised 0,stable en,, banks max pourts) x
'l3 Presence of ma,or bank failures
a
�u = D 5 0 A S
, - (severe erosion 0 no erosion,stable banks max points) ... .
o
z.
fl
Root depth=and density on`;banks
0 0 4 D 5
(no,visible roots , 0;dense"fobtsihfoughout „ rijax°points). . ..,
15 Impact by agriculture; livestock,or timber producfion
(substantial impact- 0,no evidence; maxpomts) ' © 5 0 4 0 5
Presence of nflle pool/rippfe pool comp9exes �` f 3x 0 $ 0 6
a l6 (no nftles/apples or pools 0;well developed Amax points),
� w�
(1 the or no habitat O,frequent,varied:habita1 s`=max points), a �,�•n. . , . , �.. ...
l� Canopy coverage over streambed
1$ r
(nti shadm vegetation 0,continuous canoe max points) 0 5 0 0 3
1J Substrate emf�eddedn±�ss d �' � �
r a r Nt � 0 4 D
r t.•.- (deep]y�embedded,,.O,loosestni�max),��R � ,-�,,,��,� �, .�,;.,, . .,�,•.
20 presencetof stream invertebrates{see page 4)
(na evidence a0,common numerous types max points) 0 4 0 3 0
F esence of amphibiags D q
r no evidence 0,common,numerous types max points)
O -2,22 Presence of fish
r 4,
(no evidence 0,common;numerous types max points) 4 0 4 D 4
23 Evidence ofwildlife use 0
(no evidence 0,abundanievidence maxpoints)
vie .b 3 as ` ' Jn r,s
3 v Total Points Possible ,
7 a ,�3,-d ,3 *�.. h "
p2�Pi "�"
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

USACE AID# "P - DWQ# Site#SL (indicate on attached map)
A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
GO
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: ,�,,
1.Applicant's ^fi name: DOT 2.Evaluator's name: t 017, t
f; 3.Date of evaluation: 513105 4.Time of evaluation:-
_4 5.Name of stream: WT J-D !!i iI S Cr ' ." 6.River basin: Od1 P2 C Dee 4'.(1 V
7.Approximate drainage area: 1122 YV,; 8.Stream order: 5F TORO 0.r d FPja
' 9.Length of reach evaluated: OUD U; 10.County:
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3 u 155 Longitude(ex.-77.556611):
Method location determined(circle): OGP� Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location.'of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
14.Proposed channel work(if any): I
15.Recent weather conditions: sunw , a 65
16.Site conditions at time of visit: Same Q5 above_
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 J-V-(I-IV)
18.Islthere a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? .YES N9 If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear.on USGS quad map? ES NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%°Residential 7-0%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
s_ %Forested _%Cleared/Logged _%Other( 1
22.Bankfull width: C"l 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 5.f+
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 4%) Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions,for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,teroin,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): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature I'^"A. QatY6 Date Cp'10105
This channel evaluation form is intended to be ukeg 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.
I�
1 .

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
syta y3 t .�
CI�ARACTERISTICS r 3 'ECOREGION POINT RAl�TGI ����
u � ydq "r � �r � '� t { COaCtall a Piedmont
1 Presence,of flow/persistent pools in stream
0 5 0 4 0 l (no flow or saturation 0,strong flow max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0
"` (extensive alteration=0,no alteration max points)
3 a Riparian
t (no buffer 0,contiguous,w�debuffer max points) Ll
`
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
? K t
(extensive discharges 0,no dischar es max points)
K � � 4
a 0 5 0 4 OF 3
'� GrOUn(lwater d1SCiare�
0 4 no dischar a 0 springs;seeps;wetlands,
0 0
>•It" bps � z j � Presence O�ad�aCent f100d'plain '�3 � r � % �p � �z
(no floodplain 0,extensive floodplain inaX pomts�
Entrenchment!floodplam access
(deeply entrenched 0,frequent floodm max omts) x h
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
(no wetlands 0,lar a adia(entwet7ands max points} 0 4 0 f2
0 b
0 natural meander--max o�
Channel S�nn061t�' x . 3 extensive channelization p nts) 5 077
10 Sedimentlnput �y, r t� s
� r (extens�v'e deposition 0 Ift d orno sediment=max,pomts)
1] Size&diversity of channel bed substrate Y
(fine homogenous 0 large,diverse sizes max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision ar 3vedenana �5
(deeply incised 0,stable bed&banks max omts) RATs 0
� � Presence of ma�or'bank failures
5 Sf 0{severe erosion 0,no erosion,stable banks max points) 0 0
' 4
Root&epth and density ob'.banks 's 0 3 0 4
F (no visible roots 0 dense roots throu hour max om
g p ts) r ,$
15 Impact by agr{culture; livestock;or timber production r
{substantiahimpact:.�,no evidence` .max.points
Presence of raffle pooUnpple pool complexes ;' f
sa �16 0 3
(no raffles/apples or pools 0, -ell-,developed max points)
x
Habitat complexi 0 6(little or no habitat . frequent,,vaned habitatspoints) -
Canopy coverage
r� no shadm vegetation 0 continuous canoe Amax points) 0 < 0 e
r l� " SUbStrate embeddedneSS _
(deeply embedded 0,loose stnieture=max
Pr.esence"of stream invertebrates(see page 4)
,, f jno evidence ;`0,common numerous types,,, rnax points)
U� Presence of amphibians r
O 2l
(no evidence '0 common numerous types max points)
0 4 0 4 0
f Presence of fish
`(no evidence `0, el
common,nu>tierous types max points) 0 0 4 0 4
23 Evidence of wildlife use
(nog evidence 0,abundant evidence max poin
� "t'�a��������r a'e ���`•.' ,'nr'„��'i^'�r�ri.��3,;�����,>.�,a'�, ���' r��af h� k��.,�x ��,..� :p a� r I � r, �"� ` .�, s.� �a?� `�8 31.E x�` .� „�g� ��
SCOI
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

i
-
USACE AID# "'P � DWQ# Site#� (indicate on attached jm�ap
-3 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: ',wlzol. 2.Evaluator's name: 'Landariq 60de
3.Date of evaluation: 15 DS 4.Time of evaluation- 3 ;OC, yyn
' 5.Name of stream: luct X lA DLk CXCek 6.River basin: e Occ F1 V C�t
7.Approximate drainage area: � Z 8.Stream order: 2-4 � �DPO
9.Length of reach evaluated: AF12my- ,3000 4 10.County: WOW
VAS
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 31a. HC1 1(VIP Longitude(ex.—77.556611):
-
Method location determined(circle): GP Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
C u,l W Uv-&V R, t lZ1
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: 30-ry t. 11S b6tvJ
i 16.Site conditions at time of visit: 7-ar(1no s )d arm, b5 'F
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
V Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters. _Nutrient Sensitive Waters Zwater.Supply Watershed J_(I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation,point? .YE NO If yes,estimate the water surface area: Z ae t--5
19.Does channel appear:on USGS quad map? ES NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? £S NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential q%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
M%Forested ' _%Cleared/Logged Imo%Other
22.Bankfull width: Z5 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 5 —Io Ci
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) V Gentle(2 to.4%) _Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander -1—Ve`ry sinuous _Braided channel
Instruction�Jor completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,ter0in,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each charnccteristic 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): 7i Comments: rc)x Le1P P LR /,UF.t*f tr a e 21?ta
MC-4-r fp d M., ,(6 i rAOr
i t
Evaluator's Signature g Date (ofl101®5
This channel evaluation form is intended to be usedto ly 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.
a
1�
- 1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
z " ECOREGION POINT RANG ; , � ,
CI3ARACTERISTICS yC012 ��
�.
Presence:of flow/persistent pools m stieara
l no flow or°saturatio
N 4
C n 0,stron flow max points
0 s`' 0
os 5
h Evidence of past human alteration , 0 6 0 50
2 :,.:
(extensive alteration 0 no alteration max points) t rv -
3 ° z Riparian zone 0",
Y
{no buffer-0;contiguous;wide buffer..=max points)"
x
3 4 Evidence of nutrien#or chemical discharges E
os coax" oa 3
(extensive discharges' 0,no dischar Es max points) s
Groundwater discharge r
springs,seeps;wetlands,etc max points) 0 3n 0 4 0 L
6 Presence of adjacent floodplam
no floodplam 0,extensive loodplain max points) 0 4 0 a 0 2 1 2
k 5 Entrenchment/floodplam access r I _
(deeply entrenched "-0,frequent#lood'in max points 0£ s r 0 b fl
Presence of adjacent wetlands � � .:_� � f � � �
Q
wetlands� 0,jar a adjacent wetlands max points) � 0 � 6 � 0 4 " � 2� '�
Channel sinuosity
9 �< <" ;; _. 0 5 0 a 0 3
(extensile channelizationq 0,natural'meander°�,max points). -
' 1(l r p Sediment,�nput � r 0 d
(extensive deosition= 0,little or no sedimen# max points n Z
`r Size&diVerSl Of Channel bea sUbstrnte -0 y a
s
ll -
(fine homogenous 0 jar e,diverse saes max points) 'J
�y t 'Evidence of channel incision or widen�n � �2 0
�+ (deep] incised ,0,stable bed&banks max pouts). 0 5' ,gam zf4 Sa
" Presence of major bank failures
3 �:
a(severe erosion 0,no erosaon,stable banks max points)�� y F r
14 { Ropt depth anal density on banksy=
�f u
H no vis1ble roots 0 dense roots throu hoot n3ax points
l� Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production 0 0 4 0 5 '`
(substantial im act 0 no evidence max pomtg ►J
p
r���'' '16 Presence'of riffle pooUripple pool complexes �' _'
n
riffles/apples or pools 0,well deve lopedmax points) 0 b
l �� Habits#cmnplexi
�.3. (little of"no`h'abitat ..O,� equenvaned;habitats=maX.pomts) 6"
Canopy coverage over streambed 0 5 0 3
l$ ._ _z
shadIn ve etation 0 continuous canop maxpomts)
b 'w
(^�7p., Substrate emlieddedness , T�AiA 0 a� fl 1'}
dee'1ombeddedy .0,7oose structure:-inax t=_ .o, .U. , �x3�AP , ,
20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4){ kt
0 ,
5
(no evidence 0,cornrrion,numerous types max points) a
Presence of amphibians �'
evidence"=0,common,nu nerous'types ,wai%ax"points)
'� Presence of fish r 3
O 22
�} (no evidence 0,common,numerous types max pomts)a 0 a= 0 341
E .1 ennce of wildlife use
x� F 234 (no evidence 0;abundant-evidence max points);:
' eRI'l
r `v �'✓s k a ./m x�': .t' '� r' inn'& ._r` s,:r._v '8%,y r 7 3 E - z,�,� '-✓,'`P a'
P
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

...._..._.__............._._._..._......._.........--...-.._......._____ __..__._..:. _ _..... _._......---... _ _— ....__...........-_ -.....E AID# DWQ# SAC.
-
(indicate on attached map)
USAC Site#
C 3
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: 1J M0l 2.Evaluator's name: %nd03 D
3.Date of evaluation: 5 t3I 05 4.Time of evaluation:- OD Qyr
_- 5.Name of stream: U1 ko 1 U.GlP( Nflte Of-eeIL 6.River basin: 7QCd by) - Pf c bed ?1 VPjf'
7.Approximate drainage area: ? -24(rr)ltilQ+a DIM 8.Stream order:
9.Length of reach evaluated: 4 P M4_ 10.County: W l ftS
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312):. 3(a. 1,49 If o Longitude(ex.—77.556611): -c6 I'• 1$3333
- Method location determined(circle): ,t'P Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location)-
('.U.IWA utn&Y U 421
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions:_ SG1,M 0.S IDe 101��
16.Site conditions at time of visit: Ct)€(Lnq Lamm SUST
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
V T out Waters —Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Supply _ (I-IV)
1. Water Su 1 Watershed
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES O If yes,I p p � estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?. YES (J
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
140 %Forested_ _%Cleared/Logged -�D %Other( 20Cid )
22.Bankfull width: 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): J�'F
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _✓Gentle(2 to 46/o) _Moderate(4 to 101/6) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight ✓Occasional bends _Frequent meander `_Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet located on page 2 • Begin b determining the most appropriate ecore ion'based on
P ( P-g )• g� Y gg
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
v 4 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. LI
Total Score (from reverse): ,1 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature r Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be tAelld 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.
1 •

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
i ,E �k {�+Y WINE,
#` CIiARACTERISTICS't` '� t ECOREGION POINT RANG ,
�3 _ ��# FjS } a-F `- •� £' k f d �.�'� t t _y N. ; �• d C_
ME
s<
l Presence of flow%persistent pools m stream
r 0 5
(no flow or saturat1ori 0,stron flow max'pomts) x
2 Evidence ofpast human alteration
(extensive alteration-=0;no alteiation. max'points,
ND
A d 4; Riparian zone D
(nobuffer ,0,contiguous,w,de buffer max points);
6 0 4 0 S Li
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
6.. k .,.,,
9
( 0 0 4 0
W
�g�� extensile discharees; 0,no dischar irs max points)
�x K
�irOUn(lyater;dlSCharge�V (no dischar a 0,springs,seeps,°wetlands etc max,oints)
*- x`6 Presence of adjacent iloodplam p �} 0 4 v r.
(no floodplain D,extensive floodplatn max points)' Z
Entrenchment/ ]oodplain''access 03 0 4X 0 2 t
r (dee 1 entrenched 0 frequent floodn max points) 1
t
� 8 , g Presence fa djacent wetlands
s� nowetlands=0 lame:adjacenttivetlandsinazpoints),
u
.0 Channel sinuosity
'.9
(extensive channelization 0,na)ural meander max points) 0 $ 0 4• t7 r I
0 s a �� �'. s Sedlmellt Input FaD
(extensive deposition-0-tittle or no sediment max points �" s z r
0 0
Size&diversity of channel bed substrate ` " '� �
13 r ( � p �.. ) 0 4; 0 2
� ..M ,
fine,liomogenous-0 large;d]VerseS]ZeS-rl7aX OintS � .�.�� ,
12 Evidence of channel inc►sion or widening
5 o 2�+ (deeply mused 0 stable bed&banks max points)
; £ Presence of major bank failures RS0 5 b
��
(severe erosion D,no erosion;'stable banks a'max`pbints) an a _
2-
�:, x Root depth and density on:banks �
H (no visible roots 0,dense roots throw flout max points) .
2
Impact by agriculture; livestock,or umber production
z 'i5 D g 0 q D $v
(substantial impact u,,no evidence' max points ' n
15 Presence,of riffle pooUnpple pool comp)exes
(no nfl3eslripples or pools 0 vvell developed max points)
(little or no habitat 0;'frequentwar""ied'habitats:.=max points)„ ;;;' 0,
Canopy coverage over'streambed
(no shadin ve etaiion con tinuous canoe ,=max-points) r 0 K
11
11
Substrate embeddedness '1 0 5
i ('deep] embedded 0,loose structure :max) "� Hh D 4 0 ?�
� �20 � Presence;of stream invertebrates(see page 4) � �,
s
0 0 3 0 5 {
ono evidence •.0,°common;ntimerous`types.- rnax points) . --y� ��__„�. � ,.:, . .,, :�. � � �•
21� Presence of amphibians
(no evidence 0,common,numerous pes max points)
k
Presence of fish
O 22
D(no evidence 0 common,numerous types ffi- points) 0 4
Evidence of waldhfe use3
23 (no evidence„ O,abundani;evidence., rriax`points)_r -; a „5 0 .5
'�,�' •c 4x z „t �"4 9�•a '� Syr Fa � n i �3 r r
�4�i x�`3 �� v� �k r r,� �'» ; � �� .ar ,,i1�, ,� , �� � ;�( r ✓ N��3� �'���';3 �r���o- ��y � �,���� �5";
�, 5a T4)�'�LSCORE also enter oxt first a e r 3 LI 9
a r.e3„„.��s �,.,hfi,Sa g ,•,y,iy�..,,...,�. � ,.��v 4�;..:,, n _>.:A�M a.,,�'s�F....:: a�'� ..r.f r _,d.ID.e�z..b v?� � ��"� � � n�� =y.�.aJ��,..�n x..,;�.�,.,;4
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

_ _ _ _ ___
USACE AID# .,i . ._...____.... _ '^—' DWQ✓#T .....__.______._ _.�_. -•--•--Site#SL� (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: t 6%-r 2.Evaluator's name: `� � ds►�za
3.Date of evaluation: S /,? 4.Time of evaluation:. 30 4
5.Name of stream:_ u ,-- +o /fin ra..,� �, 6.River basin:
2
7.Approximate drainage area: l k WL; r 8.Stream order:
' 9.Length.of reach evaluated:_AWMk` 7n E+ 10.County: Q V k e s
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3(o- I L4 1 1 I I Longitude(ex.—77.556611):
_a Method location determined(circle): GPS Too Sheet Ortho Aerial Photo/GIS Other GIS Other( ) Q. p (Aerial)
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location
ZG$ /nce-
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: s n �/�, • 0/ x (�
16.Site conditions at time of visit:_
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_T out Waters Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters ,_Water,Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18.I there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES AV If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.>�oes channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential 6L%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
_ _%Forested _%Cleared/Logged %Other
Ifs 22.Bankfull width: 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 3
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 21/o) ,.Gentle(2 to 4%) Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
l 25.Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
—.� Instruction$;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
characteristib'g 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): 32. Comments:
i -
t �
Evaluator's Signature LJ Date=11 os
This channel evaluation form is intended to be u2efl only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary,assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change—version 06/03. To Comment,please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
,

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CORE N PO1N GE #
#, a , CHARACTERISTICS ' ........ T,RANSCO �
E
1 (no flow or saturation p 0'"soon flo is m stream E
510, P`resenceV of flow/ ersistent 4 0
a£ w max points, 3
2 Evidence of past human alt°eration
(extensrve alteration D no alteration max,points) 0 6 D 5• 0 5
!­gm
3 Riparian zone
(no 1$uffer 0;contiguous'Wide puffer max-points)._ 5
i 4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
extensive discharees� 0,no'disc"harges max points 0 p5 0 4 0 by
�3 Groundwater discharge E 0 3 D 4
S (no disctar a 0,spnnos,seeps,`wetlands,eic ='max Dints
U= ) 0 i
:6 Presence of adjacent floodplain * 0 4 0 4 0 2
�+
(no'flo`odplam .0;extensive"floodplain max-points)
fi Entrenchment(flood plain a
_ ccess
�` (deeply entrenche frequent floodn max point
d=0, 's) t
v/3` 4 _
8 Presence:of adjacent wetlands r,
(no wetlands=D,large adjacent ivetl'ands._Amax points) 0 6
9 c r Channel S1nOOSlty a
ffipn
(extensive channelization 0,natural meander `max point's) 0 5 0 4 0 3
10 � - Sediment,inpuf
(extensive deposition 0,hale or no sediment mad points) 0 5, 0 0 4 z
x
'11 Size&diversity of channel bea substrate ��"' e� � , V
(fine,"homo enous 0 large;diverse,sizes„ 'max points)' NA* 0 4 0 j
Evidence of channel incision or widenn
{deeply incised 0,stable beds&banks maX points) 0 5 0 4 0 S
r.r >13 Presence of major bank failures
N}, y (severe'erosion 0,noTerosion stable banks max points) 5 D
a J4 Root depth and density on.°banks D 0 4 0 3
(no visible roots 0,dense
tiro roods tn bout rhax points) g f
1S Impact by agriculture, livestocka or timber production ��
e (substantial iiripact 0,no"evidence-max"points)' U
io
16 Presence'of riffle pooUrpple pool complexes 0--
es
3 0 5 D 6
(ho nffleshippl or"pools 0,well developed,-°max Dints).
Habitat complexity
a
0 b D 6 0 6
(]role or�no habitat 0,frequent;vaned"h'abrtats rnaX points) wi, ;a
v
coverage over strgambed
� �
(no shadm ve etation 0,continuous°canoe .=max points).
Substrate pbeddedness
(deeply embedded .,O,Moose,stricture=max)
Presence,of stream invertebrates(see page 4) Z
r �2U 4' 0
(no evidence 0,common,numerous types max points) 0 r D S
L Presence of amphiiaus "` D 4 0 4' A 4
r
21
O (no evidence D,comon numerous types max points) Z m
yk
O} ,22 Presence of fishk
0
(no evidence T fl,common,numerous ty es max points) 0 4 0 4 O
23 Evidence of wildlife>�e� D b� 0 5 " 0
no evidenc%e D,abundant evidence maXpomts)
agy ag1'j"�'' "yy �TotalyPolntS PoSsi�le �{l.� ]{1fl 't,
ff
g,
S
w
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

..................
......_._............................._._...._...--.....-........._...._..........-----._.._.___.__.._.....__.....-­---_-.._..._-__._.............
_..-- ......._ .-._....— —..
USACE AID# _ — --- DWQ# Site#5H (indicate on attached map)
,
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: WbDT 2.Evaluator's name: I ax-A a Z-40 r BDC(e
3.Date of evaluation: D `( `05 4.Time of evaluation: 9 00 Ct�+m
5.Name of stream:_ h ol(ayin YF C 1(Pe_�� 6.River basin: Y ad b h te- bP.P P.1 Vetr
7.Approximate drainage area:kgrtaC rJ rrt z 8.Stream order: 30 CTopO)
9.Length of reach evaluated: a29MX ZONA 10.County: W 1 I kes
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3(p. Iy3$H Longitude(ex.-77.556611): - ?)I . i 1(-o to Lc(e
Method location determined(circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: cSA.Yy le ns Lboyf-
7 16.Site conditions at time of visit:_ )U I111h°`dl , !/l)"M. C 4 5 F
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES Of yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? &
NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential 70 %Commercial _%Industrial %Agricultural
20 %Forested _%Cleared/Logged I Q%Other
22.Bankfull width: 50 FI 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 10 - 15 4
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) Gentle(2 to.4%) _Moderate(4 to l0%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terrain,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each 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): 0 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 6 jib
This channel evaluation form is intended to be 9411 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.
]

i
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# a R r CHARACTERISTICS" � `4'g`fi EC012EGION POINT RANGE ('�(� ���j
S t �^
v�x a .r COaSta� 3 P1ComOnt t? r 'Onntam . i '�.,,�'' '
ra PreSeIlCe OrflOW,IperSlstent p001S ID Stream
(no flow or saturation 0,stron flow max points) 4
F Ev�derice o :past human aiterat�on'
2 ... -
(extensive alteration, 0 no alteration max pomts� 0 f' 0 XOP Z
3 4 Ian,zone
(no buffer 0 contiguous,wide buffer max points) a
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges s :
Clow (extensive dischar es 0 no dischar es max points 0 �5 Y
a Groundwater dischargeµ €
5 r
no d�sc7iar a 0,spnnes,seeps,tivetlands,etc in points) '
119
6 Presence of adjacent lloodplain
no.,floodplam 0,extensweloodplam maX pom44
ts)
(deepl entrenched 0,frequent floojdm Amax points) 0 5"
8 Presence Oradjacent wetlands k ��'
x
(no wetlands
(extensive channel�zat�on 0,natural meander max omts) 5 y 30 4 OR,
3i0 .r. Sediment input x < ; � � �
(extensive depos�t�on 0 htt]e or no sediment 'niax points �' 0 S x* z fi4 0 4 r
€` Size&diversity of channel bed substrate� % X r°
...
(fine hoino enous,=O;.lar e;:drverse sizes °max�pomts) � _
12 Evidence of c}Jannei mcis�on or w�den�ng s
} k (dee ly�nc►sea 0,stable bed&banits niaz omtsJ 0 5 p 4 0 5
k,
Presence of major bank failures
���� r �. � ��.a - � ��,
(severe erosion 0,no erosion,stable banks max omts)
Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots fl,dense roots throuehout max points) 0
i i5
Impact by agriculture; livestock,or Timber production ' �
a� 0 5 0 4 0 5
(substantial impact-0,noevidence, max' omts
xz
p r
`` r Presence of riffle pooUn�iple pool complexes f
16
{ pp P P pr
no nfflesh� les of ools 0 well develo`ed max omts)
g 17 ,Habitat complexity r a
-. r_ r 0 bz 0 b 0 6
(lktleor,nohab�tat 0;>frequent'varledl�abitat5"t:maxpomts), _ k .,{
�'�i8 '� � t , �' Canropy coverage over streambed � � ��
a (deeps embedded 0,IOOse StTUChlre max sp .,�rot 1� ' a ` i
to
11�' 20 Presence of>stream invertebrates(see page 4)f , >
�.
0 4 0 5 0
>,f b {no evidence 0,common,numerous types maz points) . 'p
(no evidence 0,common,numerous types maX'pomts)' 0 4 „0 4 ' 0 4 z-
nPreSeDCe-Of
( s
r ' no evidence 0,common numerous,, pes max points), ti 1
23 _ Evidence of wildlife use 0 65 0 5 0 5 3
r (no evidence 0,abundant evidence max points)
" y,: ' -.ie�✓ r .€". `t , ...:°n :,,. w✓c _ , �
r , Total Points Possible rnr
�:�:.,:::'.`"'
t, ! ! ✓: 4e l - u r r '� 'rr - r3+ fM.tads.5:;„, e .,.,,«Yy
� ..........
TOTAE SCORE (a1 0 enter o first page �� !_ � � l �� 9
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

j
.............---._.....-.._.._..._......_......---_.._.__...__._.. _ ..._...__._._...-..._..._....... __._._.._.._......._...._...._..._._..._.._....-
( USAGE AID# - DWQ# Site#� (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
rt
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
_ 1.Applicant's name: IIC-DO 7- 2.Evaluator's name: �� car—Q a-ZZ,9
3.Date of evaluation: �� 4 — 4.Time of evaluation:
5.Name of stream: VC,et(u I n `lam t��` 6.River basin: ��c L, -Pee- Dee Ely.e.'r
C�
7.Approximate drainage area: -1 Z.ZI rn1 z 8.Stream order: Jf, ( -TnpO)
9.Length of reach evaluated: ACF vc 50D0 f+ 10.County:
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): (A• 1 LIq ((e a Longitude(ex.—77.556611):
Method location determined(circle): <� S Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reachhuunder evalupation(mote nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location): /
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
a-
15.Recent weather conditions:_
16.Site conditions at time of visit:_ 5a
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
(rout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map?<M3 NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?.�$ NCO
�- 21.Estimated watershed land use: 20%Residential y0%Commercial _%Industrial 10%Agricultural
(IV 5W.-I ahm)
30%Forested _%Cleared/Logged _%Other
22.Bankfull width: Ova 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank):
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 21/o) _Gentle(2 to 41/o) Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet located on page 2 • Begin b determining the most appropriate ecore ion based on
P ( P g )• g Y gg
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): JCS. 5 Comments:
r n_
Evaluator's Signature ��� ytcg_ R"dqap Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be uYet 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.

I
v
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CORE POINT RANGE
CIAI2ACTERISTICS CORD"�
Coastal + nit x a
Piedmont h ou am
Presence of flow/persistent pools m stream 4
1
0 5� 0 4:�
(no flow or saturation 0,strop flow max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0 6f 0 5. 0 5
(extensive alteration 0,no"alteration max points) ,
j' Riparian zone Z
(no Buffer �0;contiguous,wide buffer- max points)
0 6 0 4' 0 5
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
RtJ
0 5� 0 4 0 4
(extensive dischar es 0,no discharges max points)
*a 5 G3` dwater'`discharge
V (no dischar e ,0,springs,seeps";wetlands,etc J. oints) 0 3y 0 4 0 4 y 3
ti Presence of adjacent floodplain x
0 0
(n'qgo floodplam—0;extensive floodplain max points) � s f
� � E g; Entrenchment/floodplain access; :� 0 $¢ ,
(deep] entrenched="0,iiequent N'o max point`s) 0
� 8resence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetland`s=0;large'adlacent wetlands max points) ., 0 6 0 4 0 2 0
Channel sinuosity ,
9 .. 4` 0 3
�k (extensive channelization 01 natural meander--max points) G; .
.
10 Sediment`input r
a ;. .. 0 S� 0 4 0 4 a
(extensive"deposition=0,littleor no sediment °max points)
Size&diversity of channel bed substrate r�
" Mi
(fine;}lo'mogenous—Q,far-e,d]Verse sizes i17ax'points) N ,c 5£ 0 4,'
Evidence of channel incision or yiderng r t
(deeply noised ",0;'stable bed&banks max points) 0 5', 0 4 0� 5 C�
24
Presence of major bank failures `_r►tea 13 " , }
,* (severe erosion
0 no`'erosion,,stable an
max points) 0 5 0 5 0 5
'14 Root depth and dnsity on
0 3
H no visible roots 0 dense roots throw out—max points
Impact by agriculture, livestock,or t' beY production
(substantial'impacf"-0;no evidence inax pomtsj •`' 0 0 4` 0 5 I
'16 Presence of riffle pooUrpple pool complexes 3 0 5 0 6'
a (no riff]es/apples or pool
s 0 tiyell developed mts
`max po )�
s17 x Habrtat complea�ty`
E 0 5' ti 0 bra p 6�
(tattle or no habitat 0,frequent,vaned habitats max points)
Canopy coverage over stream et
(n8 shadm ve,etation=0;continuous°canop 'max points) fl 0
0 5 ` 5
fiubstrate etnbeddedness
19 0 4;. 0
.,(deeply embedded _0;loose stivcture=max NA
a 2U )?reseiice ea of strm invertebrates(see page 4)
s (no evidence=0,common;numerous types=max points) ''. 0
t. 0
5.
C5' °21 F Presence of amphibians
Ox a- (no evidence=0 common;numerous types maxpoints) 0 4. 0 4 r 0 4 2
O y'22 Presence of fish T fl ;} 0`
q a
�-+ (no evidence:=01 co nifnon,numerous types=max points)
23
Evidence of wildlifevse
' (no evidence 0,abundant evidence max points) 0 ti 0 5 0 5 3
r
f d" PLa'..y. H3 ✓ s
Total Points Possible+ 100 ]OOK"t 100�
v 3 f ,. ,. a } "�' " '� 3 d ,
SCORE (a)so enter�n first pa�e�' s� SRNs.
INS
__,... c ..�' r. ...'.. r...,.�c m .,,.4. h " e ., x, .. s 3`-., b `'=t,,. .,- �..a a �.._az� ✓✓.✓
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

b
......
�._... _..._ _.._._.�_ _�........_.............x.......--.....-........._.................._.................._.._......................v.._................_...._.....-.-.-... _.._. ..............___.._.._._._. _ .__.._..._..USAGE AID#„ DWQ# Site...#5.0..._..(indicate on attached map)
............_.......... ....-)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the;following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: i\1r-1 r,T 2.Evaluator's name:
3.Date of evaluation: :27—A 05 4.Time of evaluation:
elyo-
��-`� �rj —let' Aft=
5.Name of stream: UT -� )n J ki h f�e 1/G�' 6.River basin:
t _
7.Approximate drainage area: yvi 2 8.Stream order: F 5t C I OPo CLtj FC.1d)
9.Length of reach evaluated: t o oo 10.County: J J 1 L- S
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3(a- 155a'1`1 Longitude(ex.—77.556611): — g� 2�1111
Method location determined(circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions:
16.Site conditions at time of visit: ✓. -s-
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)
o
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO , yes,estimate the water surface area:
-i, 19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ODNO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? �O>NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: 5—%Residential -S—%Commercial. %Industrial %Agricultural
%Forested _%Cleared/Logged %Other( )
22..Bankfull width: 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank):
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) Gentle(2 to 41/o) _Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
( 25.Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructiogs for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terfam,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each cbaiacterlstic 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): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature �,f 2 �Q/k(i`w!/t�i� Date (p�i DIOJ�
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.
�r
I

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS SCOREm
E,COREGION POINT RANGE
_ "n Coastal " Piedmon# 3 Mountain
1 Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
(no flow or saturation 0;strong flow max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0—5
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points
3 - Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0—5
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges.
4
,
0-5 0 4 0 4 3.
(extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max points) '
a 5 0-3 0�-4 0—d Groundwater discharge
- }
d• (no discharge=0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points) I
" 6 — J floodplain
Presence of adjacent flood lain ,
(no floodplain,=0;extensive floodplain=max points) —4 0—4 0-2
/
w Entrenchment/floodplain access
(deeply entrenched=0;frequent floodingmax points) 0-5 0--4. 0 2 I
Presence of.adjacent wetlands ;
8 (no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands=max points) 0 6 0-4^ 0—2 1
5
° Channel sinuosity
9 0-5 0-4 0-3
(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
(fine,honio_enous=0;large,diverse sizes=max points)
°
Evidence of channel incision or widening,".}
12 (deeply� 0-5 0"-4 0 �5 "•+ ( p"]y incised=0;stable bed&banks=max points
Presence of inaJor bank"failures
13 0=5 0=5. 0 5 2
(severe erosion=0;no erosion,stable banks=max points)
Roo(no�visible rootst depth0;densedroots t on banks " <`
ed; °14 — rou hoi t-="max points) 0-3 0-4 0— '
N
Impact by agriculture,.livestock,or timber production
F 15' (substantial impact=0;no evidence=max points)' 0-5 0`4" 0—5""° Z
16 Presence of riffle-pool ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0 6
EY<' (no riffles/ripples or pools=0 well-developed=max points)
.t; Habitat complexity
17. 0-6 0—�6,. 0, 6
(hale or no habitat=0 frequent,varied habitats=max.points)`' ."•: °
Canopycoverage over streambed
18 — 0-5 0—°5, 0=5
(no shadingvegetation=0;continuous canopy—max oints)
Substrateembeddedness_
19 NA'* `.` 0 4 " ° 0-4- 3
(deeply embedded=0;loose structure=max)
Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4)
20 0-4 0-5 0-5
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
Presence of amphibians
21 0-4 0:—4. 0-4
O (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
22 Presence of fish
O� �- �� 0-4 0-4 0-4
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) 3
'Evidence of wildlife use
23 ° 0-6 0-5' 0-5
no evidence 0;abundant evidence=max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100.
`TOTAL SCORE"°(also enter on•f rst page) (�g
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

.. .. .. _ .... .. ..... ......_ ... ....................-_..............._....................___.__........._._...__._..__..__._................................................_..........._.............._........__........__._............._._........_..__............_.._........._.............................--'1
USACE AID# DWQ# Site#_� (indicate on attached map)
__.._..._. ...._-_.._..__..._....._._......_-_-W....._._._.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 1.
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
_. 1.Applicant's name: K)CIDD 1 2.Evaluator's name: Kh1.!(}aa-ZZO.190QU
3.Date of evaluation: 4.Time of evaluation: 2 00 pl
„ 5.Name of stream u1 i, )IOd I'_lyl 12t id 6.River basin: 104tiy) - Pee ibe.C- Pnycc
7.Approximate drainage area: 0,N the 8.Stream order: (Togo and held)
9.Length of reach evaluated: tQVDK 'I50o ff 10.County: wfteS
11. Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312):_ -;(0. ISIP I I I Longitude(ex.-77.556611): _8I.
Method location determined(circle): FGPS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
C.L wfyl 1A cznAD rd.
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: � ,tlt( as be-1 O Lo
16.Site conditions at time of visit: (}
i
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: I iW fe-
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? &NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential _%Commercial %Industrial W%Agricultural
HQ/6 Forested _%Cleared/Logged 0%Other( baz( )
22.Bankfull width:_ 1*01 23.Bank height(from bed to top ofbank):
V �
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) Gentle(2 to 4%) _Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terrain,vegetation,stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each 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): 3 2 Comments:
r
Evaluator's Signature L'"I ll_ Z-/11 C/1/4Q Date I/D 10,5
This channel evaluation form is intended to be sed 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.
�.� 1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS,z
ECOREGION POINT RANGE ,
Coastal Piedmont Mountain,, SCORE-
1 Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream
0-5 0-4 0=5
(no flow or saturation=0;strong flow=max points) .2--
2 Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points) 0-6 0=5 0 5
R Riparian zone 0—6, 0-4 0_5
3
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max points) 0—5 .0—4 0—4
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0=4 0-4,
d (no discharge=0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points)
*0 Presence of adjacent floodplain
to 6 0—:4 0-4 0-2
-(no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max points) l
Entrenchment/floodplain access
7 0-5 0-4 0-2
a (deeply entrenched=0;frequent flooding=max points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8 0-6 0.-4 ' , 0'-2
(no.wetlands=0;,large adjacent wetlands max points)
9 Channel sinuosity
�s (extensive channelization=0;natural meander=max p oints) 0-5 0—4 .0-3
10` extensive de osition=0;little or o sediment 0-5 0-4 0—4
Sedimentinput..
( p max points)
Size&diversity of channel bed substrate
11 (fine,homogenous`=0;large,diverse sizes max points) NA* 0-4, 0 3 Z
12 Evidence of channel incision-or-widen mg
(deeply incised=0•stable bed&banks-max points). 0 5 0 4 0 5
Presencee.`of majorelia'nk farlu es r ',.
0-5 0 S -
-- (severe erosion—0;no eroslori,stable banks.=max points) ... - •,- - '
Root depth and density-on banks
-•. 14 ' 0-3 . 0 4 0-5
E.,. (no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout'=max points)
Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production I
15 0-5 0-4 0—`5
44.
(substantial impact=0;no evidence=max points), "
16 Presence of riffle-poolfripple-pool complexes 0 3 0-5, 0-6 A
(no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed=max points)
�, Habitat complexity
1 ,(ittle or no habitat=A;frequent,varied habitats=max points) 0-6 , 0 6 0-6
(' Canopy coverage over streambed:
18
• ,('no shading vegetation=0;continuous canopy=max points) 3
Substrate embeddedness
19•, (deeply embedded=0;loose structure=max) NA* 0-4 0-4
20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4) 0-4 0 5 0-5
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points),
21 Presence,of amphibians 0 4 0-4 0 4
O (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
O . 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence=0;abundant evidence max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5
,
Total.Pomts Possible 100" . 100., 100
n TOTAL SCORE..(also enter oti first page)
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

................ ...... .............. ...... .............................
............................ ................................... ........................
........
........
...
...........
..............
USACE AID# DWQ# Site#�Q (indicate on attached map)
._..__..........._....._-_..........._...__._....._...__.....__.__....__......... ..__._..____.__. __.___.....__........._......__._._.__.._._......_........................_......_. _.___....._......._..__.___..____._._......._.......
'--- STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
_ 1.Applicant's name: A/-�' 2.Evaluator's name: Tn D G
3.Date of evaluation:TrO 3— 4.Time of evaluation: 3 1.00 n..-
5.Name of stream: WF -fro h r ie✓'+-, Cfr e-k 6.River basin: A-1D1Z l Pe cc- P_1 VtV-
r
7.Approximate drainage area: i z 8.Stream order: A;f -TOpO Zn`1 - re(CA
9.Length of reach evaluated: 2 10.County: JJI LA-65
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): _3(D, Longitude(ex.—77.556611): $ - 220 211
I Method location determined(circle)- GP Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other I-+�-�I J
13.Location of reach under evalua tt'on(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
14 -tom +II.P"s
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent.weather conditions:
r
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 M If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map?L� NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?L-�RS NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: i %Residential _,1 %Commercial %Industrial _%Agricultural
S %Forested 97 %Cleared/Logged %Other( )
22.Bankfull width: 8 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 3
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 4%) K Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,te4ain,vegetation,stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each ch'tracteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characterist(es 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): b Comments:
Evaluator's Signature C/Z �C!/ILG(C✓1/}�� Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment,please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE ' SCORE
Coastal 1'iedii orW, Mountani
1 Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream 0-5 0 4 0=5
(no flow or saturation=0;strong flow=max points) Lj
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6- 0-5 A=5 �
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points)
3 _ Riparian zone
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points) 0-6 0—4 0-5?.
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges.•
0-5 0-4 0-4-
(extensive discharges,=0;no dischar es=max points)
.' Groundwater discharge - 0 3 0 4° 0 4
(no discharge=0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points)
H Presence of adjacent floodplain
6 (no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain max points)' 0-4 0 4 0—2 ,
`Entrenchment/floodplain access
7 0-5 , 0—4 0 2 .W; (deeply entrenched=0;frequent floodin =max points)
8. Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6 0-4 ,0—2
(no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands=maxpoints)
r `
Channel sinuosity
9 (extensive channelization=0;natural meander=max points) 01 5 0-4 0 3 l
10 - - Sediment input 0 5 0-4; 0-4 3
(extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment max omt`s)
l Y Size&diversity of channelbed substrate" NA'� 0-4 0 5
(fine,homo enous=0;large,diverse sizes=max points),
Evidence of chann'12el incision or,widening. '-,
�+ (deeply incised=0;stable bed&banks=max points)
Hs Presence of major bank failures
0=5 0 .5 0 -S
(severe erosion=0;no erosion stable banks=max points)
�= Root depth and density on-banks
14` 0-3 0=�4 0-5
(no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout=max points)" 3
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock,or4.imber production ,
0:=5 0-4 0" 5
(subs`tantial impact=0;no evidence=max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes=
(no riffles/ripples or pools=0;_well-developed=max points) 0—3 0=5 . .
17 Habitat complexity' -
(little'or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats=max points)' 0 6 0,—6 0-6 �'
(no,shadin Canopy coverage,over streambed
`1$ a etation=0;continuous cano 0-5, 0 5 0—5 .
x g Py max points). ,
19 Substrateembeddedness NA-* 0 4 0-4
(deeplyembedded=0 loose structure=max)
�`
20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4),
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types max points) 0—4 0—'S - 0:
—5_ 3
�+ -
U`a
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4
O`I, (no evidence=0;common,numerous types max points) 0=4 0-4. 2
a".
Q 22 Presence offish
r� (no evidence=0;common;numerous — 0—4 0--4.. 0=4, 3
types—max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 3
(no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points) 0-6 0-5, 0­5
Total PgmP ts ossible 100 100 1.00�
,
TOTAL SCARE (also enter on f rst page)
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

........:............_...__.._.._.............................__..........._..._..._.._................_............__....._......_._...__............_.........._................................._....................._............_....................................................................
......................_......._.........._......._..................................................._..............................................................,
USACE AID# DWQ# Site#$I. (indicate on attached map)
.........._....___.........................._.__._____ __. _..._.__..._.__..__._..__.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the'following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: NC)OT 2.Evaluator's name: -&1'1dazTD nc{e
3.Date of evaluation '0S 4.Time of evaluation: OD Qm
5.Name of stream:_ tA 11 us 6.River basin: 7 act V,1 YO -Pe e be e R 1 Ve t'
-- t
7.Approximate drainage area: TD n e rY.s 8. Stream order: d0
9.Length of reach evaluated: No"pyDY, `?_(Y7 F'# 10.County: Wt I Va
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3(.0. I s s(.4 l l Longitude(ex.—77.556611):
Method location determined(circle): PS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS- Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
lylb �o OL"aw,ev, Creel- ( sf-0
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: Sunn'l . W F
16.Site conditions at time of visit: %YY t co Ct_.boyt;
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 V(I-IV)
- 18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (0 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 k.NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential %Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
L%Forested %Cleared/Logged _%Other( )
22.Bankfull width: 5 kk 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): Z
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) ✓Gentle(2 to 40/0) _Moderate(4 to 101/o) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight ,Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):. Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,tei ain,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
characteristl,�s 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): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be us d"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.
__ 1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE 'SCORE`
Coastal l?iedmont,� Modntam,
,
Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream
1 0-5 0-4 0-5
(no flow or saturation=0;strong flow=max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration _
(extensive alteration='O;no alteration max points)
0-6 0-5 0,-5;
Riparian zone
3 0=6 0-4 0=5•
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points) 5 _
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 1 I
-• 4 ,
(extensive_discharges=0;no discharges=max points) 0—5 0 4 0—4 `l
a ` Groundwater discharge
S i
0 3 0 4 0—4°
U.' (no discharge 0;sprngs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points)
H Presence of adjacent floodplain
6 0=4 0—'2'
2
(no floodplain- 0—4_0;extensive floodplain=max points)
Entrenchment/floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2'
Z
(deeply entrenched=0;frequent flooding=maxpoints)
r 8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands max points)
0-6 0-4 0=2
Channel sinuosity `
9 (extensive channelization=0;natural'meander=max points) " 0—5 0-4- 0-3
10 Sediment input` 0-5, 0 4 0 4 2
(extensive deposition--0;little or no sediment=max points) 3
Size&diversity of channel bed substrate
11 (fine,homogenous=0;large,diverse sizes max points) NA* 0 4 0-
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening; x. 0 5, 0
�r (deeply incised=0;-stable bed&banks niax points) �l
Hy ' .Presence of major liank failures , -�, � °
13 ;
(severe erosion=0;'no erosion,-stablebanks=^max points),
0 5 0 .5 0 5
Root depth and density on banks
14 0-3 0—4
(no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout=max points) `1
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock,or.timber-, production
-
(substantial impact=0;no evidence=max points) ' 0—5 0'—4• 0_—5
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
(no riffleslripples or pools=0;we11-developed=max points) _ 0—3 0—5 0—6
d= Habitat complexity _
1 (little or no habitat=0;fregdent,varied`habitats='max points)` 0-6 0—6 ,0-6
►�
�. Canopy coverage over streambed
18 = 0-5. 0-5 0.-5
(no shadingvegetation' 0;continuous canopymax points) 5 '
Substrate embeddedness
19 NA* 0-4 '0-4
;. (deeply embedded=0;loose structure=max) 3
20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4)
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types max points) 0—4 0—5 " 0—5 9
; 21 Presence of amphibians
0-4 0-4 0 "4
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) �-
0' 22 .- Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0_4.
(no-evidence=0;common,numerous types max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points) 0-6 0-5 0—S ,
Total Points Possible' _ 100 100 1,00 r
P TOTAL SCORE (also enter 66 first page)
•
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

USACE AID# DWQ# Site# indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET A:
Provide the following information for the'stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: NMQ` 2.Evaluator's name: V(1 nC,a-ziA /Bode
3.Date of evaluation: J �'OrJ 4.Time of evaluation: pre')
5.Name of stream:_ 1 I _(S CXPe k 6.River basin: �0,d h n - Pee be C. e w-e K
7.Approximate drainage area: 8.Stream order: 2no( (_ToRo)
9.Length of reach evaluated: Ipop-Fk 10.County: w I IteS
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3(Q. I s 1 Z u- Longitude(ex.-77.556611): — U I- V S 8 8 S
Method location determined(circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
bmons-I-ream aF 1 s' Lem OK 0� 'Pads Foa.d
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: S6L 0 5 be IDt�J
16.Site conditions at time of visit: Nam,, SU y- 'n . W r'
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? ES NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
f21.Estimated watershed land use: Q%Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
3 U%Forested (D l7%Cleared/Logged _%Other( )
22.Bankfull width: 2 S �—+ 2//3.Bank height(from bed to top of bank):
V 5
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) Gentle(2 to 4%) _Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight J 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): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature i lA_ d. � Date [f IL
This channel evaluation form is intended to be uVed 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.
_ . 1

i
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE _
# : CIIARACTERISTICs Coastal Piedmont.. A7ounfain SCORE
1 Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream 0 5 0-4 0-5
(no flow or saturation=_0;strong flow=max points) rj
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
(extensive alteration=0 no alteration=max points) Z
3 k Riparian zone
0-6 0—4 0-5'
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points) )
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max points) 0 5 0 4` 0—4 3
a`e, 5 Groundwater discharge.
(no discharge 0•springs,seeps,wetlands etc.=max points) 0—'3
Presence of adjacent floodplain
W" 6 0'-4 0_4 0=2
(no floodplain=_0;extensive floodplain"=max points) I
Entrenchment/floodplain access
(deeply entrenched=0;frequent flooding=max points) 07 5'° 0-4' 0-2
Presence adjacent wetlands 8 "
0=6° 0=4 0-2
(no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands=max omts)_
Channel sinuosity Z
91
(extensive channelization=0;natural meander=maxpoints) 0 5 = 0 4 0-3
10 Sediment input 0,—5. 0—4 0.—4 3
(extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=max oints)• -
11 Size&diversity,of channel bed substrate
(fine,homogenous=0;large;diverse sizes'=max•points).° E1 0-4 0-S L�
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
'. (dee ply incised=0;Stable bed&banks=max points) 0 5 0=4,
0 ;5
►Ew 'Presence of major bank'failu-res
� ' l3 0=5 0-5
(severe erosion=0;no erosion,stalile banks'=max points)
_.
- Root depth and density.on banks •_ - '
14 (no visible roots=0 dense roots throw hout`=max oints) 0-3 0--4 0-5
[..�° g p F
Impact by'agriculture, livestock,or timber production
15 0-75, 0-4 0.=5
('substantial impact•=6,no evidence=max points). a' a
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3 0-5 0-6
(no riffles/ripples or pools=0 well-developed=•max points), y
Habitat complexity
17 °
(little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats=max points) 0-6 0-6 0—6
Canopy coverage over streambed "
.(,no shadingvegetation=0;continuous canopy=max points)
Substrate embeddedness
19 a (deeplyembedded=0;loose'structure=max)- NA* 0—4 0.7 3
20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4)
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types max points) 0-4 0-5 ° 0—5"
Presence of amphibians
O 21 (no evidence=0;common,numerous types,=max points) 0-4 0—4 0-4
?�
Presence of fish
0-4 0-4 0-4
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
Evidence of wildlife use '
no evidence=0-abundant evidence max points)
Total"Points`Possible` 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on,first page) `�2
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

t.
ix
---- ......._....._......._....._....._._....0..........
..............
..............
........
.............._.................................................
......
.......
......
....
......
......:..............
....................................
......
....................
...........
-................
.._.....
........
...........
.............
.....
_._......_.....- ._._...._._....._................_...................
USACE AID#� DWQ# Site#� (indicate on attached map)
________...___._........_.._.....-_._._...W._..._..._,__.......__.._..._...__.__......_.__ _._..__.__.. ... ... _..___._..._.._....__.. -
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
{
Provide the'following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: W W—f i 2.Evaluator's name: ' Cayyj azz c, on;s
3.Date of evaluation: 5-511'0 t(3 4.Time of evaluation: S' cl-�
5.Name of stream: U T -Jo M i I\p-V.S CXCC�- 6.River basin: N M 1LI Y) - 60- Dee Cl ve r
7.Approximate drainage area: (DO RGf CS S.Stream order: S (TD�D and Fie—LA)
9.Length of reach evaluated: Mk -r 15-mf " 10.County: 101 .es
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): ?✓-G• 15(D(e Q(n Longitude(ex.-77.556611): $1. 21 O Z-1-1
Method location determined(circle): GP Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
T1lam, bu&p R
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions:_ sr me a3 b d D W
16.Site conditions at time of visit: 11''inq I/J( m 70
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 V (I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YE N6y;If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ES `NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (a NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: 2rJ%Residential %Commercial _%Industrial 300/o Agricultural
r r a)%Forested _%Cleared/Logged _%Other'( )
22.Bankfull width: 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank):
i
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) Gentle(2 to 4%) _Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight V 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,to0ain,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each chh�acteristic 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): -5 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature %-,{uUT Q W&-A 4iO4 Date (2 10 f OS
This channel evaluation form is intended to be ti!ed 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.
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT,RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
CoastaV Piedmont; . -Mountain
Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream '
1' ' (no flow or saturation=0;strong flow max points) 0—5 0—4 0—5
Evidence of past human alteration
2 _ 0 6 0--5 .0=5
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points) v
Riparian zone
3 0-6° 0-4. 0-5 .
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points) J
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4 0-5;" 0=4 0_4
(extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max points) '
a Groundwater discharge
5 ., 0-3 0-4 0-4,
U (no discharge=0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points)
Presence of adjacent flood lain
6 p 0-4 0-4 0 2
(no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain max points)
Entrenchment/floodplain access
7 0 5 0-4' -,0 2' .'
(deeply entrenched=0;frequent flooding=max points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands °
8 0 6 0'-4, 0-2
(no wetland's=0;large adjacent wetlands max points) V
Channel sinuosity
9' 0-5 0-4 0-3
(extensive channelization=0;natural meander max points)
Sediment input
10 0-5 .0-4 0-4
(extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=Max points) ;.
Size&diversity of channel bed substrate
11y 'NA*', . 0-4 0=5
(fine;homo enous=0;large,diverse sizes=max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening,
12' 0, 5 0 .4 0 .5
(deeply incised=;0;stable bed&banks-max points)
Presence of major bank failures, w
13 - � .;�- 0-5 0-5 0—$
(severe erosion 0;no erosion,stable banks=max oints) t
'•`, Root depth and density`on banks
�n 14. � 0-3 0=4, 0-5 '
E-+- (no visible roots 0;dense roots throughout=max points)• ." ,
Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production
15 °0-50-4 •0=5
(substantial impact=0;no evidence'=max points)
y; -16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
(no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed=max points)
.
�n Habitat,
17 complexity
0'-6 0-6 0_6 ;
(little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats=max points) ` L4
Canopy coverage over streambed
18 0-5 0-5 - 0°—,5
(no shading vegetation=0;continuous canoe =max points)_
Substrate embeddedness
19 NA* 0-4 . 0—`4,
` (deeply embedded=0;loose structure, max)
Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4)
20 0-4 0-5 , 0-5
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
_
�}• Presence of amphibians
21 0�-4 0 4 0-4
® (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
C,' 22 Presence of fish
(no evidence 0;common,numerous 0-4 0-4 0—4
� types max points)
Evidence ofwildlife use
:231 0-6 0-5 0=5
(no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points)_
Total Points Possible',p 100 100 lOQ
...
TOTAL SCORE is enter on first page) 5J
�-
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

USACE AID# DWQ# Site#SLU- (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: W 00l 2.Evaluator's name: Qnndoano 50de
3.Date of evaluation: S� 1d 0Jr 4.Time of evaluation: 2 OLD Q m
5.Name of stream: UC( Ao fuapy PbV Cretk 6.River basin: yad yJ rl - Pee- bee p I VCX
7.Approximate drainage area: lI& n;Z' 8.Stream order: 1 S�P 0 Znd (field Vle O)
9.Length of reach evaluated: Qor K HoR 10.County: w i l S
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3(9, I S(9 o(e(o Longitude(ex.—77.556611): $I I B[p I
Method location determined(circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: SCime- (7 5 bed 0Ll^)
16.Site conditions at time of visit: s(Ayu., i
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries/Habitat
-zTrout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters ✓Water Supply Watershed V (I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ((9 If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (0 NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
_ 21.Estimated watershed land use: L/o Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial k D %Agricultural
LID %Forested 2.0 %Cleared/Logged _%Other( r )
22.Bankfull width: 2S 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): t�
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) ZGentle(2 to 4%) _Moderate(4 to 101/o) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
- Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terrain,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each 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. r �`
Total Score (from reverse): Ilp Comments:
Evaluator's Signature i�� itt r1_ �fl/it CWh� Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be se
d 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.
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE .
#. ,CHARACTERISTICS,.. SCORE'
Coastal Piedmont Mourriam
Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream
1 0-5 0-4 0-5
(no flow or saturation=0;strong flow=max points)
Evidence of past human alteration
2 (extensive alteration—0;no alteration max points) 0-6 0-5 0—.5 3
` R e . Riparian zone
3 '0-6 0-4 , 01—5
>' (no buffer'=0;contiguous,wide buffer max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4 ° ' 0-5 0-4 0—A
(extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max points).':
2
Groundwater discharge
5 0-3 0--4 0-4 ,
U (no discharge=0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points) .3
r.i Presence of adjacent floodplain
60-4 0-4 0-2
n=
}}r� (no floodplain='0;extensive floodplai max points) ' ' �2_
CI',p Entrenchment/floodplain access.,: 7 0;—5 . 0=4 0-2 ,
(deep] entrenched=0;frequent floodingmax points) oz
_ 8, Presence of adjacent wetlands 0:—6 0—4 0—2 `
(no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands=max points) ri
9 Channel sinuosity, 0 5 0-4 0-3 2
(extensive channelization=0;natural meander=maxpoints) 3
10 Sediment input, e 0-5 0=4 0-4
`? (extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=max poiriisj_ -
' Size&diversity of channel bed substrate,.,,
1.1 NA 0"-4 0-5
(fine,homogenous=0;large,diverse sizes=-max points) „. .,. y
� 12 Evidence of channel incision or widening':,-`,,
0� 5
xj. (deeply incised 0;stable bed 8i banks max oints)
0 'S 0 4 3
Presence of major bank failures• 0 ^5 0 5 0 5
severe erosion=0;no erosion,stable banks=,rn points) ,," .
�' > ` Root depth and,density on
14 . 0-3 0—`4 01
.514
(no visible roots 0 dense roots throughout=max points). "
E"(.
�. Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production `
15 . 0•-5 0-4 0-5
(substantial impact=0;no evidence=max points) = 3
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
(no riffles/rip les or pools=0;well-developed=max points)
Habitat complexity
, 17 �� 0-6, �0,-6� , 0-
tittle or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats=max points) 6 5
Pa. 1" ,- Canopy coverage over streambed-
d 18 fro shading vegetation=0;continuous cano , points)
' 0 5 0="5 0-5
�+< ( g Py-max
Substrate embeddedness 0—4 0-4
(deeply embedded=0;loose structure max) NA r3
20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4), 0 4* 0-5 0-5,
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0 4 0-4 0-4
O:f (no evidence=0;common,,numerous types=max points)
rl`O Presence of fish 22 0-4 0-4 -0-4' y
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
Evidence of wildlife use
23 0-6 0—'5 07-5
(no evidence=0 abundant evidence max points).
Total.Pomts Possible e •]00 lOQ 100.
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)p
,
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

........ ............._...................................................................._......................................................................._........._.........................................._......._......................_........._.......:....................._....................................................................._.__............................_..........._......._..-..-...._-----------_._......._...._....__...
USACE AID# DWQ# Site#�a(indicate on attached map)
...._ ...
...... ..
_ _._..._.....__......_._.__...__...................._......_..... ..__.._..__...._._.. ..._.....__....-_ __�-3 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Df 7
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: r/ 2.Evaluator's name. DE A�/D A ZZa
3.Date of evaluation: S/O Io (( nn 4.Time of evaluation:
(2 '•IUD 12M
5.Name of stream: 0-r Ja I �.� Plok C f-ee L 6.River basin: Y 4-p lcj-1 - Pee Dee. Q 1 V-P,
7.Approximate drainage area: A . ' 8.Stream order: /s� (TDPO cLr)d field)
9.Length of reach evaluated:AQRYDX 15004-'+ 10.County: tv,L s
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer
/I in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): (p. Jr(0 `I"1 Longitude(ex.—77.556611): _$ 1 . 2D3(o I 1
Method location determined(circle):('-GIP Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach and r eva uat Sn note nearby roads and]a dmarks and 4ttach map identifying stream(s)location):
_+ 14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions:
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 IV(I-IV)
--" 18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 6)If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? CIE§ NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: S%Residential _%Commercial %Industrial %Agricultural
T'%Forested _%Cleared/Logged %Other( ),
22.Bankfull width: 3 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): y /
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) t//Gentle(2 to 4%) _Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
t/25.Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terrain,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each 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): 60 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature 0 Date (d/D f QS
This channel evaluation form is intended to bcYuged 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.
. 1

i
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# " CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION,POINT RANGE"°.° ,SCORE:
Coastal, Piedmont
Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream
0-5 0-4 0=5 --"
(no flow or saturation=0;strong flow=max points) 5
2 Evidence of past human alteration °
(extensive alteration "0;no alteration=max points) 0—6 0—5 0 --"5 3
3 ; Riparian'zone` 0_6 0-4 0—5
(no buffer 0;contiguous,wide buffer=max•points) 7
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4 (extensive discharges=0;no,dischar es=max points) 0-5 0 4 0-4
•
Groundwater discharge
=5 0�3 0—�4 . .0-4
(no discharge 0;springs'-seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0—.4 0-2 °
(no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max points)
Entrenchment/floodplain access
7 p 0-5•• 0-4.. `0—`2 .(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 points) d
Channel sinuosity "
9, (extensive channelization=0;natural meander=max points)
0—5` 0-4- 0-3
Sediment input
10 0-5 0=4 0-.4 Lf
(extensive deposition=0;little or no°sediment=max points) 1
Size&diversity of channel bed substrate * L'NA �0 4 0-5 %
(fine,homogenous=0;large,diverse sizes max points)
Evidence of channel incision or,widening
12 dee 1 0 5 0='4 0 5 j
(` p y incised=0;stable bed&banks="max points)
Presence of,major bank failures w
(severe erosion=0;no erosion,stable banks.=max points) 0-5 0—5 0 5
pRoot deth and density on banks',... ._
� . 14
�.. 0 11 0-.4 0-5
(no visible roots=0•dense roots throughout max points)
r!?' Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production
15 0=5 0-4 0_5.. .
(substantial impact-0-no evidence=max points)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes -
16° 0-3 0_5 0=`= 6
E=+,' (no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed=max points)_
•17 Habitat complexity
(little o no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats=max points) 0 6 0—.6 0-6 C
Pa " Canopy coverage over streambed
ed 18 �•;,, P _ 0,_5 Ors 0-5 ,
(no shad in ve etation=0;continuous canopy=max omts) 5
Substrate embeddednes'
19 (deeply embedded=0;'loose structure=max) NA# 0'—4 0.—4
Presence of stream invertebrates(seepage 4) 0—4 0 5 0—5
20 3
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) `
Presence of amphibians 21 - 0-4 0-4 0,-4 2
O` (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
O22, , Presence of fish
no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4 Z
Evidence of wildlife use
23 0-6 0-5 0-5, .3
(no evidence 0;abundant evidence max points)
Totall Points.Possible""{g 1'00; 1.00 1.OQ'
TOTAL SCORE" (also enter on first page)
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

.............................._............................................_..................................................._............................................._.........................__............_........................................................................................................................................................._.........._........................_...._........_..........................................................._.....
USACE AID# DWQ# Site#aL (indicate on attached map)
._..______.____..._......................._._....._.____.__...._____.___ _------____._..............._.._..._._........................__._....__....
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1 2.Evaluator's name: _ QYAO 7_Zo l BC d P_
1.Applicant's name: N�DOY
3.Date of evaluation: J�I k011Q5 4.Time of evaluation: 1130 (Q.m
5.Name of stream: �r( � _ Ckty' �l2 ('xeek 6.River basin: J OA klV1 —Pee Dec P I ki-e-C
7.Approximate drainage area: 2 6 aore 5 S. Stream order: �e6d Cfoot on P opo�
9.Length of reach evaluated: AV M K 5M 10.County: WO kC s
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any): —$1. 202S
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3G. 1555 55 Longitude(ex.—77.556611):
Method location determined(circle): GP Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
��-�Cvet�c•e. i�l Su 1s 1QC:GIked ann>na< .�� cl�l�lt r�GC1� b-� c iV r+ ��r�Pr Canc�,� ��
v
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: _-Ay A as hf,Io W
16.Site conditions at time of visit: . 1Ll y-w , Ma y m , v10 F
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: —Section 10 —Tidal Waters —Essential Fisheries Habitat
✓Trout Waters —Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters ✓Water Supply Watershed IV (I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES JIf yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: %Residential %Commercial %Industrial —%Agricultural
50%Forested %Cleared/Logged —%Other( )
22.Bankfull width: S 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 5
24.Channel slope down center of stream: —Flat(0 to 2%) Gentle(2 to 41/o) ✓/Moderate(4 to 10%) —Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight ✓Occasional bends —Frequent meander —Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,tei fain,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each ch 6cteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characterist1,Fs 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. p
Total Score (from reverse): O Comments:
Evaluator's Signatures �(w1tGi �(l/14ti/1/t,� Date (l1//O I OS
This channel evaluation form is intended to b 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.
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECQREGION POINT.RANGE SCORE
n
�. Coastal •.�-:e Piedmont,, ountam,"
1 Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream 0 5 0 4 •" 0—5'
(no flow or saturation=0;strong flow=max points_) y
Evidence of past human alteration
2 0-6 r 0- 0-5,
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points) " 1
3 . ` ,._Riparian zone.. E
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points) 0—6 0—4 0-5i
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges..
(extensive discharges­0;no discharges='max points) 0—5 0-4" 0=4
5 0 Groundwater discharge -
d (no dischar" e'=0•springs,sees wetlands "etc.=max points)
0-3 0—°4
g � seeps, P ) • _
Presence of adjacent floodplain
(no floodplain=0 extensive floodplain=max points)
Entrenchment/floodplain access
(deepl�"'entrenched 0;frequent flooding" =max points) ' 0'.5 0="4 0-2
Presence,of adjacent wetlands.'
0-6 p=,4 0=2
(no wetlands'=0;large adjacent wetlands=max points)
9 " Channel sinuosity
(extensive channelization=0;natural meander=max points)~ 0 5 0—4 0-3
10 Sediment input
0-5 0-4 0-4,
(extensive deposition—'0;little or no'sediment max points) 3
Size&diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0 5'
- (fines homogenous 0;large,diverse sizes—max points)' 3
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
y+ (deeply incised 0 'stabl'e bed'&banks-MAY pomts s 0 5 0 '4 0 5 }�
°Presence,of major bank failures F �
13 ' 0-5 0 5 0 5
(sever`e erosion-0;no.e'rosion;•stable banks.='max points)
:.Root depth`and'density,on banks - '-
�. 14 0-3 0 4 0-5
E.,. (no.visible roots=0;dense roots throw hout=max points) y
Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber.production
15 , O—S '" 0-4 � 0�5,.
(substantial impact=0;no evidence=max points)
16 " Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes"
(no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed_=max points) 0—3 0—;;5. 0
Habitat complexity
0—b 0-6 0-6"
'17 = (little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats,—max points) 5
Canopy coverage over streambed
18 0—,5 0. �3
(no shading vegetation=0;continuous'canopymax points) `' —
Substrate embeddedness
19 - NA'* 0-4 0_4 '' JJ
(deeply embedded 0;loose structure=Max) —1
20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4)
(no evidence�=0;common,`numerous types=max points) 0—4 0—5 0=,5
Presence of'amphibians
C>>' 21 (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) 0,-4 0-4 0—4 3
22 Presence of fish
G 0-4` 0-4 0-4
(no-evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
(no evidence—0•abundant evidfe use
23 Evidence of wildlife 0.—6 0—5 0-5
— ence=max points)
x Total Points Possible l00 100 10©
} „:,. ,•fi
<v
TOTAL SCORE e(al'so enter on frst page) (�
F
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

r'
........_._._..........................................................._.................................................._................................................_�..............................................................................._......................_.........
USAGE AID# DWQ# Site#S (indicate on attached map)
.............._._.........,_.._..._..........._......................._,._......_._....._..........._._ ......_..__._.......__..._.............__......._..........,............_.._..__._......._......_....._................................._..........._........_._....__......__-._._.__......
__- _...._-_..__.....
- 0 IL-11-11
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: ` 2.Evaluator's name: '"",, �a —1),_-z-za
3.Date of evaluation: G /D lb 4.Time of evaluation: rr _/.,b�r,,, pp
5.Name of stream: UT _� TGC�e,_4 I, C,rk 4, di 6.River basin: , - APP t�cr RI'Mr
7.Approximate drainage area: 1S /).Ca e,5 8.Stream order: 5- - fif Id (00-F Dr) TD1120
9.Length of reach evaluated: "q aD _�+, 10.County: 1A) I L_-S
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any): Q
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 36o. 155 oZ.l 1 Longitude(ex.-77.556611):
Method location determined(circle): GP Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evalua' (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: StJIt , - -7
16.Site conditions at time of visit: Sa^
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 4Z(I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 0 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 NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: %Residen t`al %Commercial %Industrial %Agricultural
y i
10%Forested —%Cleared/Logged —%Other( )
22.Bankfull width: 1'� 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): J
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) —Gentle(2 to 4%) Moderate(4 to 10%) .—Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends —Frequent meander —Very sinuous —Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terrain,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each 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): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature t Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be Md 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.
1

i
' STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
- ECOREGION POINT RANGE '
# " - CHARACTERISTICS
Piedmont ��`Mountam
Coastal SCORE
,-
1 Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream
0-5 0-4, 0-5 Z
(no flow or saturation=0;strong flow=max points)
2 (extensive alteration=0 past human alteration
ce of p 0-6 0=5,. 0-5
o alteration=max points) "
Riparian zone 3
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points) 0-6 0 4 0-5
4 ° Evidence of nutrient or.chemica'l discharges,
(extensive discharges 0;`no discharges=max points) 0=5 ; 0 4 > 0—4 3
a„ 5 Groundwater discharge ,
(no discharge 0,springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.='max points) 0"—3 , ;_ 0_4 0`,-4 "
N' Presence of adjacent floodplain
0,—,4 .0-4 0—
(no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max points)
Entrenchment/floodplain access 0 5 0-4 0 2 ,
(deeply entrenched=0;fre went flooding=max points)
(no wetlandPre O see of adjacent wetlands
g 0_6;c 0_4 . 0 2 /
— large adjacent wetlands=max points) 1
9 (extensive`channel zaConn natur
al tl Ty 0-5° 0—4 _ 0—3
meander=max points)
Sediment input
0_5° 0-4 0—4
�r (extenswe de osrti mmax points) `_on=11 Size&diversity of channel bed substrate NA*a
(fne,homogenous=0;large,diversesizes=max points) 0-4 - 0—`5"
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening Z
(deeply incised=0;stable bed&banks=max'points) . 0—5 , 0-4 0-5
� (severe erosiPresence.of,ma'or bank�failures"
] I
on=0;no erosion,stable banks=max points) 0—5 0—5 0-5
Root depth and.density on banks
�� • 14 . �� 0=3 0-4 0=5>.
(no visible roots, 0;dense roots throughout=max points)
impact(substantial impact—Ono evidenceim me Upon )ton -°Y-g p 0,-`5' 0-4, 0—$
15 — —
"
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
16 : 0'-3 0 5 0'-6 �
F
(no riffles/ripples or pool§=0;Well-developed=max points)17 °
Q'• Habitat complexity w
0-6
(little or'no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats=max points)
` Canopy coverage over sireambed
18
..,(,noi shading vegetation=0;continuous canopy,=max points) 0 5 0—5 0-5
S
Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded=0;loose structure=max) NA 0-4 0—4 3
20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4).°
` (no evidence 0;'common,numerous types=mai points) 0 4 , 0-5 0=5„ J
G (no evidence-0;common numerous
21amphibians 0-4- 0-4 f
types—maxpojnts)' ° °
a' Presence of fish
O° 22 _
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) 0—4 0-4 0-4
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
(no evidence—0;abundant evidence=max points) 3
b Total Points Possible 100 100. 100?
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on f rst page) (�
m°
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

1 .....................__........................................................................................._.........................................................._._.... ...............................................11........................ ............................ ................I.,............................................................ ..........................
USACE AID# DWQ# Site# (indicate on attached map)
__._.__._..._..-......._.__..__........_ ..............._........ .___.... ..__.__..._.__. __..
-3
r STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the'following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: �JMM 2.Evaluator's name: t�U LkZ"ZO e
3.Date of evaluation: 51\D C)!j 4.Time of evaluation:
5.Name of stream:-cucy—r wu � eP.L 6.River basin: yLl,&Ir - PeP -c)ee V1 Ver
7.Approximate2.drainage area: ?.5 m; l OQ�8. Stream order: 2.nc
9.Length of reach evaluated: OYDlC 15CO1- 10.County: S
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3Is• 155 2-1 1 Longitude(ex.—77.556611): — $1 • lcl 25
Method location determined(circle): PS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
�OWCIS�YQCI,V^� D-� CDYIAQ
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: Ame (zS CLbO\fe,
16.Site conditions at time of visit: bLz2 , Numk8l
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 J v(1-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? 0 NO If yes,estimate the water surface area: 3 0 u,c
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? 40NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: �D %Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial (O %Agricultural
2 D %Forested ' D%Cleared/Logged _%Other( )
22.Bankfull width: Sow 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 3f�
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) Gentle(2 to 4%) _Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terthin,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each chXl cteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
J cliaracterisUs 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
�v 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..
JTotal Score (from reverse): o Comments:
- r
Evaluator's Signature��( t�, ��( � Date_('1101 OS
1 This channel evaluation form is intended to be tYsed 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.
. _' 1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE,' '
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE„ . . Coastal Piedmont` Mountain
1 Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream 0-5 0—4 0-5
(no flow or saturation=0;strongflow=max points)
Evidence of past human alteration
2 � - 0-6 0-5 0-5
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0 4 0—5.
(no buffer 0;contiguous,wide buffer max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
'4 0-5 0-4 0-4
(extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max points) ° 3
a Groundwater discharge
5 0-3 0-4 0-4
Q (no discharge='0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=maxpoints)
y' Presence of adjacent floodplain
rn 6 0-4 -- 0-4 0-2 w
(no floodplain=,0;extensive floodplain=max points). z
,`.f. Entrenchment/floodplain access
(deeply entrenched 0;frequent flooding=max points) 0 5 0=4 0 2
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2
(no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands=max points) 0
9 Channel sinuosity
(extensive channelization 0 natural meandei=max oints) 0-5 .0-4 0—3.
Sediment input
10 0-5 0-4 0_4 2
(extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment'max'points)• J
Size&diversity of channel bed substrate
11 NA 0=-4 0-5'
(fine,homogenous=0;large,diverse sizes=max points) s 5
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening.-
0=5 w ' 0=.4 0 5
7+, (deeply incised=0 stable'bed&-banks max points) '
Presence of major bank failures '
�. (severe erosion=0;no erosion,stable banks=`max`points)
Root H depth and density on-banks
14 0'' 3 0-4 p�5(no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout=max points)
Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production`
15 0_5. . 0-4 0-5- .
(substantial impact=0;no evidence=max points)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes -
16 0__3 0_,5. 0'_6.,
E' (no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed=max points)
d' 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0—6 0=6°'
(little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats=max points)
¢' Canopy coverage over streambed
18 0-5 0-5 0-5 3
(no shading vegetation=0;continuous canopy=max points)
Substrate embeddedness
19 NA* 0-4 074 .-
(deepl embedded=0;loose structure=max)
Presence of stream invertebrates(see page.4)
20 0,-4 0=5 0-5" 3
(no evidence 0;common,numerous types=max points)
p Presence of amphibians
21 0-4 0-4 0 -
O (no evidence,=0;common,numerous types=max points) =43
O22 Presence of fish
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) 0—4 0—4 0—4
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0—5 0 5
(no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points)
Total Points Possible 100 ' . 100 1U0
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first pale)
�D
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

4 --.._......._...._._.._.._.._._....----............................_.._..........._..._............---........._.._................_.
USACE AID#„ DW # Site# S indicate on attached ma
Q � ( p)
.._. ________._-_...�____.______.................-......_.. ___.___.______.___..._. __.. __.___.____..............................----------____._._._.....__.._.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: NCDQ-C 2.Evaluator's name: �andaZz.0 e_
3.Date of evaluation: 5 I 1 LA O.5 4.Time of evaluation: 00 12 m
` 5.Name of stream: lkj Av TUckef tAo Creek 6.River basin: `(aCl V_l V) - Pee Occ IZIye t'
- k
7.Approximate drainage area: _ .� a6`r a 8. Stream order: S�-FQ�� (NG+O n T coo
9.Length of reach evaluated: A2WK 300-(+ 10.County: U)11keS
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3Lo (o Longitude(ex.-77.556611): —F5 I 2-00$33
Method location determined(circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
U5\Tujm - c_�ttve.�r+ undo Conch toad
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: 5a l as cc.bnyP.
16.Site conditions at time of visit: SL LY)PN , "U+. 15' �
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 N (I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES CDf yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES & 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?(!�3E `NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: 3 %Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
'' 0%Forested _%Cleared/Logged _%Other( )
22.Bankfull width: 5k` 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 3 F f
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 41/o) ✓ Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight VOccasional 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,te. ,ain,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each chrracteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characterisfig's 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): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature i l2(IiGta'! � Date (e 1/0/0-5
This channel evaluation form is intended to be s d 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.
___ 1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ; E COREGION POINT RANGE '
Coastal Piedmont'. °SCORE:
Presence of flow persistent pools in stream 1
(no flow or saturation=0;strong flow=max points) 0-5 0-4 0—5 c�
2
Evidence of past human alteration ' I 0-6. 0-5 °, 0,-5 �I
' (extensive alteration=0;no alteration max points) °
Riparian zone
3 0-6 0-4 9-5 y. .
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
(extensive discharges=0 no discharges=max points) 0-5, 0-4 0-4
3
ar 5 Groundwater discharge 0`—3 0-4 6=4
(no discharge=0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points) 3°
,V.� Presence of adjacent floodplain
. 6 0-4 0_4 0_2,
(no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max'points)
7 Entrenchment/floodplain access 0-5 0—4 0-2:
(deeplyentrenched=0;frequent flooding=max points)
8 =Presence of adjacent wetlands
-
(no wetlands 0;large adjacent wetlands= 0-6 0 4 0-2
`max points) •- �' '- � _
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
(extensive`channel ization=0;natural meander=max points)
10 Sediment input
(extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=max points) 0-5 0-4 Q—4 3
11
Size&diversity of'channel'bed substrate' NR* 0-4 0•—5
(fine,homo enous=0;large,diverse sizes=max points) F 3
Evidence of channel incision or widening...
12 0-5 0 "4 0-5 .
(deeply,incised 0;stable bed&Banks max points) r
,�•� 13 Presence of major bank failures' 0-`5 0 �5 0 "5
(severe erosion=0;no erosion,stable banks=max points)
14 Root depth and-density:on banks
1�., (no visible roots—0;dense roots throw hout—max points) 0 3 0'-4 0'—5 L�
Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber"production
15 0-5 0-4 . 0�5
P _ (substantial impact=0;`no evidence=max points) tj
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool,complexes
(no riffles/ripples or pools=_0;well-developed=max points) 0-3, 0-'S 0—,6
17 �" Habitat complexity
(little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats v=max points) 0_6 .0-6 0=6
Canopy coverage over streambed
d 18 (no shading vegetation=0;continuous canopy=max points);_ 0-5 0—5 . 0 5.
Substrate embeddedness
19 NA* 0-4 0-_4
(deeply embedded=0;loose structure=max) 3
20 Presence of stream invertebrates(seepage 4)
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types--max points) 0—4 0—5 0—5 ,
Presence of amphibians'
21 0—4 0 4
O. (no evidence=0;common 0—4 numerous types max points) _ 3
O 22 Presence of fish \
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4. U
Evidence of wildlife use
23 0-6 0-5 0-5
(no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points)
Total"Points Possible 100 100 100
" T TOTAL SCORE" (also enter on first page) q
� I
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

USACE AID# DWQ# Site#_G (indicate on attached map)
_­**.*...........—****...-.-,.,.,.,-,..,.,.*.,...-,*..........._.;*_*­.*_._"'_­............***.*.**.*.­­.*.*.*.1 ...........*.' ;*..... .......*.,.,.* *—., ..-.."—*"-' ..'*'**—'...'.***........................*."­...'­­­' ..................**.......... ......................
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
i 1.Applicant's name: 2.Evaluator's name:
3.Date of evaluation: 5 t a l s— f 4.Time of evaluation:` 2 '.Ofl pwL
5.Name of stream: 0-r�- 1 -�— �-I o�� (�rezL 6.River basin: rid - pie DCC ZIV4-r
7.Approximate drainage area: to dv� o+ on T a J�D 0 rh.� 8.Stream order:
9.Length of reach evaluated: —500 i 10.County:
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3(o. 15(a 111 Longitude(ex.—77.556611): —81 190833
Method location determined(circle): 0 Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
In b5)c
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: 7 r,
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 5e-w�-
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 IV (I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 9 If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (0 NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: 5 %Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
%Forested _%Cleared/Logged _%Other( )
22.Bankfull width: Z 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank):
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 4%) Moderate(4 to 101/6) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight A 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. Q
Total Score (from reverse):-6-9 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature � { /?inidAo t' Date (,s ��0/0.5-
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.
I

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS =SCORE,
Coastal �Piedcriont Mountain
no flow or saturation—0• strong flow—max points)Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream
1 0-5' 0-4 0-5
Evidence of past human alteration
2 0:-6.. 0—"5 0' S
(extensive alteration=0;-no alteration=max points)
3 = Riparian zone_
, 0_6•_�. 0=4• 0- ✓
(no buffer 0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points)
4 Evidence ofnutrient or chemical discharges - 3
(extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max points) 0—
5 0 4 0=4
Groundwater discharge -
5 0=3 . .0=4" 0•7-4`
d (no discharge=0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points)
ti Presence of adjacent floodplain
vs; 6 z 0-4, 0-4 0-_2
}-� (no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max points) I
x; Entrenchment/floodplain access -
0-5 . 0 "4
(deeply°entrenched=0;frequent flooding=max points)
Ni
8 °` Presence of adjacent wetlands 0—6 0-4 0-2.
(no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands=max points)
O
° Channel sinuosity
9 (extensive channelizat_ion=0;natural meander max points 0—5° 0-4 0—3.
10 ° Sediment,input 4
(extensive deposition=b;little or no sediment=max•pomts);° 0>-5 r°•` '0—`4 0=4
Size&diversity of channel bed substrate � }
k
(fine;homogenous=0,large,diverse size's=max points),
NA* 0-4 x 0�=5.
12` Evidence of channel incision.or widening
�+ (deeply,incised=0;stable bed&=banks='max pouits) = 0 5 0
13 •'`Presence of major bank failures „ ; ;9 0 "5 0 5 `�-
,a;�°;. (severe erosion=0;no erosion;stable banks_max' omts)-
�. Root depth and densi on'banks
P t3 0-3.Y 0°—.4 0-5
H (no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout=max points)'
15
Impact by agriculture,'livestock,or timber.°production"
0,5 0 '4 0-5 =
(sub
stanti-al impact=0;no evidence=max points) 2
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
(no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed max points) 0' 3 0-5 0--6
.�; Habitat complexity
0-6 0-6' 0=6
(little"or no habitat 0;frequent varied habitats max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed
_ (no shading vegetation=0;continuous canopy=max points) 0-5 0 5 0-5.
Substrate embeddedness
19. NA# 0-4 0=,4 Z
(deeply.embedded=0;loose structure=max)
Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4)
0,-4, 0 0-5
20 .,
(no' evidence'—0;common,numerous types=max points) Z
Presence of amphibians
21
C. (no evidence=0;common,numerous`types=max°points) ` ° 0 4 0-4 0—4,, 2
O 22 Presence of fish
(no eviden.e=0;common,numerous types=max points) 0-4 ° 0 4 0-4
t
Evidence of wildlife use
23 °. 06 05_ p 5.
(no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points)
Total.Pomts Possible 100 TOO, 1fl0
y n:. ? .a.T
° TOTAL SCORE (also enter on frst pabe) S�
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

....................__... .......
_.._._...._...._....__.......__......................................__.._......_...
USA.........CE A..ID#.. .,� - DWQ# __.........._._Site#344 (indicate on attached map)
I__.___ __ ...___..._._._ ._._.__...._....._.._..-......_.._.._..
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the'following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: W•I)C)T 2.Evaluator's name: rd&-ao! e-
3.Date of evaluation: Si 1� 4.Time of evaluation: =Ot�QM
5.Name of stream: (J.-� �z 6.River basin: lad hy) " Pf'c Pe '}I`.lam
7.Approximate drainage area: b� QGrc�'7 8.Stream order: e Id (R)of D n !C4o
9.Length of reach evaluated: A?pTK IS00C4 10.County: (II I key
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3�,• 15'9 O 5 J Longitude(ex.—77.556611): 1 I$(p I 1
Method location determined(circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying streams)location):
US 1421 C Jb 4tX QA
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: 5ccry k as V- (ot.J
16.Site conditions at time of visit: C hl FOGGT, (6`J F
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? -YES 0 If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES a 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial 1�%Agricultural
a%Forested _%Cleared/Logged _%Other( )
22.Bankfull width: _ a 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 3 -�
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 4%) ✓Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight V 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,te,`"ain,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): Jq Comments:
Evaluator's Signature,( i'a/bLl1_ KQ/Il ( Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be i1s9d 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.
I

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# " ECOREGION POINT RANGE:, ,
SCORE.
_ ..
Coastal Piedmont, ;Mountain
Presence of now/persistent pools in stream
1 (no flow or saturation=0;strong flow=max points) 0-5 0-4 0—5
Evidence of past human alteration
2 0-6 0-5 0-75 Z(extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points)
3 Riparian zone
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points) 0 6 ' 0—4' 0- 5 I
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
=
(extensive discharges=0;no discharges=m 0—'5 0--4 0 4 :
ax points) -
5 Groundwater discharge
< (no discharge=0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points) 0-3 0-4 0-4
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6 (no flood lain=0;extensive 0—4 0—4 0 2
�^+ � p rve floodplain=max points).
•: 2
Entrenchment/floodplain access I
W- 7 0--5. .. 0-4 0=2
(deeply entrenched=0;frequent floodink=mak"points) -
Presence of adjacent wetlands -
8 0-6 0-4 0=2`, rr,,
(no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands=max points) V
Channel sinuosity l
9 (extensive channelization=0;natural meander=max points) 0-5 0 4 0-3
10 Sediment input — —
(extensive deposition 0;little or no sediment-`max points) 0„ 5 0 4, 0—4 I
Size&11 diversity of channel bed substrate 0-4 0-5'
(fine,homogenous=0;large,diverse sizes=maz points) _ Z
12 _ Evidence of channel incision or widening
0'—:5 0-4 0-5
�+ (deeplyincsed=O'stable`bed&banks=max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures
0.-5 0-5 0' 5
(severe erosion—0;no erosion,stable banks max points) '
Root depth and density on banks, ,
14, 0-3^ 0-4 0-5
(no.visible roots 0;dense roots throug bout max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber'production
(substantial impact=0;no,evidence=max points)" 0—5 0—.4 0-5 O
16 ,Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
-
-5 5 0 6 0—3 0
(no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed=max points) , 2
� 1'7 Habitat complexity
(little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats-max points) 0-6 0 6 0 6
Canopy coverage over streambed
18 0�5 = , ; 0-5
(no shading vegetation=0;continuous canopy=maxpoints).
Substrate embeddedness x
19 (deeply embedded=0;-loose structure=max) NA* 0 4 0—4
20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4)
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types max points) 0—.4, 0—5 0-5 O
21 " ° Presence ofa amphibians 0-4 0—4 A=4
O (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
O 22 Presence of fish
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) 0-4 0-4 ° 0-4' .
(no evidence 0 abundant
Evidence of use
23
nt evidence=max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5 , I
Tota, oints Possible '
100 100� 100:
TOTAL SCORE. (also enter on first page}
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

................................__.............................................................................................................._......._....._.........._....._........_.
USACE AID# DWQ# Site#5�N (indicate on attached map)
073
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET y
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: WIb1)i 2.Evaluator's name: ' arrIa.Zzo / Ea e
3.Date of evaluation: 5b005 4.Time of evaluation: 10.00 o-r►
5.Name of stream: (�T �Qdl(1ve 1�JE� 6.River basin: `aaka n -h P�e'bee lZl ale r
7.Approximate drainage area: -25 Qr.r?--,s 8.Stream order: I�I —T-1-66 Uy)+ Or-, Trapp)
9.Length of reach evaluated:�0 YCY,- 10.County: W, k e-5
11. Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): &Q. LLo�I I I Longitude(ex.-77.556611): —"31 • I�5 8.�'3
Method location determined(circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
�OUl�fl h(- old xbfes' &[f glut
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: Jamr QS be-1 ow
16.Site conditions at time of visit: Suny1\4 loam -10
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 0 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 NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: ,Q%Residential %Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
Z%Forested /o Cleared/Logged _%Other( )
22.Bankfull width: 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank):
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 4%) _Moderate(4 to 101/o) Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: ✓ Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terrain,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
- to each 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): 53 Comments:
r (� �l
Evaluator's Signature i Date o/®.S
This channel evaluation form is intended to be 41s9d 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.
' � l

i
I It STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# !` CHARACTERISTICS SCORE.
Coastal ; Piedmont MountAJn„
1 Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream 0-5 0 4 0-5
(no flow Lor saturation=0;strong flow=max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 075 0-5
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points)
Riparian zone
3 t (no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer max points) 0=6 0-4 0-5
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges.
4 0=5 0-4 0-4
(extensive dischar es=0;no discharges=max points)
Groundwater discharge
5 ;. 0-3 0-4 . . 0-4" ' 1
Q (no discharge 0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points) "1
Presence of adjacent floodplain
( floodplain—0;extensive floodplain='max points)
Entrenchment/floodplain access
7 0=5 0—°4 0=2
(deeply entrenched=0;frequent floodin =max points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8 J 0-6 0-4 0-2 lJ(no_wetlands—0;1ar a adjacent wetlands max points)
Channel sinuosity
9 "` 0 5 0-4 0--3 "
(extensive channelization=0;natural meander=max points)
Sediment input
l0 .0-5 0-4 .0-4
(extensiveSize&diversity of channel bed substrate
points)
2
p" p ) "
11 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
,fir (deep] incised 0;stable bed 8i banks=Tmax po ints 3
13 Presence of major.bank failures; e 0—�5 0 5 "0',
5
*� ` (severe"erosi'on=0;no erosion,stable banks"=max points)v°, kr
. Root depth and density on banks - •
o� 0=3 0—4 0—`5
E-+ (no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout=max points) 3
Impact b a riculture livestock or timber Production15
5 -0-4 0=5
-(substantial impact=0;no evidence=max points)- -
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
16 0=3 0-5 0_.6LA
(no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed=max points)
it ° Habitat complexity
`17` little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats=max points) 0—,6 0—6 0=6
r
Cano covera a over streambed
1$ `(�' Py` g 0-5 0-5 0=5 "
(uio shading vegetation'--0;continuous canopy=max points)
v Substrate embeddedness '
19 .. .
(deeplyembedded,--0;loose structure=max) hTA* 0'---4 0—4- 3
Presence of stream'invertebrates(see page 4) `
20 0�-4 0-5 0-5
(no evidence 0;common,numerous types=max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4 0-4 0-4
O (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=maxpoints)
22 Presence of fish !�
(no evidence 0;common,numerous types=max points) V
Evidence of wildlife use
23 0=6 0-5 0-5
(no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points) 3
Total Points Possible 100 100 100;.
•
TOTAL'SCORE_• also enter on:first page) ,j 3
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

................................................................................................................................................._......................_.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................__........_......_....._.._.........._.........._.................._.
USACE AID# DWQ# Site#3A C (indicate on attached map)
,1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name:' 2.Evaluator's name: YAM azu f BCde
3.Date of evaluation: r I I �J� 4.Time of evaluation: 10 30 t-d
5.Name of stream: 11aeu- mow CAre -L 6.River basin: �O A u n - Pee- bee- Z yel-
7.Approximate drainage area: nn,c S.Stream order: o n-k ( 7-0r0
9.Length of reach evaluated: Awybv, l5 no 10.County: 1K)I I y PS
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3b. I&I ('a(e(n Longitude(ex.—77.556611): — 31. 1q5�53
Method location determined(circle): S Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
Lip5wenmyl nAb `I wd Soda
%14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: SC.t_P e- 0.S b e I o Lo
16. Site conditions at time of visit: S u hy\� (i bym 10 F
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters ✓Water Supply Watershed �v (I-IV)
IS.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes,estimate the water surface area: 3 Q cub
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ES NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 6—E-S) NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: f�%Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
5—D%Forested _%Cleared/Logged %Other( )
22.Bankfull width: 7 5 -E 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 5
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 4%) _Moderate(4 to 10%) ✓Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight ✓Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terrain,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each 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): Comments:
- r
Evaluator's Signature , �(w1t�. �wi�a,n Date &11(210S
This channel evaluation form is intended to be u eid 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.
1

i
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE',,"
# �< CHARACTERISTICS ' SCORE
Coastal° -Piedmont': 1Vloun'am;:
1 Presence of flow I persistent pools in stream
no flow or saturation—0;strong flow=max points) 0-5 0—4 0 5, 5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensLA
ive alteration=0;no alteration=max points) 0—6 0-5 0 5,3 t Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0--5
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5 • 0-4 . 0-4.
(extensive discharges 0;no discharges max points)
Groundwater discharge
5 o_3 0_4 0 4 2
(no dischar a 0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points) 3
6 (no Presence of adjacent floodplain
" 0-4 0-4. 0-2
floodplain=0;extensive floodplain max points) _ 2—
Entrenchment/floodplain access
0-5 0-4' 0-2. .,
(deeply entrenched=0;frequent flooding=max points) .
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8 0-6 0-4- O
, 0-2..°
(no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands=max points)
.,
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
(extensive channel ization-0;natural meander=max points)
Sediment input:
10 0-5 0-4 0—4'
(extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=max points)
of channel bed substrate
11 Size&diversit Y. NAB °0—4 0=°5
(fine,homogenous=0;large,diverse sizes=max points) 5
Evidence of channel incis g. 5
ion,or widening.
12 n 0-5 .0 4 0
"` (deeplyincised=0;-stable bed&banks=�max�points
�y
N Presence of major-bank failures
r.�e' 13 0-'S, 0=S 0=5
`,,# (severe"erosion—0;no erosion,stable an =max points)
° Root deptl and,de on banks "
14 x ., 0-3 0=4 0=5 "
(no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout=maxpoints)
Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production
15 _ 0-5 0-4 0_5" r
(substantial impact-0;no evidence=max oints) 3
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
16 0-3 0—"5 " 0-6�,
(no riffles/ripples or pool's=0;well-developed=`max points)
Habitat complexity
tittle or no habitat—0;fre uent varied habitats'=max oints 0 6 , 0— 0=b °
Q P )
,
Canopy coverage over streambed
18° (�". 0 .5 0-5 9-5
(no shading vegetation=0;continuous-canopy=max points)
19' ' Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4` 0"=;4
(deeply embedded=0;loose structure=max)
Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4)`.
20 O-A - 0"-5° 0-5 3(no evidence=0;common,numerous types'-max points)
V" Presence of amphibians 21 • � ' 0-4 0-4 •' 0-4
O. (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)` 3
Presence of fish'
O' 22 : 0-4 0-4 0-'4
�. (no evidence=0;common,numerous types'=max points) •
Evidence of wildlife use
23 0-6 0—S 0-5
(no evidence=0 abundant evidence max points) Li
Total Pomts Possible; iQ0 100 IOQ.
TOTAL"SCORE (also enter°on first page) �15
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

-.-.--...._.......__._.._.................---...._.........................._...__......................................... .......__._.
USACE AID# DWQ# Site#iSArD (indicate on attached map)
_3 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: �7
1.Applicant's name: )GDT 2.Evaluator's name: T[.nctw o I b(yje-
3.Date of evaluation: 5111105
4.Time of evaluation: I ' OD PYYi
5.Name of stream: I VC lkb TU CW 1Jal C -L 6.River basin: J(Jd kA P') - Pee. t>Ee 121 ve e
7.Approximate drainage area: iLlf M i 2 e0 8.Stream order: III/S� ('Pod anct I oe o
9.Length of reach evaluated: Prb y 10.County: W 1 1 L
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): Sip. 1(a ZS Longitude(ex.-77.556611): F)I . 1 I Z 1 1-1
Method location determined(circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
?fin C�fla0 1R60d
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent.weather conditions: S 0 n no . RCJ+, 1s �
16.Site conditions at time of visit: SGtn 0_S f>btwe.
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
gout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (V (I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map?6DNO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: 20 %Residential _%Commercial. _%Industrial _%Agricultural
(00%Forested 20%Cleared/Logged %Other( rr )
22.Bankfull width: �Sa 23.Bank height(from bedto top of bank): tt
24.Channel slope down center of stream:: Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 4%) \//Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight V/ 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,tel''ain,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
characterist('Gs 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): �J� Comments:
Evaluator's Signature t 41 A/-xQ . G/4/t,�1 Date (p /0/0.5
This channel evaluation form is intended to be useff only as a guide to assist landowners and�onmental 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.
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT,RA.NGE
# CACTERISTICS. SCORE,
HAR
Coastal Piedmont = °` Mountain,
1 Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream 0 5 0-4 0-5
(no flow or saturation_=0;strong flow=max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0—6 D—S 0.—5 , II
4
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points) `
3 Riparian zone 0—6 4 0—5
(no buffer' 0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4 (extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max points) 0-5 0 4 0 4 LA
r� Groundwater�. discharge 5 0-3 0 0-4 1 '
(no discharge=0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc..=max`points) `1
Presence of flood lain '
6 adjacent, P 0-4 0-4 0-2
(no floodplain=0;extensive floodplam=max points)
Entrenchment/floodplain access
fsa (deeply entrenched=0;frequent flooding=max points) 0-5- 0-4 0—2 . I
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8 0-6 0-4 ° 0-2
(no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands=max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
(extensive channelization=0;natural meander=max points)
Sediment input
10 (extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=max points) 0 5 0-4 0-4
3
Size&diversity of channel bed substrate
11
NA 0=-4 '0=�5 ,
(fine,homo' enous=0;large,diverse sizes=max points)`
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised='0;stable bed&banks'max points) 0 5 0._4 0-5,,
(.+,
N Presence of major bank failures
a 13 0-=5 0--5 0=5
(severe erosion=0;no erosion,stable banks max points)
4,..E Root depth and density on banks
14 0 3 s0 4 0=`5 3
H (no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout=maxpoints)
Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production
15 0.-5 0-4 0-5
(substantial impact=0;no evidence=max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
(no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed=max points) 0—3 0-5 0—6 5
Habitat complexity .
17 0-6 0-6 0-6, 5
(little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats=max points)
Q' 18 Canopy coverage over streambed
(no shading vegetation=0;continuous canopy=max points) 0-5 0—5 0-5
, 5
` Substrate embeddedness
19 NA* 0-4 . 0'-4 LA
(deeply embedded.=0;loose structure=max)
20,
Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4)
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) 0-4 0=5 0-5
3
Presence of amphibians
21 0-4 0-4 0-4
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types,=max points) 3
O22 Presence of fish r�
(no evidence—0;common,numerous types=max points) 0—4 0—'4 0—4 V
Evidence of wildlife use
;x 23
(no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max.points) 0-6 0-5 0-5
Total Points,Possible' 100 1"00 1Q0
:s `TOTAL SCORE (also enter'on first page)
r
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

_.................._....._..............................................................................._._........._..........._.................._......_..__....._._..........._............_....._....._....................................................._........._......_...................................__...........
..
USACE AID# DWQ# Site#�E (indicate on attached map)
....._......._.._._._ .___.__.__ _._.__ _.___..._.__..__.__....._:__.._ ___..._._._.._.....__._.__. _._._.....__.._.._.........
1FESTREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: QC WT 2.Evaluator's name: P-andca-Lo I Fcd t?
3.Date of evaluation: 51. 1005 4.Time of evaluation: 3.M eftn
5.Name of stream: LCf -tn Rulbe" Orrc,V_ 6.River basin: 0-d kln — R2c bee_ e1V1e.r
7.Approximate drainage area: Ili VV1! S.Stream order: grid, L I 0 PO
9.Length of reach evaluated: AvpiD% 150c) 10.County: W t C5
11. Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any): 1
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3(n- 1$ Longitude(ex.—77.556611): — $( • I'-t 19 yy
Method location determined(circle): PS opo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying streams)location):
CaVlea<-y vndr.,( V1 ZSkt®
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: SGLme- 0J b600
16. Site conditions at time of visit: kd� Su 1n Yes(, WF
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-]V)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 0 If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential 4V%Commercial 30%Industrial _%Agricultural
Q%Forested %Cleared/Logged %Other( )
22.Bankfull width:_w5_� 1yulnlk 15 +'l d t)tt1 fo�rE'Pt�� 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank):
zs +
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) Gentle(2 to 4%) _Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: V Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terrain,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each 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): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ,�(�V)tA !'Vll/2tC!'/sa/t,.� Date 1,h oIOS
This channel evaluation form is intended to be u d 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.
I

i
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT:RANGE. - SCORE
CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont.. Mountain
1
Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream
(no flow or saturation=0;strong flow=max points) 0 5 0-4 0 5
2 Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration max points) 0-6 0 5 '0-5
3 # Riparian zone
0-6 0-4 0-5
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points) 2
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges 0;no discharges max points) 0—5 0—4 0-4' , 1
�.� 5 Groundwater discharge ` 0-3. 0-4 0-4 3
d (no discharge=0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points)
y, Presence of adjacent floodplain
"-4 0_.2
�+ (no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max points)
Entrenchment/floodplain access
7 _ 0'-5 0-4 0-2
(deeply entrenched=0;frequent flooding=max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands=max points) 0—6 0 4 0—2 0
9
Channel sinuosity 0-5 0—4 0 3
(extensive cbannelization=0;natural meander=max points) I
10 Sediment input 0—5. 0—4
(extensive deposition 0;little or no sediment=max'points) -0-4Z
Size&diversity of channel bed substrate`
(fine,homo enous=_0; lar e,diverse sizes max�points) N * 0-4 0 5 L4
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
incised=0'stable bed&banks=`ri1aX points) 0`=5 0=4 -0"—
(deeply 5
13 .Presence of major bank failures
severe erosion=0 no erosion,stable banks max oints 0: 5 0--5 0 ;5
. :_ ( p ) ." �{�
Root depth and density,on banks
0-3, 0-4 0—�5
(no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout=max p oints)
MN Impact by'agriculture, livestock,or timber production. _
150=5 0-4" 0='5 `
(substantial impact=0;no evidence=max points)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
16 0-3 ' 0-5 0-6
(no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed=max points)
Habitat complexity
�•` 17 0-6 0-6 0_6
�• (little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats=max points) 3
Canopy coverage over streambed
Q 18 �'' " 0=5` 0-5. 0-5
,no shadingvegetation=0;continuous canopy=max points)
Substrate embeddedness NA* 0`=4 0—4
' 19 (deeply embedded—0;loose structure=max)
20" Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4)
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types ) 0 4 0 5 0-5
' 3
>' =max p oints
Presence of amphibians
O21 ' 0 4 0—4 0—4 �,
, (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)- -
''� 22 Presence of fish
0, 01-4 0-4 0-4 . -
�,. (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
` Evidence of wildlife use
23 0-6 0-5 0=5
(no evidence 0;abundant evidence=max points).
Total Points Possible
(j x
1 0 CVO 100
.TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page),..". J
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

USACE AID#.� DWQ# Site#SA F (indicate on attached map)
- _3
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the'following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: k/G-1D0_r 2.Evaluator's name:
3.Date of evaluation: 6(G 4.Time of evaluation: 1
5.Name of stream: �� �(m�fle r r� c 1. 6.River basin: �� - Pee- [�Ce 2 we r
7.Approximate drainage area: C('Ake 8.Stream order:' 1/5� . ReId WOt ort 1 O,+o)
9.Length of reach evaluated: 1 Do :Pk j` 10.County: �✓ �S
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): '25(9. I $to 11
Longitude(ex.—77.556611): — (• 149 1(p to
Method location determined(circle): & Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identi inggstre'amI(s)location):
w rY. (o
1�'o t�'S 8�r5 +".-.••.—.G � s r2c---- o�SC' GtV.
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: 5 f-�S
16.Site conditions at time of visit: 5"�-4-
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat JI n
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters V/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(Sb 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: S%Residential _%Commercial. %Industrial °%Agricultural
P� O/o Forested _%Cleared/Logged %Other( )
22.Bankfull width: f 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): Z
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 4%) Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight K 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,te�'�,am,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
characteristic
o each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
haracteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
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. q
Total Score (from reverse): J� I Comments:
Evaluator's Signature , E.7_ kr ldg:�l Date (g�I 0s,
This channel evaluation form is intended to be us9dionly 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.
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS COREGION POINT.RANGE E
Coastal Piedmont` 117ountairr SCORE:'
Presence of flow!persistent pools in stream , " 0 5
1. (no flow or saturation=>0;strong flow=max points) 0-5 0—;4
2 Evidence of past human alteration 3
—
(extensive 0-6_alteration=0;no alteration max points) 0 5` 0-5' -
Riparian zone
3 (no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points) 0-6 , 0 4 ° 0-5
' 3
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive dischar es=0;no discharges max points) 0-5 0 4 0_4 1
5 Groundwater discharge , ° 0-13
(no discharge=0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=maxpoints)
NPresence of adjacent floodplaid.
rn 6 0-4, 0-4, 0-2-
�; (no floodplain=0;extensive floodplam-max points) v
"r Entrenchment/floodplain access
�. (deeplyentrenched=0;frequentfloodin -=max points) 0=5 0 4 0-=2
Presence of adjacent,wetlands.'
0-6 -" 0-4- 0-2
(no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands='max points
9 ;_ ? Channel sinuosity° ^ -
(extensive channelization 0;natural meander max points) 0-5, 0-4
" 0 3
10. Sediment input„
(extensive deposition=0•little or no sediment max;points)°
0=5 0=4,, 0-4
. 11 Size_&diversity of channel bed substrate
(fin A 0-4 0-�5 Z e,homogenous=0• large,diverse sizes="max" omts)"
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply,-incised ,''°0;°stable bed&banks..=max points) 0-5 0 4 0 5 3
; Presence of major bank failures
0=5 0 t5 0 5
(severe'erosion°=0;no erosion,stable banks=max`pomts)-.
� �..Root depth a'nd';density`on banks r
14 0 3 04 0 '5
„
(no visible roots=0;dense.roots throw hout-="max points)
f
° Impact by`agriculture, livestock,or umber prodgction
15° 0=5 0 �'4 0-5 2
(substantial impact—0;no'evidence=max points) -_
1.6 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3' , ' 0"=5 0-6
H (no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed`=max points)
Habitat complexity
17 "(little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats—max points) 0—6' 0_6
Canopy coverage over streambed ' '
(no shading vegetation=0;continuous canopy=max points) 5
H18
Substrate embeddedness N?. 0-4 '0='4
' (deeply embedded=0;loose structure=max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4) ;
_ 0-4 0= 5 0—°5
(no evidence—0;common;numerous pes-max points)
21 Presence of amphibians
O., (no evidence=0;common;numerous types max points) 0-4 0-4 - 0 '4
0
Presence of fish "22 - — , _. �
(no evidence—0;common,numerous types'=max`points). 0-4 0 4 0—;4 /
23 Evidence of'wildlife use
(no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points) 0-6 0—5 0—5 " I
1
r
Total Points Possible,
°
' 1�00. . l0r} 100`
P
TOTAL kOR" Ei .(also enter on fist page)
m
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

_.._....__...._........._......--..._ .._.._......._.._.......................-........_......_...........__................._..................._.........................._........---.....-......----....................._..............................................._.....................__....._.................................................
......:
[_USACE AID# DWQ# Site#SA(A (indicate on attached map)
�,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the'following information for the stream reach under assessment: `
1.Applicant's name: MM01 2.Evaluator's name: 1�t1�ndazzo ,Bcdc
3.Date of evaluation: 5 \0 05 4.Time of evaluation: 4 11 00 V rn
5.Name of stream: &)k2 Pef 5 I DM I'Xh 6.River basin: b V1 — pP P_ >f— Z 1 Ue.r
t
7.Approximate drainage area: n' 2 8. Stream order: Zh d LUD 0 rd ReACO
9.Length of reach evaluated: ploy. 5m o 10.County: I I V eS
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): Longitude(ex.—77.556611):
Method location determined(circle): GP Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
1�era ivate—', orlra11e1 1!Ja.�la�� Pry
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: SI,lV1"l , Warm , �5 F
16.Site conditions at time of visit: Sall x C15 C.t.>OVt?
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ES NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: (PC)%Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
30%Forested _%Cleared/Logged 10 %Other( ZW-t x )
22.Bankfull width: 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 2)-4 +0 1 Dfi
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) Gentle(2 to 4%) _Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,te'gain,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each cl) acteristic 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): Jr- Comments: HILA6 101411_(N
U J
Evaluator's Signature ri l/bt�. - ( C �0_ Date (p 11005
This channel evaluation form is intended to be u ed only as a guide to assist landowners and vironmental 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.
-- 1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# ° CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT,RANGE
Coastal SCORE
Piedmont' Mountain
1 Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream 0_5 0—' 4 0—5
(no flow or saturation=0;strong flow=max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points) 0-6 0-5 0—5 3
3 Riparian zone
w 0-6 0-4.• 0=5
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer max points) 3
0
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges '
(extensive discharges=0;no discharges max points) 0-5 il 0—4' 0-4
,.
5 Groundwater discharge'.
0-3- 0-4° 0_4 -
(no dischar e=0,springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points) j
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6 (no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max points) 0-4 0-4-
0.,2
Entrenchment/floodplain access °
'7 ' =a 0-5 0=4 0-2
(dee 1 entrenched=0;frequent floodin =max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetland_ s
(no wetlands=0;]ar a adiacent wetlands max points) 0-6 0,-4 0=2 0
9 , Channel sinuosity 0-5 . 0—3
(extensive channel ization=0;natural'meander=max oints) 02
10 Sediment input-,,."
'0-5 .° 0-4 0-q'
(extensive deposition=O;little or no sediment=max;points)
Size&diversity of channel bed substrate
11 �., NA* 0—4
(fine,homo.enouS=0;lar e,diverse sizes`=:maxpoints)`.
12> Evidence of channel incision or widening
Fa (deepl incised=0;stable bed&banks=max points) 0'—5 0-4 0—
ra ( re erosion 0 no erossence of aon, bank
a banks 0 '5 0 5 0 5
13
J
seve =max points)
Root depth and'density on banks°
�� 14 ,. 0=3� 0-4 0 5 3
(no'visible'roots—0;dense roots throughout=max points)
Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber.production'15
.
(substantial impact=0;,no evidence='max points) 5
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0=3 0-5 ° .0-6' >
H' no riffles/ripples or pools=0;,well-develo_ped=max points) S
Habitat complexity
�F"rr 17 (little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats°=max`points) 0�—6 0-fi
° 18 Canopy coverage over streambed
(no shading ve etation=0;continuous canoe =max_points) 0 5 0-„5 ' 0-5
_ 3
Substrate embeddedness
�.d
subs 3
19 (deeplyembedded=0;loose structure=max * 0�4 0=4
20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4)
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) 0 4 0=5 . . 0—_5 3
21 Presence of amphibians
O (no evidence=O;common,numerous types=max points) 0 4 0-4 • 0—.4
3
O 22 r Presence of fish
0-4 0=4 0
(no evidence 0;common,nurnerous,types=max points)
Evidence of wildlife use
23
0-6 0-5, 0-5
(no evidence 0;abundant evidence=max points) °
-777--777777
Total Pomts,Possible 100 ]'00 100:
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on firsf page) (�
° a
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

i
.........................................__..
USACE AID# DWQ# Site#SAS (i
ndicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSIIEET
1
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: WIUD_[ 2.Evaluator's name: ca
3.Date of evaluation: 5 tlp`05 4.Time of evaluation: I I I 0O00-A
5.Name of stream:tkf A "or EYS bm yylrt _ 6.River basin: Aad k m - PPe. ,oee 2 t V�u,
7.Approximate drainage area: 50 AGr6 5 8.Stream order: 1 S� - yio(l (luQ+ On Topo
9.Length of reach evaluated: bmy, ?1-m R 10.County: W 1 ft6
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3(0 , l`l�l� Longitude(ex.-77.556611):
Method location determined(circle): ``D Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
anda MiraPohal 61-N Ag -off of Kr-k-61 RO(d
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: �t,t1 yw wax -15 F
16.Site conditions at time of visit: '�CumE' C1S 0-bo%tP
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 .TL7 (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 (�O 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (aENO
21.Estimated watershed land use: (DO%Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
O %Forested %Cleared/Logged 1D %Other( bad /wi Pr 1
22.Bankfull width: `1 1-t 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank):
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 4%) Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page.2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terrain,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
- to each 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): 10 Comments: IGI Q 1.1 fk b hl
Evaluator's Signature�W1L62 l/1l(��1/1 Date t'n 1ID t
This channel evaluation form is intended to be tAed 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.
- 1

i
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS COR ON POIN RANGE
E EGI T'�
r Coastal
:.G. Piedmont' ;816un
"tam
SCORE :
l Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0 5
(no flow or saturation=0;strong flow=max points.) `4
2 Evidence of past human alteration ;
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points) 0-6 0 5 0 5. 3
3 Riparian zone
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer max points) 0-6 0—4 0-5
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges `
4 0_.5 .: 0-4. 074 �-
(extensive discharges=0 no discharges max points)
Groundwater discharge a. a 0—3 0—4 0—4
d` (no dischar e=0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.—max points) 3
H� . Presence.of adjacent floodplain °
4' 6 (no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max(points) ' 0=4 0 4 0 2 2
Entrenchment/tloodpl.am access
(dee l entrenched=0,frequent floodin =max•points) 0-5 02.
Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands=max points) '
- Channel-sinuosity
9 0=5 0-4 0_3
(extensive channelization=0;natural meander=max omts)
- Sediment input
10 �,, 0 5 0-4 0 4 a2.
(extensive deposition=0 little or no sediment.=max points)
I 1 ` Size&diversity of channel bed substrate " NA* 0=4 0—5
-r (fine,homogenous=0;large,diverse sizes max points)- 02
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0'-5 0-4 0=5'
12 . ' ,
(deeply incised=0,stable bed&banks=maxpoints)
�..,� Presence of major bank failures
13 , 0�-5 0_,5 0 .5
a. _
(severe erosion=0'no erosion,stable banks= 'max"
Root depth and'density on banks
[�
(no visible roots=0;dense roots throw hoot=max points) y
Impact"by'agriculture livestock,or tmiber production _
1� 0'-5 0-4 0-5 ,t
(substantial"impact=0;no'evidence=max points) )
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3 0 5 0—.6,
(no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed=max points) —1
Habitat complexity .
17 �W. , '. 0-6 0-6 0_-6
(little or no habitat 0;frequent,varied habitats max points) 3
noshadin vegetation 0-
streambed �
18 Canopycoverage
:� 0-5 0-5 0=5
( g continuous-canopy—max points)
Substrate embeddedness 3
19 N . 0-4; 0—.4
(deeply embedded 0 loose structure=max)~` J�
20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4) 0—4 0—5 0 5 u
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
U 21 Presence of amphibians� °° 0�-4 0-4 0-4
O, (no evidence-0;common,numerous types=max points)
„O. 22 Presence of fish
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) 0—4 0-4 0—4,
23 Evidence of wildlife use
no evidence=_0;abundant evidence=max points) 0 6 0 5 0-5
'Total Points Possible
100 100 10t)
% TOTAL;SCORE (also enter on,first page)
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

i
USACE AID# DWQ# ^VSite 92SAa�(indicate on attached map)
........... .
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ;
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: �C�o'JT 2.Evaluator's name:
3.Date of evaluation: ���/� 4.Time of evaluation: 12-o' p vv" •5.Name of stream: P., r C-� 6.River basin: NC bee ,7 ly r y-
7-
<
7.Approximate drainage area: �1A m1 8. Stream order: �.{-'1 P,Id 0 ryl l�7-6i?o )
9.Length of reach evaluated:__ 1500 -4 2, 10.County: �J i I�/&•Q-5
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3(R. r 1 t9 o to to Longitude(ex.-77.556611): - 6 1 . 55$33
Method location determined(circle): V Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roadsand landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
•. S p ae. - I J J
I I c�S � �, (1°.r 5 •. � �r�b �� o c�["t?r-S !A] o� 7`i r 1 P�
V
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: -A , -7 5 .
16.Site conditions at time of visit:
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat i
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ES NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: '5-0/o Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
%Forested _%Cleared%Logged _%Other( )
22.Bankfull width: Z / 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 3 /
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 4%) Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends XFrequent 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): 0 Comments: 1AMl Q 1.xc kAJ-4 WCa ors
Evaluator's Signature G� f, (I Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be uVed 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.
' 1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CIiARACTERISTICS
� -
ECOREGION POINT,RANGE SCORE:
Coastal. Piedmont mountain:
(no flow or saturation=0•stron flow =max omt
Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream
1 0-5°- 0_4 0_5 ,
g _ P s)
2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6 0-5 0-51
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points)
3 l Riparian zone,.
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points) 0—6` 0—4- 0'—5
" Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4 0�=5: °0-4 0-4 3
(extensive discharges=6;`no discharges=max points)
Groundwater discharge
d'. (no dis charge J=0; s rin s,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points) 0'—3 0-4 0—4,
` 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
(no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain—max points) 0'=4 0-4' 0 2' l
C>~ Entrenchment/floodplain access
,° . 0'-5 0--4 °0-2 ° -
(deepl entrenched=0;frequent flooding=max points)
g. „ .Presence of.adjacent wetlands-, -
(no wetlands=0;lar a adjacent wetlands max points) 0—6 0—A 0-2
Channel sinuosity' 0-=5. 0-4 0=3 ° Z
9 4
" (extensive channelization=0 natural meande_r'=max points) ' '
Sediment input ` 0-5 0-4 0' 4 °.
(extensive deposition—0;little or no sediment'=max omts)"
11 Size&diversity,_of channel bed substrate ;
(fine,homogenous=0;large,diverse sizes=max points) ' NAB 0 .4
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
�+ (deeply incised 1 0 'stablebed&'banks,=niax oints) 0.-5 0
:Presence of major bank failures
,.� ,- :-
(severe"erosion—0;no erosion,stable banks=max omts)
Root depth and density on banks 3
d' 14 0=3 0—�4 0= gig
N (nows�ble�roots—°0;dense roots throu hout=max �omts)
° 15 , Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production 0 5 0=.4 0,—�5
P
"•_: °(substantial impact=0;no evidence=max points)
x °16, Presence of,riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes,.
0�3 0-5 "0—
(no riffles/rip les or pools=0;well-developed=max points)
17. Habitat complexity 0-6 0=6 0-6
(little-or'no habitat 0 frequent,varied habitats=max points).'
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5, 0-5 0_5 I(
(no shadingvegetation=0 continuous canoe _,max points) l
r'� Substrate embeddedness /
19 NA# 0=4 0—'4
(deeply embedded 0;`loose struct ire=max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4)
0-4: Q-5,
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
21 Presence of amphibians
0-4 0-4 0=4
O.' (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
°O.; 22 Presence offish.
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) 0—4 0-4 0-4-
Evidence of wildlife use
23 0 , 6 0-5 0-5
(no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points)
E
Total Points Possible o
TOTAL SCORE• (also enter one first page), Q
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

-i ............ .........................................._.._............_._._.......__......._...................... .
USACE AID# DWQ# Site#-W (indicate on attached map)
TINSTREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: N CDOT 2.Evaluator's name:'Za'ndozz.o / e
3.Date of evaluation: 5�\Lp�cs 4.Time of evaluation: IV co 9Y-C%
5.Name of stream:U:l ' ?-loc�r��rs �Y71 t 1C,� 6.River basin: Y�.11J Iu 4 l — PPS
7.Approximate drainage area: 5D QCrr—5 8. Stream order: l t ma ov, Topo)
9.Length of reach evaluated: 4pVDK I ODD-4 10.County: 1 kes
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3(n. 115"i wl Longitude(ex.—77.556611): $I• ]SS 333
Method location determined(circle): GP Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
C W Uy - W'de.r Sunse;i- Dr.
14.Proposed channel work(if any): I
15.Recent weather conditions: S II meow [4�,ryy%,
16.Site conditions at time of visit: :SLJI YI,4 �k)0-rm —I5 Cr
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters v"'Water Supply Watershed 1T (I-IV) Q�
- 18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes,estimate the water surface area: I a&--Lf .
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES ` O 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (�p NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: %Residential %Commercial %Industrial %Agricultural
�%Forested SG%Cleared/Logged Q %Other(`E0oA )
22.Bankf ill width: -J �4 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank):
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 4%) _Moderate(4 to 10%) Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander ✓ Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terrain,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each 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): 1, Comments: kd tc l l uGa�_I ki 0-R. rS
Evaluator's Signature , l"(4 6W Date &Jl D1 D�
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used 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.
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# ►; - CHARACTERISTICS`' ECOREGION POINT RANGE SCORE
Coastal. Piedmont;-;. Mountain
_ t
Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream.1 0-5 0-4' ' 075
(no flow or saturation=0;strong flow=max points)
Evidence of past human alteration
2 (extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points), 0 6 0 5 0 5 `
° Riparian zone
3
t' 0-6, ° '0-4 0-5 .. a
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points)
4. Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0—5 0—4 ° 0-4
(extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max points) 3
Groundwater discharge
5- 0_3 0—�4 0-4°
(no dischar e=0;s rin s,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points) 3
rVi Presence of ad`acent,flood lain
6 J P 0-4 0-4 0=2
y+
no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max points)
Entrenchment/floodplain access
Z 0=5 0=�40-2 '. .'
(dee ly entrenched=6;frequent floodin =max points) .
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8, U-( 0-4: 0-2
(no wetlands=0•large adjacent wetlands=max points) ".
" Channel sinuosity
9 0-5 0-4,
(extensive channelization 0 natural meander=max points)
° Sediment input;
1,0 , 0°—5 0-4 ., 0 4
(extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=max pomts)
Size&'diversity'of channel bed substrate 5`
11 NX 0='4 0—°5
(fine,homogenous 0;large,diverse sizes=max points) .3
Evidence of channel incision,or widening
�+ 12 (deeply'incsed-0;stable°bed'&'banks='max "oinfs) _ OrS 0 4 0 `"5 Lq
Presence of mayor bank�failures
13 �. 0=5 0—5 ,
(severe erosion 0--,no erosion"stable MKS—max p.6infs)
Root depth and density on banks
14 0 3 0=:4 0 �5
E•r
(no visible roots—0;dense•roots throughout=max oints)
�1x
Impact liy agriculture; livestock,or timber production
0-5, 0.—4 •0='5
(substantial impact=0;no evidence=max'pomts)r
16 Presence of riffle pool/ripple-pool complexes `
(no riffles/ripples or pools=0 well-developed=max points) 0-3 0—5 0—=6:
,i Habitat complexity '
17 Q-6 b,-6 0 6 , 14
(little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats'—max points)
Canopy coverage overstreambed'•
18 0''—5 0-5 0'—5 r:
(no shadin vegetation=0 continuous canopy=max points) 3
` Substrate embeddedness
19 ° N�* 0-4 0-4 3(deeply embedded=0;loose structure max)
rNa Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4)"
20 0-4 0-5 0-5
i� (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) 3
Presence of amphibians
21 - 0-4. 0-4 0-4
O' (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
a Presence of fish'
O'r 22 0-4 0-4 0-4
(no evidence—0;common,numerous types=max points)
Evidence of wildlife use
23 0-6 0-5 0-5' 3(no evidence=0,;abundant evidence.=max points)
' Total Points Possible E 100 104
"
g i
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on fr%page)
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

i .......................................... _..........._.................. _ ...._........................._......_............._......................_......................._............_........_..........._......._.._......................__..._......_........_...................................................._.._..........._...........__..._.....
____ _.
USACE AID# DWQ# Site#-,'22q!-'4indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide thk,following information for the stream reach under assessment: (� `
1.Applicant's name: 1 / ! 2.Evaluator's name: i
3.Date of evaluation: J 1 1 A� r 4.Time of evaluation: t ®®
5.Name of stream: ( lj 1 • �'oon os s ��-C-k 6.River basin: �/ad� ^ - Pee- bee V-1yef
7.Approximate drainage area: 20 OLC -EZ 8.Stream order: 1 6 Gk O+ Oe 1 !FWc
9.Length of reach evaluated: &Qrox 11n-C4 10.County: w ti S
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3 to. 113 U I I Longitude(ex.—77.556611): $1.
Method location determined(circle): PS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location
of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
-� GW S S ....1s.,y H m ,.-I 09C..L.f�s 7�
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: So K
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 _zw ater Supply Watershed r(I-IV) Q
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES �1.U: If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential %Commercial %Industrial _%Agricultural
/00 %Forested _%Cleared/Logged _%Other( )
22.Bankfull width: ( 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank):
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 4%) Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: ,Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,to�ain,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each chafacteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteris4&s 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): W ° Comments: 14-1 QIAAf 1 4-V Wa-kf .
J
Evaluator's Signatures t /H dl_ �1�t`l Date coo l oS
This channel evaluation form is intended to be de d 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.
_ 1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE m
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal. Piedmont,: �Mountam; >
1 Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream 0-5 0 4 0-5 L/
(no flow or saturation 0;strongflow=max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0 . 5
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0`-4 0—5
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points) 5
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges, 0-5 0-4 0-4
(extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max points)
Groundwater discharge
-4 d
(no discharge�=0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=maxpoints)
.'Presence of adjacent floodplain• '
A=4 '0-2 .
(no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max points)
Entrenchment/floodplain access,,;
a = 7 0-5 0 4 0-2',
(dee I entrenched=0;frequent flooding=mak points
Presence of adjacent wetlands , • - ° .
g 0-6 0=4 .. 0=2'
(no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands=max.points)
9 Channel sinuosity' 0—5 0='4 0—3
(extensive channelization=0;natural meander=max points
Sediment input
10 (extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=max"points) 0_S 0-4:": 0 4
' Size&diversity of channel bed substrate"°-
JT (fine,homogenous—0;large,diverse sizes=max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening��
l2 0 5 0 .4 0=5
fir= deeplyincised-=0;stable bed&banks=max points)
Presence,of major bank failures
13 ] 0-5 0=V5 0-5
(severe'erosion=0 no erosion,stable banks`=max `omts)
Boot°depth and density,on banks 3
14 0,_,3, 0_4 0 °5
(no visible roots=0;dense roots throw hout=max points)"
Impact by agriculture,-livestock;or timber production,
'!
15 v" 0-5 " 0-4 0-5
(substantial impact=0;`no evidence=max points)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3 0-5 0=,,°6'.
(no riffles/ripples or pools 0;well-developed=max points)"
Cam' - -
. E , Habitat complexity-
17 0-60-6 0-6
(little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats=mak points)
�. Canopy coverage over streambed
18 ` 0-5
(no shadingvegetation=0;continuous canop =max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness° "
(deeply embedded=0;loose structure=max) NA 0-4 0-4 —
Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4)'
20 0=4 0-5 0=5
(no evidence 0;common,numerous types=max points)
�} Presence of amphibians, -
O" 21 (no evidence—0• common,numerous 0 4 0-4 0—4
id i
types=max points).,, 1
O 22 T Presence of fish..-
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) 0-4 0—4 0-4
Evidence of wildlife use
7,23 0-6 0-5 0-5 H
(no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points)
Total Points Possible: ' 100 1Q0 100
TOTAL.SCORE (also enter on first page)
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

I [._.._._-.....____
.._....._.................____..._.......__-__-..__._-___.__.._..._........_.___.__._......._._..............._.__........._....._.....................__.._...._.._.............
...._......_......_......_....._..._......._........................__._..........._._..__............._..._......._................_......................................._._......................................i
( USACE AID# DWQ# Site#Ss1.... (indicate on attached map) I
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: tX'UCT 2.Evaluator's name: Q_r)dL0.7.Z0 �txle
3.Date of evaluation: 5`1 lr 4.Time of evaluation: '00 9yy-1
5.Name of stream:k.' A0 1 kDr teas 16 Y c it 6.River basin: lad Lun - Pee- Ibex P.t Ve a,
7.Approximate drainage area: ©t r:5 8.Stream order: 14-- Btu d ( mi- On Togo)
9.Length of reach evaluated: AQpYOK 10E0-F+ 10.County: 10111_C'3
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3(Q• 11 H I(B 60 Longitude(ex.—77.556611): —S I • I(e
Method location determined(circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: Same QS 126 D t,W
16.Site conditions at time of visit: &.t ny-%�! 1 A_rM rJ P
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat II''
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO f yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?0NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
Laa%Forested %Cleared/Logged I %Other( ZOOA )
22.Bankf ill width: 3 4 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 3 4
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 41/6) _Moderate(4 to 10%) ✓Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terrain,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each 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): Comments: H10JO Q l lf1�.� i-Q !`�)(01--c.__f3
Evaluator's Signature,, Date to ®1 BS
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.
I

i
;;' STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS°" ECOREGION POINT RANGE ° ' SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont, ., Mountain'
1 Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream
(no flow or saturation 0;strong"flow=max points) 0-5 0—4 0 5"
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6
0—5;., . 0—5
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points) .
3 Riparian zone
0 6' 0-4 0=5
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points) 3
4~ Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges _
(extensive discharges=0;no discharges max points) 0-5 0-4
f_ 5 • .°Groundwater discharge,,n 0—3 0�-"4 0 "4
r3 (no discharge=0•springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points)
° Presence of adjacent floodplain
6e (no floodE 0-4 0-4 0-2
�+ -plain 0;_extensive floodplain=max points)
Entrenchment-/;floodpl'ain access
(deep]` entrenched=0;frequent floodm —max points)
!3 ; -F Presence of adjacent wetlands <,.; `
(no wetlands`0;large adjacent wetlands=max points)
0`—6• 0=�4 0 2
Channel sinuosity•
9 0 5• 0—'4 0—-
(extensive channelization=0;natural meander=max points)
10 . �:°; . .- Sediment input' 5 0=4 0—4 02
(extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment max points
Size&diversity•of channel bed substrate,
11 (fine;homo°•enous 0;lar e,diverse size's=�max�points) NA 0 0—3
12 Evidence of channel'incision,or widening t
(deep] "indised �Q';.stable gibed-&banks max points) -5 �-
Presence of major bank failures
a 13 :.
(severe erosion 0;no erosion,stable banks_ max points) 0-5 0 5 0 5 5
Root depth and density on banks "
14 0=3 0
(no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout max points)° `1
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock,•or timber production 0�=5 0,=�4 0,—.5. ,
(substantial impact=0;no evidence=max points) 5
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
16 (no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed=max points) ••
Habitat complexity 0,�-6 0—�6 0-6
�,•. - (little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats-` max points)
18 Canopy coverage over•streambed"
0=5� 0-5 0 5 _
�'(no shading vegetation=0;continuous canopy'=max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded=O loose structure=max) 3
20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4)
(no evidence=0;•common numerous types=max points) 0 4 0 5 0-5
21 Presence of amphibians
O= (no'evidence=0;common numerous 0 4 0 4 0'—4 3 types � • •,
22
Presence of fish',
O , �' 0-_ 4 0�-4.° 0,_4
no evidence 0;common,numerous types=max points)
23 . ._
Evidence of wildlife use
(no'evidence 0;abundant evidence=max points) 0—6 0 5 .0-5
Total Points Possible n„' 100 100 100e
TOTAL`SCORE..(also enter on frstpage)
•
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

i _..._.......__..._.._._.._._..................._......_..............._..........._......._......._. ..._.............
USACE AID# DWQ# Site#�_N4(indicate on attached map)
t_... _.­.—___._ _.,,..._._..._...______._.._......_....__----- .______.____..__...._. .. ____ ____....__.___.....__.,..__....___._..._...._
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
i.
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
t 1.Applicant's name: lT 2.Evaluator's name:
3.Date of evaluation: ��'��� 4.Time of evaluation: f 1 Ud
5.Name of stream: L -T ? I e - s S=^' `` 6.River basin: ��O�^ Pe b)eg Q_!Rl�
t
7.Approximate drainage area: y t)6 oC 8.Stream order: ct-�
9.Length of reach evaluated: 10.County: V✓
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): �(o. (1 3-6y 9I Longitude(ex.-77.556611): —2 1 . (L305
Method location determined(circle): /dT Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation—(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: 5 uA L 7 5
I16.Site conditions at time of visit: 50. P-
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters r/Water Supply Watershed JV— (I-IV) VQ"_
f
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (9 If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 10 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
q0 %Forested _%Cleared/Logged 10 %Other(
22.Bankfull width: 3 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 3
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 4%) z�S Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends >�' Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,tetkain,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each Afacteristic 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): to Comments: bid-) Q l k6J l+,j RYA4i..1'S
J
Evaluator's Signature L4t�/b[t!- &,-.A d6 Date (p' /0/OS
This channel evaluation form is intended to be sed 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.
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# : -CHARACTERISTICS Coastal SCORE'�
Piedmont " Mountain
Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream
1 0-5 0-4
(no
(no flow or saturation=0;strong flow=max points)
Evidence of past human alteration `
2 '" 0-6 0-5 0-5 �
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points).
Riparian zone
3 0.-6 0-4 0-5
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer—max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges ,/
—4 n0-4'
(extensive discharges=0•no-discharges=max points)
ay Groundwater discharge
5. . 0—.3 0
d' (no discharge=0;springs,seeps,wetlands etc. maxpoints)
H' .Presence of adjacent floodplain -.
0-4
,' 0-4 0-2.
(no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain max points). f
Entrenchment/floodplain access,.,-, -
�'- (deeply entrenched=0;frequent floodin ="max points) -: � 0`=5 0='.'4_
Presence of adjacent wetlands,:
(no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands maxpoints)_
Channel sinuosity
9 (extensive channel ization=0;natural meander=maxpoints), 0—5 0—4' 0=3"
Sediment input-
10. m 0_�5 0-4 0-4
(extensive deposition=0;little or no sedient='rimax points):
Size&diversity of channel bed'substrate
11 NA 0 4 0-5
„ (fine,homogenous=0;large,diverse sizes=max points) `
Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply'inetsed=-0;stab]e'be'd`&banks :max points) 0-5 0-4 0 5
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
(severe erosion 0;no erosion,�stable banks=max points)
Root depth and`density'on banks
14 ` (no visible Toots"=0;dense roots throughout=max pomts)- Y 0 3 0—4 0 5
imp act b a iiculture livestock or timber production "
15" P Y g 0-5 0=4 0=5
s . • (substantial impact=0;no evidence='max points),
Presence of riffle-pool/rile-pool complexes
16 -' pp 0-3 0-5 0-6
E no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed=max points)
," �." ' Habitat complexity
17 0-6 0—6 0 -6 ,
(little or no habitat'=0;frequent,varied habitats—max points)
P7 Canopy coverage over streambed
18 � - 0—5 0-"5 _ 0 �5
no shading vegetation=0;'continuous canopy=max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness _ °
(deep] embedded=0-loose structure=max) ` NA* 0
Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4),
. 20 0�4 0-5
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
U921 Presence of amphibians °
O• (no evidence=0;common,numerous types.=max omts)_
Presence of fish
Cr' 22 0-4 0-4 0-4
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
Evidence of wildlife use
23 0-6 0-5 Q-5 I
(no evidence 0;abundant evidence max points),
Total Points Possible 100 104 l0U
TOTAL,SCORE /also enter on first aQe)
s
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

---- ---- - - --
# USACE AID#.., DWQ# Site#SA13 (indicate on attached insp)
0 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
3:
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
I.Applicant's name: NCA f7T 2.Evaluator's name:�RQndayz o /Bade.
3.Date of evaluation: 5�VAQS 4.Time of evaluation: 3'Co g rr-t
5.Name of stream: lU ip FkoppexS br6ntJn 6.River basin: laa&n - Per bee 1?Itle I'
1 y
7.Approximate drainage area: , J Q t✓e S 8.Stream order: I sl -{-'1 C1d (m)t On 7oP0)
' 9.Length of reach evaluated:OpnYL 10DQC4 10.County: w I IytC
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex 34.872312): &n. Longitude(ex.-77.556611): -1 1, I(o`'j l ZZ
I Method location determined(circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
C-Wy¢x-F wndu S- nsO Drive
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: same AS be1Ot
16.Site conditions at time of visit: Sl AP nY j McLrm IS (
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters ✓Water Supply Watershed­U7 (I-IV) Nn�
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES qy)f yes,estimate the water surface area:
1 19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES (1020.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? �NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: %Residential %Commercial %Industrial %Agricultural
l- %Forested La_%Cleared/Logged 10 %Other( Uti-d )
22.Bankfull width: -A � 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 3
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 40/u) _Moderate(4 to 10%) Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: _Straight Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,to in,vegetation, stream classification,etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each ch�tacteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characterisit'gs 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): Comments: H 4 Q kf P .fvn LAY:_b1S
r -"
Evaluator's Signature t,,A/1111 2"daj ,n Date (a/lo/A5
This channel evaluation form is intended to be Akid 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.
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS COREGI ON POINT.RANGE SCORE.
'.,Coastal:',',
Piedmont �';Mountain ;
Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream
1 0-5 07-4 0—'5
(no flow or saturation=0;strong flow=max points)
Evidence of past human alteration
2' 0-6 0=5 0.-5
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points)
Riparian zone
3 (no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer max points) 0-6 ' 0-4 0=5 !�
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges. k
4a 0=5 0-4 0-4. "
(extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max points)
a Groundwater discharge
5 0-3, - 0=4 0_a4'.
(no dischar 6:=0;sprin s,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points) 3
Presence of adjacent floodplain-
°' 6 (no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max points) 0-4 0`-4 0=2
Par Entrenchment k floodplain access I
(deeply entrenched'—'0;frequent'floodm `=max points)`"' i
Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands"=max points) (�
Channel sinuosity 2
9 (extensive°channelization=0;natural meander=max points) 0-5 0-4 0-3
Sediment input
10 (extensive deposition=0;little or no sedimehf maxpoints). 0�=5 0=4 0�=4 ,
3
Size&diversity of channel bed substrateI�Z. * a 3
(fine,homogenous=0;large,`diverse sizes=max oints NA 0=4
u Evidence of channel incision or,widening
12 (deeply incised'—0,'stable bed 8c banks=`max oints) Oq—5 0-;4
_Presence of major bank failures _
13
�1 5 f 0 ,`,5 0 5
severe erosion='0•naerosion;stable banks=max Points( 5
Hf p )
a1°� Root"depth and density°on banks �4
14
((no visible`roots=0;dense roots throw bout max points)
�. Impact agriculture, livestock,or timber"production
15• 0-5 0�4 0-
(substantial impact' ;no evidence=max" omts) 5
.. Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool°complexes,
16 441 (no riffles/ripples or'pools='0;well-developed=max points). 0—3 ` 0—5 0 �6
Q - Habitat complexity
17 0-6 0=6 0='6`.. 5(little or no habitat'0;frequent,varied habitats=max points)
�. Canopy coverage over streambed•
Q, 18 „ 0 5 0-5 0 .ri5
(no shadingvegetation=0;continuous canopy=max pomts)�
x" 19 Substrate embeddedness 0=4 0 4
(deeply embedded=0;loose structure=max) -
Presence of stream invertebrates(see page.4)°
20 0-4 0-5 0—,5,,
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types max points)
" 21 ' Presence of amphibians
O' (no evidence_=0;common,numerous typ6 max points) 0-4" 0-4 , 0-4
4.
° 3
O . 22 Presen%ce of fish "
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) , 0—4 0—4 0-4
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5
O 5
no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points)
ol
Total Points Possible .•` 100 100 i00
K TOTAL.SU*E (also enter on first page)
•
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

� I
I -- _.....__......_._...._._....._...---- __..._._._.
USACE AID# DWQ# Site#SL (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
J*
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
_ 1.Applicant's name: 1`16 10err 2.Evaluator's name:
3.Date of evaluation: 5— 1b/a 5-- 4.Time of evaluation: 17 r �
5.Name of stream: UT 6.River basin:
7.Approximate drainage area: ZD QGrYS 8.Stream order: 2{¢r)ol ' Fj e id NO f' 00 109C)
9.Length of reach evaluated: AJ 1 D0o I$ 10.County:
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name(if any):Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3lP• V I ZZZ2 Longitude(ex.-77.556611): —4 s 1 1(0*1 2z 1.
Method location determined(circle): GP Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
1 /J s OWeJAf UntfA.. Sun,-, t Drive,
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: 5 u n fi
16.Site conditions at time of visit: sG
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat II`^
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters —Nutrient Sensitive Waters ---water Supply Watershed Z—(I-IV) LA)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES Q If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES N( O 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? %I�Sj NO _
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
100 %Forested _%Cleared/Logged _%Other( )
22.Bankfull width: Z 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank):
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 4%) Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terrain,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each 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): tD Comments: U'3 fl t l tti (et�t� L I
' g �r �� a (���D
Evaluator's Signature �.t/1(� Date,( .
This channel evaluation form is intended to be u4donly 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.
1

r
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT,RANGE
# r CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont , Mountain;-
Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream'
1 0-5 0-4 0-5
(no flow or saturation=0;strong flow=max points) /
2 Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration max• oints) 0=6,
A:—5 - 0=�5 l
f Riparian zone-
3" 0'-6 '' ` 0-4 0-5"
(no buffer=0,contiguous,wide buffer'='max points) ;
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4 0-5 0-4. . 0=4 /
(extensive discharges", =0;no discharges max points)
a< 5. Groundwater discharge.'
d' (no disc har e=0; sprin s,seeps,wetlands,etc.—max points) 0—3 0=4 0-4 �I
Presence of adjacent floodplan,
6 i 0"-4 0=4 0-2
(no floodplain=0;extensive floodplam=max points)
Entrenchment I floodplain access
"(deeply entrenched 0;'frequent flo`odih max'"points)'
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8- (no , . Or_6 0-4 0_.2
wetlands=0;lar a adiacent wetlands max pomts)
Channel sinuosity:
L
9 (extensive channelization=0;natu`ral'meander=max points) " 0—5' 0—4 0—3
10
Sediment input 0-5-, 0-4',
, (extensive deposition—0 little or no sediment`=n points)-
- 11 Size;&diversity of channel bed substrate
(fine,honio enous 0;large;diverse sizes max-points) NA 0 4
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 s
�+ (deeply incised "0'statile`bed"&banks=max omts) -43 ; 0' S
0
of major bank failures` 0 5 0 Sx 0 5 J
(severe erosion=O;.no erosion "stable°banks max points) "k
f-0
-Root depth aud'density',on-banks
�; 14 ., 0 3 0=4 0 :5
(no`visible`roots=0;dense roots throu hout=maz omts .
Impact by agriculture, livestock,'or,timber production `
15 (substantial impact 0;n6eviden6e=max points) 07 5 0
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
16 0-5 0 -"6 � ..
(no riffles/ripples or pools=0;Well-developed=max points)
Habitat complexity `
% (little'or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats—max points) 6-` 0`-6 0--6
18° ", Canopy coverage over streambed — — C
0,.-5 0.—'5 0 , 5
(no shadm vegetation=0;continuous canoe =max points) -
Substrate embeddedness ,,
z,.19 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded=0-loose structure max)
a
Presence of stream invert` rates°(see page 4),"
20 0_1.1 4 0-5,., 0 5 .;
(no evidence=0;"common,numerous types—max points)
Presence of amphibians
21 --; . .. . ..� = .
O (no evidence=0;`common,numerous types max points). 0, .4 0=4 -0 4
�i Presence of fish
,.01 22 .. 4` 0-4'-- 0-4, 0=4
(rio evidence=0;common,'numerous types=max points)
Evidence of`wiidlife use
23 (no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points);. 0 6, 0 5 0—•5
Total Points Possible 100 7 100 100
R £
a ,m< TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) j
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

USACE AID# DWQ# Site#S� (indicate on attached map) 3(t$f
_............,............................«....,.gyp.._....W..._....,................,....................._............_».................,.,....._........._...._........__.._,_.....-�._............._._......__._........,....._....__�.._....�...._.............�........,...�...__....._.....................�w.__.........,....,..__..._._..._...._..._........_.................._...._._..................f
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: PXUCrf 2.Evaluator's name: ktr1dan'D / bode-
3.Date of evaluation: Jr' 1�'t75� 4.Time of evaluation: Jr 00 P 1'n
5.Name of stream: u� "00gtf.5 ��fOLt'lf'.h 6.River basin: �I0,dy l n -pee bee- 52-1 V.'r,
k
7.Approximate drainage area: 20 CtCTi.L3 8. Stream order:_ Ffl - Edd (.{obi- on T-0120)
9.Length of reach evaluated: Uprw, Iooc4 10.County: V)I Ik f s
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
fILatitude(ex.34.872312): 36• 1-1-2505.5 Longitude(ex.-77.556611): �I. I(41 ZZZ
1 Method location determined(circle): PS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
1111 13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying streams)location):
UST ko Spo
I14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: C-iox" 0,5 bet ou)
16.Site conditions at time of visit: St t n"ki Wo-i'm -15 F
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed T-- (I-IV) No
I 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 (2�) 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential %Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
Q%Forested 31/o Cleared/Logged I=%Other( • )
22.Bankfull width: 2 �-� 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank):
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 41/6) Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,tekAin,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each ch 'acteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characterisii'r' 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): (4 9 Comments: H laxh Q U-a-t ) WGt +C rs
`� �ltolo5
Evaluator's Signature Date
��,��t,ti.., K�1�C����
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.
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
° Coastal , _ Piedmont'. 1Vlountam
l Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream 0 5 0—4 0—5
(no flow or saturation=0;strongflow=max points)
Evidence of past human alteration
2 (extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points) 0-6-
0 5
Riparian zone_
5
(no buffer=0 contiguous,wide buffer' max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5 0-4 0'-4 11II
(extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max points) `l
5 Groundwater discharge ' 1
d. (no dischar =0;springs,,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points) 0-3 0—`4 0—4
`e
6 .• Presence of adjacent floodplain — — —
4
(no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max points) 0 4 0 4"' 0 2y �
Entrenchment/floodplain access
Isr „ 0—5` 0-:4 0—2
(deeply entrenched=0;frequent flooding=max points)
Presence of adjacent we 8 " , 0_6 0—°4 s 0-2
no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands=max points) fl
Channel sinuosity
9 (extensive channelization=0;natural meander=`maxpoints) 0-5 0-4 0—3 1
Sediment input, ,
10 extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=,maxpoints), 0—5 0`—4 0-4
J� ,.
11
Size&dive channel bed substrate °° N *
' (fine,homogenous-`0;large,diverse sizes=maz points) 0-,4 0-:5 .' ,.
2-
Evidence of channel incision or.widening
�. 12' •(deeply incised 0;stable,6ed'&banks=max points) 0 5 0-4 0=5 Jr
" Presence of major bank'failures
A3. �'% = 0-5 0
(severe,erosion,=0;no erosion,stable banks=max Dints)
.-�
�- :.;Root'depth and.density`�on banks
14 0-3
Ey (no visible`roots=0;dense roots throughout=max points)
° Impact liy agriculture, livestock,or timber production -
0=5 0-4 0-5
r,
(substantial impact=0;no evidence=max`points) 5
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes.
16 0-3- 0-5 0_ Li
E (no riffles/rip_les or pools=0;well-developed max points) ;
17 " Habitat complexity°
(little or no ha6'itat=0;frequent;varied habitats=max points)` . 0—6 0-6 -. 011
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5' 0�-5 0-5 y
(no shadingvegetation' b;continuous canopy 'max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness `
:NA-
'(deeplyembedded=0 loose structure=max)• * 0-4 0=4
20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page4)
0-4 ` 0`—5 0=5, .
(no evidence­0;common,"numerous types=max points)
�. Presence of amphibians _ _
O 21 (no evidence—0;common numerous types=max points)
0_ 4 ' � 0-4 � 0' 4
a; 3
01. -22.' .-' Presenceof fish
.` °
(no evidence—0;common,numerous types=max points) 0—4 0-4 -" 0=4 (�
Evidence of wildlife use
"- 23 0-6 0=5 0—5
(no evidence=0;abundant evidence max points)
Total Points Possible° 100 l00 100'
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on"first page)
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

.._ .. . ...........
......
...........
_.....
_......
______
USACE AID# DWQ# Site#-5,9Q(indicate on attached map)
. 1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET .
IProvide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: (✓ O-r 2.Evaluator's name: 1�z�"l D Q�Lo
3.Date of evaluation: S II' -7 � 4.Time of evaluation: ° '�' prn
5.Name of stream: ��r1d'�S v� 6.River basin: D 1�,4 - Pee. Dee 121yt'-y,
7.Approximate drainage area: Oq Mi Z 8. Stream order: c-rO2o
9.Length of reach evaluated:hpyox- I5 • + 10.County: ty, S
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3(p. 113055 Longitude(ex.—77.556611): -St.
02�
Method location determined(circle): Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location o t
\f reach under evalua`ioonn(note nearby m we
roads and landmarks and attach map identifying streams)location):
[
nft
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
I 15.Recent weather conditions: °S j 75
16.Site conditions at time of visit: ✓ao 4^--6'
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat u
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed-�M-(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? YE NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? O�)No
21.Estimated watershed land use: 30%Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
In SM) (00%Forested 10 %Cleared/Logged _%Other( )
22.Bankfull width: �`D 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 167
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to.4%) �Moderate(4 to 101/6) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight 74 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): ��. Comments: Qua blu X/1, crs
-
Evaluator's Signature zz w Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be 0sid 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.
1

°r
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CI3A1tACTERISTICS�R r ECOREtoN POINT E
Coastal' ledmollt r } �011ntdll Ob
n.
-,
Presence of flow/pe"rsistent pools m stream' r SC
e
1 0 5; 0 4... 0 5 S(no flow or saturation 0,strong flow maxpoin
1 Evidence of past buman alteration
:2 0 6 D 5:' 0 5
(extensive alferat�on. 0;no alteration max points)-
j�� ' Riparian zone "� z^ 3
3 r 0 6';
�
(no buffer-0;contiguous;wide buffer=max'points) .._
x�F 4 Ev�dence'of nutrient or,cbemjcal discharges
0 5 0 4µ, D 4
(extensive discharges'=0,no discbar'es max points)
5 S Groun dH aterWdiseba rge
p 3 0 4 0
(rio discharge 0 span`s,seeps,wetlands,etc max points) E
f6 Presence of adiacent lloodplain .'
yr (no floodplain—0;extensive�floodolain max points)„ a g r Z
Entrenchment/fl6odplain access,'> 0 5; 0
yar (deeply entrenched=0;frequent floodn ,—maz poin"ts)
� - Presence`of,adjacent wetlands
`8 no wetlands'-0•large ad'acent wetlands max 0 6 s 0 4 0 2
C — �� points)
r
Channel sauuos�ty r
k (extensive channelization 0,natural meander-max points} 0 5 D 3 s
0 4
Sediment input 4
0 5 0
(extenswe deposition 0;tittle of no sed�nent max points 0 4
r
Size&diversity of channel bed substrate= � � w
x 1 (fine;}omogenous=0 ]aT' e;diverse sizes „inax'points} N� 0 4 0 5
{ E'R epee of channel�nc�sron or wrdep rig
2
�+ (deep] mc�cPd 0 `st ble bed ban& ks max omts) 0 5 0 4 0 5
F
Presence of ma or,bank failures 3
13 . $&'Ved'eroslobri 0, '6'eros�o'n;,stable banks,.•max points) 0 5,
V14 Ro"ot depth and density on'banks , 0 3` `. 0 4w` D 5
m _ a,(no visible roots 0 dense roots throughout max points}�
15 Impact by agriculture; livestock,or timber production 0 5`'
.., ('substantiahimpact-0;nk evidence- points),
' Presence:of riffle pool/ripple pool complexes
16 (no riffles/ripples or pools e 0;well-developed_ max points), 0
T 17 —Habitat coin lex� — 0 b 0 b 0 6b /
p ty
ra (lgttle or no haUitat 0;frequent,`varied habitats-max points} (p
Canopy coverage over streambed'
r (no sbadin ve etanon=0 continuous✓canopy max points} "' 0 $? 0
Y i9 "Substrate embeddedness
(deep] embedded,,. 0,loose structure•—max, �� �`N.� 0 4 }` 0 4
20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4)
F �w 4
(no evidence=°0;"common,numerous types=inax points)
• 0 0
Pr"esence of amphrbt
O (no evidence 0,common,numerous,types max ornts� 0 4
a ,
4, 0 0 4
r0 22 Presence of fish 4
(no evidence-0 common numerous types max'points) 0 0 4 0 4
23
Evidence of w'ildhfe use 0 5
(no-evidence r0 A diant;evidence . max oints,}-�
p
� 4
6K gym `_ 7 $ -r}
tN
x r33 ;Y U 2—
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
'7
2

.............__..........
.._.._._..__..._.............._......._......_-----
.._.___...._.._._._.................
....
.__....._.._......................._..........._.........._....................................._............_............._......._...__........................
.......
........._.........._...._._................._......__....._._:.__.__...._!....._.........._._._....__....,
USACE AID# DWQ# Site#(indicate on attached map)
..................._____....._..__.......____.........._..._.._.....___._................__.._...____..._._.__.._._._.__._.......____._......_..............................
_
FID3 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ;.
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 2
1.Applicant's name: tjC,-D0-T 2.Evaluator's name:
3.Date of evaluation: f1/7 lF�� 4.Time of evaluation: %DD *vn
5.Name of stream: !1 I ko 6.River basin: JL) PP e- P Y be C �JV
7.Approximate drainage area: A,i 2 S.Stream order: 2-,d. (TORO)
-t 9.Length of reach evaluated: �°`'�o 10.County: i I L"
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3u• 11 11 ZZ. Longitude(ex.—77.556611): l. I(oq-T 2 z
Method location determined(circle): UPS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evalu`atierf(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
eve SU.-nsf,+' 17rxve 3Yldac
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: =1
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 l"Water Supply Watershed-IT: (I-IV) n Q�
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES(9 If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map?(%)NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (ia ;:O
21.Estimated watershed land use: 1Q%Residential _%Commercial %Industrial 20 %Agricultural
/ LD%Forested _%Cleared/Logged _%Other( )
22.Bankfull width: 6 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank):
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 4%) ,, Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terrain,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each 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): Comments: FYiah ual.1,"llld WoJtr�
J
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be usef1 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.
1

i
;II' STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# ` ECOREGION POINT RANGE
CHARACTERISTICS SCOREn'
Coastal:
P
ied�opt ��;+1VIounfam
Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream
1 `.;; (no flow or saturation=0;strong:flow=max points) 0=5 0:-4 0-5 5
Evidence of past human alteration.
2 0 6 1 0-5,. 1 0-5
(extensive alteration 0;no alteration=max.points)
Riparian zone
3 i ,° 0-6 0=4 0-5
(no buffei,0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4 , 0=5 0-4 0-4
(extensive'dischar es=0;no discharges-max points)
a" Groundwater Q discharge
.0-3 —4, 0-4-(no dischar e=0;sprin s,"seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points)°
►.a. Presence of adjacent floodplain
rn - 6 ` 0=4 : 0.-4 0-2
(no floodpllain=0;extensive floodplain=max points)
G''., Entrenchment/ioodplain access
P•r�. 7. 0=.5' 0=4 0=2
(deeply entrenched=0;frequent flooding max points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
g 0-6° 0=4 072
(no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands:max points)
Channel sinuosity
9 0-5 0-4 0-3=
(extensive channelization=0;natural meander=max points)
-
10 Sediment input 0-5 , 0-4 1 0—4' 2
(extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=max points)
Size'&diversity of channel bed substrate
11 a ` _ NA 0-4, _ 0_5
(fine,homogenous_=0;large,diverse sizes=max ppoints)
DWI 1��s Evidence of channel incision or widening
lFk_ (ueep�y u:c��d ;n, *ah]e,bPd Rc`'banks=max points) 0 5 0 4 0 5
4:Presence of major bank failures 0
(severe erosion O,no erosion,stable banks'-max points) <<
`Root depth and density on liariks
�; 14 — 0=3 0
E+
no visible roots—0;dense roots throu hout.=max omts
Impact by'agriculture; livestock;or timber production
15 0�-5 0-4 05
(substantial impact=0;no evidence max points
Presence of riffle-pool/rip pl d e eloped complexes,
points). 0—3 , 0—5 0—6
no riffles/ripples les or pools—0
F" r
I3abitatcomplezity
(little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats=max points)
18 1 Canopy coverage over streambed •�: '
0 5 0=5 0
(no shading vegetation=0;continuous canopy=max points)
Substrate`embedde lness /
19°0 s NA# 0-4 0—`4 cf
(deep] embedded 0;loose structure=max)
Presence of stream invertebrates' see page 4
20 � ( , P g 0=4J 0=-50-5" ,
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
�7 .21 =; 0;co Presence of amphibians 0-4 0—4 0-4
.
O (no evidence= mmon,numerous types=max points)
Presence of fish
22
O f 0'-4 0-4 ` 0-4(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) J
Evidence of wildlife use: '
23 0-6:. , 0' 5 0-5
(no evidence,=0 abundant evide
nce=max points)
9i
Tota'1 Points Pos sibl e 100
'50
TOTAL SCORE (also fi enter on rst page) -
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

USACE AID# ^r DWQ# Site#SkS (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
.1.Applicant's name: 1JC1)(DT 2.Evaluator's name: hly-daZZO 1 Bodf,
3.Date of evaluation:_��11�.05 4.Time of evaluation:. I D'•00 avy)
5.Name of stFeam: (1-1 Ao RCOl es kkVI')r 6.River basin: Jod.yi n zlver
7.Approximate drainage area: 25 '1 cra s 8.Stream order: sfi - Meld K)*on TOprJ)
9.Length of reach evaluated: &my_— I ODD R 10.County: lly l I kPS
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3(o, 1-I 1 I I Longitude(ex.-77.556611): -R i. 114 7 ZZ
Method location determined(circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
_ 'guns -VMLkclkn On d arv,n / (AT +D Jf iv d[(PsS i9i't Acdc)l.ej -D borru Latu
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: 5"Ame CAS be low
16.Site conditions at time of visit: S kA.Y}Y\y , U30-r m, -15 • F
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Tout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters owater Supply Watershed (I-IV) UJ
18.is,there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? .YES ND 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 NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial -LJD%Agricultural
�" I4�%Forested _%Cleared/Logged _%Other( )
22.Bankfull width: JrTk 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 2-Ft
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 21/6) _Gentle(2 to 41/6) Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: ✓ Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions,for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terrFin,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
characteristid§"identified in the worksbeet. 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): '73 Comments:- Hiah ! n h hu
Evaluator's Signature ✓ Date 5
This channel evaluation form is intended to be u d7only as a guide to assist landowners and a vi or nmental 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.
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
,ECOREGION POINT ItANGE7 � ;
N CI�ARACTERIST�CS
COa$
Pie drl]011t ' Otints1113�Presence of flow/persistent pools in stye_am
(no flow or saturation—0;strop flow—rnait points)
,2 Evidence of past human alteration.•=
(extensive alteration=0,no alteration—inax poin 5
3 Riparian zone 3n ri
.. D 6 0
no buffer=Ow,contiguous,wide buffer—max points)' "1
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
°,.(extensive dis'charees:=0;no dischar es .'max points).
rah ,.5 � � ,4Groun°dwater
d s (no dischar a 0 springs,seeps;}wetlands etc:='"max oints) 0 3: 0 4 s Y D 4 $ L
►U+ ,°`6 Presence of adjacent lloodplain
2�
(no floodplan! 0 °extensive,
floodplain—`max points).
Entrenchment/lloodplain,`access
0 5_ 0 4 D 2 a .. deepl entrenche , euehfloodnd=`0 frqt max pints) : f
Presence of adjacent wetlands 0 6' 0 4 0 2
,
no wetlands-0;larEe adlaceht wetlands=°max points) Q
9
Channel sinuosity
(extensive channelization—0• na"tural meander=niax' pints 0
p )
10 r Sediment input 0 5 0 4' 0 4
_,.�(extens"ive deposition_"1?,little or no sediment.=max"points .� _
11 Size&diversity of channel bed substrate s' "*
(fine,homogen arg ous=`0 le;vdiverse sizes-in ax points) a N y r
12 Evidence of channel incision or ti idening t
(deeply mused 0�stable bed&banks max points
i..r Presence of major bank failures a
13 � 0 5 0 5 a
(severe`erosion° 0,no erosion,stable banks max points) 0 r5h
14 R z Root depth and density on banits
�.>
(no visible roots 0`dense roots throw bout max points) f
Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production
15 0 5 0
.. (substantial impact.,O;;no evidence—max_pomts r.. . . ,<..,. 3
Presence:of nfile pool/r pple pool complexes , 0 3 0 5`< 0 6
�6 y H (no nfl]es/ripple's or pools 0 well developed max points)z
H i-ltat complexity = 0 6 0 6- D 6
17 (little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied liabitats max points)
�( LL18 Canopy coverage over streambe8
(no shadm ve etation=0 continuous canoe —'max points) 0 5 0 5 y 0 3 t
19 _ Substrate embeddedness �
�.
NA rr 0 4D �f (deeply embedded..0;loose stnicture.r max.):
rW ..�.
20 Presence of stream mvertebrate5(see p""age 4)
no evidence 0,common numerous types-max points) s 0 4 0 5'• 0 5
`21 Presence of amphibians 0 4 0 4 0 4 3
no evidence-0,common,numerous types"...max points)
Pr'esence offish , x
O ."22
no evidence "0,common,numerous Types max points)
4 0 4 0
Evidence of,wildlife use
23 0 6 0 5 0 5
t (no evidence 0,abundant evidence max points) LA
vc 3 v ( a r ,rxt, F
,+ a TotalxPomts Possible 3 r� s 00 ]VD3 r 1DDkg
k. Jl✓ A - `$& ✓� y
TOTAL SCORE (alto enter on first a ej
t> i i3s a3 6� 4� P b ,r ',✓s. :s -uj t°l� ��'," '
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

---..---� __............._ __._.__.-._ ____....._...._. __..._......_._._._.-__._---
USACE AID# __ DWQ# Site#�(indicate on attached map)
------ ;�„ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: 1`rGG17o f/ 2.Evaluator's name: �, 2�''1 O��z
3.Date of evaluation: �( o�� 4.Time of evaluation: 1
Y
5.Name of stream: (, p P_� U&r, 6.River basin: as7 L"."s -Pee -Dec Q1 yC-r
7.Approximate drainage area: rns 2 8.Stream order: 2�L (Topo l_r�t 50d)
9.Length of reach evaluated: N IZ 00 J f,f 10.County: /J,
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): )b*O• 1 JQ 9 j IV If Longitude(ex.—77.556611):
Method location determined(circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map Identifying streams)location):
�lIr6 4-hYot. n►(j - alrrn / UT b U-T jy Qer�r(tes 21yfX / a((e-ss Y)u. �eddtes - DsIgprru Lr�.
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: Sin _ 7
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 (I-IV) Q�
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point?(!P NO If yes,estimate the water surface area: .l a cA.Y-
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (5)NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial %Agricultural
DO %Forested _%Cleared/Logged _%Other( )
22.Bankfull width: S� 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank):
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to.4%) _Moderate(4 to 101/6) Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends 7-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. t/ LI
Total Score (from reverse): g7 Comments: Hie-ill ouatau LU"a
Evaluator's Signature /IA, Q/I4driAd4,0 Date C'0/�.��6�
This channel evaluation form is intended to be uAd only as a guide to assist landowners anenvironmental 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.
1

i
^r
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCORES-;
<.
a
Coacta1 dmon n _
lfountam
1 P`resence,of flow%persrstent pools jin stream -
t
no flow or`saturation—0` stron flow-max` oints)-'
p
2 Evidence of past human alteration:;
0 6'` 0 5 0 S
(extensive alteration=0,no alteration max points)
Riparian zone
` ' 3 (no bdffer-'0 Conti uous wide buffe ;` 0
s g r max pomts)�
`, Evidence`of nutrient or chemical discliarges
_ (extensive discharges'=0,no disc har�es inaat points)
0 5
ray 5 ,;Ground�►at.0 discbarge 3
. (no disc liar e 0 springs seeps,R"wetlands,etc ='max 'oints) `M 0 3" 0 4 0 4
Presence_of adjacent floodplain ,
6 y� (no floodplain .0;extensive, oodplain—max pbits)',;. ,..
xis - Entrenchment/floodplam,access
4
F
(deep}` entrenched.=0;frequentfloodn max poin"ts) 0 5'• 0 `l ` 0 2 :,e'.....
aU.�a� :8 ;' Presence of adJacent wetlands ,� �
(noetlands�="0ar `e adjacent'i etlands . max points}„ 0 6° 0 4 0 2
9 than sinuosity
(extensive chanrielization , 0,natural meander-y'inax points
0 5` - 0 4 '• 0 3 2
L )
f Sediment input
10 0`
0 5 0 4
(extens�Ye deposition 0 little'"or no sediment—max 0mis8 g 3
Size&diversity of channel bed"substrate
me;homogenous-0 large,dlverse's�zes max points) ��� �`
12 ,Evidence of ebannel mcislon o wldemng
�+ ,(deeply nicised. .0;stable'bed&banks mail oints'' 0 5 0 ;0 5
al 13 Presence of ma,or^bank failures
�,,,i x {severe eros�oo=0,no'eros�on;stable b"auks ..max points) :: 0 �5;P w x0 , 5 ;0 5 L-1
�;� Root dept�`,and density on banks . >� � �'
� 4
(no visible roots 0,'dense roots throughout max points) �� 0 3 0 4 0 5
�` 15 ;,Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production 5 `5
(substantial impact evidence 0 0 4 0
' , _16
Pi esenceof riffle'pool/ripple pool complexes f
0(no riffles or pools 0 vye11 developed max points) $, ;0 b
3 0
17 Habitat coplearty
(little or no habitat 0,frequent;varied b'abrtats max points) x,
s 18 ( C11
anopy coverage over streambed 0 5 0 5 0 5
(rto shadin ve etation.=0 continuous canoe `-max oints�
wF.
19 ',Substrate embeddedness ��« ,vi: . ,
r (Jee l embedded a 0;loose structure max)
NA �f 0 A—!
0 4
20 Presence of stream invertebrate`s(see page
0
no evidence ,O;,cbmmon numerous types.-max points)..
4 0 5, 0 3
L7 21 Presence of ainphjbjans
O� (no evidence �0 common numerous 4 " 0 4
- types m_ax points)
22 t Presence of fish
(no evidence �0 common numerous 0 4, 0 4 0 4 3
types max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use
no evidence 099 191, , ints
abundant evidence max po ) 0 4 5
ti 0 5
fin Total Pints Possible a' 1
100
x TOTAL SCORE �al�o ester on f rst pabe) �
* gJ
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

...........-..._--.-.-..---_.___._____._— ----.._ ----___.._......._.______...__........................._....._.___........
__.__.._._._.
USACE AID# `,r _�--�y 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: NCt>O-V 2.Evaluator's name:_Va1(jQzzp 1 p C)df._
3.Date of evaluation:_ 5�,r1�.®5 4.Time of evaluation: 1 1 'Oo a.v )
5.Name of stream:_W. -�o ?RedcilrS (-1V P.t' 6.River basin: yndy lilt - Ver I7te bye'
7.Approximate drainage area: IOr2 ar,rc.5 8.Stream order: 16-1- ( r'ICACt Q-nd 1012Q
9.Length of reach evaluated: Aygm DC �000 4 10.County: 0,I ke.S
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312):-3(a. t 14 1 H L49 Longitude(ex.—77.556611): -St. I S I(n e ig
Method location determined(circle): 0 Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
Ims 4ho*IKOh o d -�rkrvn 16L((c5s bu eedd leS- bsbmrsi Lam
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: S6-V!?. 0.5 be 1 DLO
16.Site conditions at time of visit: uArm IS•F
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters V Water Supply Watershed -1-(I-IV) 11 QW
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? .YES f yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ES O 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (a NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential _%°Commercial _%Industrial %Agricultural
00%Forested _%Cleared/Logged _%Other( )
22.Bankfull width:_ g 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 3
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to.4%) Moderate(4 to 100/o)-=Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Idstructions,for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terr�m,vegetation,stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each chatacteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristic's!'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): Comments: 1<xhQ 11.6 .1 hA Ik)CL-kt;G
Evaluator's Signature Date bI131 DS
This channel evaluation form is intended to bees d 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.
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1\E ltt]Nlj .z ;
CI3ARACTERISTIGS CCO N POIN E
oastal O�edmont IVIountarn yCOR�+ r
1 Presence of flow/persistt pools m stream
no flow or saturation—0;strong flow-max points) 0 5
2
Evidence of past human alteration '
0 0 S fa
(extensive=alteration r 0;no alteration:=max points)-=
x5
3 Riparian lone " 0
f (no buffer 0,contiguous,wide buffer maxr poi n
0 6 0 4 0 5
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges r 0 S` 671,4 0 h
(extensive dischar es=0 no"dischar es—max`points) ,
i
5 = Groundwater d�schar`a *� z 0
r (no discliar a 0 springs,seeps,:wetlands,etc —'maz' oints)
Presence"of adjacent ilo,odplam t
6 (no flood 1pain 0•extensive flood pla'n max points) 0 4 0 4 0 2
3"t Entrenchment/floodplam access,_
(deepl en2r'eriched 1.=0;frequent flood�n max points
8 Presence of ad�aeent wetlands 0 6x' 0 0
(no"wetlands=0,]arQe adjacentwetlands max points) ('
9 Channel sinuosity
Y!(extensive ch6nneliiation.=0;natural meander=maz points) ,.0 ;5. 0 0 3 "
Sed�menf input
(extensive depos�t�on D;little or no sediment="max"points
Size&diversity of channel bed substrate NA*. 0 4 ;`0 LLll
1 —f
(f]ne,`110mogenOUS Dlar e,`(r]VeT30 S]`LCS..,, In'dx O1nt5) ,'t
Evidence of channel meision or widen rig
F (dee ly incised .O;stable'lied&b'anks .'max points`^ f s, 0 �4
O S 0 5 5
,.��� °( evere,eros�orr_-0,no'"erosion;stable banks .max oints) �y
�� �14 Root depth and density on banks ,_
(no visible roots 0,dense rootsthrouehout .max points) 0 0 `lc 0'
L4
"Impact by:1 iculture,; livestock,or timber'production
1S 0 5 0 4 '` 0 5
(substantial impact=0,no evidence-inax points
16 Presence of riffle-pooPION
l/ripple-pool complexes r
E�+ (no nffleslnpple°s or pools . 0,well developed max points) 0 3 0
d 17 m Habitat cO Mplexrty
D 6
(little or no habitat 0;frequent;vaned liab�tats—max points) y
Canopy coyerakV,4et str,`eambedre
(no shadin vegetation=0 continuous°canon max points) 01 5 z 0 S yn 0 5
SubstrgtC embeddedn.ess t J
(deepl'y_embedded . 0 loose structure Max) 0 F+ NAB •
_ 4
20 Presence'of stream invertebrates see page 4)
0 S 'D.5
(no evidence `0,common,numerous types max points) a,
°21 Presence of amphrbians 0 4`' 0 µ0'
4
(no evidence 0;"common,numerous types . max points)
'a Presence of fish
O' 22
fiypes=max points) 0 4 0 4 0 4
W
no evidence=.0,coininon,numerous —
23 Evidence of wildlife
(no evidence 0,abundant evidence max points)
Ea'
oints PosTO
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

USACE AIM,," �- DWQ# Site#S� (indicate on attached map)]
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach underassessment:
1.Applicant's name:• NCDO'T 2.Evaluator's name: IRardarto /Brr1P-
3.Date of evaluation: 4.Time of evaluation:. .a'_ 30 p rm
5.Name of stream: M iv 1PPlid1P.5 6.River basin: lo((.b n -QE'e Dee b\J-f r
7.Approximate drainage area: 2-6 5Cr&S 8.Stream order: d (tiko- ova 1 b Po
9.Length'of reach evaluated:_ &VMY- 10.County:
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): ?Jtn. Ito127-2 Longitude(ex.-77.556611): gl. IxIg4N
Method location determined(circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location.of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying streams)location):
Puns ghrou old k y-m / QCcfSS by 'Redd lPS - 05 1�;;OY_A Q 4.aJVk.
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions:-__ $CL 11L1 CCS hEl ot.y
16.Site conditions at time of visit: S UnlaU , W02- 1, `f 5 I
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries.Habitat ,')
_' rout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18.I1 there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES(9), 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
%Forested _%Cleared/Logged _%Other( 1
22.Bankfull width: J 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 2
24.Channel slope down center of stream:, Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 4%) ✓ Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: ✓ Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions,,}for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,teAin,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
characteristic's 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): Comments: k10�1 ( 116 0A-#-,t 100At rS
Evaluator's Signature t
/^ det
Date ( `�'ps
This channel evaluation form is intended to be 4Wd 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
i
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06103. To Comment,please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET S A V
vy � �»-�-i�� .✓c S¢���i a cr�a��;�� �sir��, yc fi£r^�: ,��•�
3 m5 f
II
TCh' 2 V
C012L
TV'
^iTla•2, .e",es `.�,.� ..E'�.+'r�' t i fK a .a� r �y" �E
lg x+ Presenceof 11ow/persistentpo",ols m strea`rn�����s����
Y.
`.q EYldence off ast<hnman alteratlonf " t ; " s }'r' '�-✓s,`" '✓p, .i0 "'a`
pv, 3, -K ,c," °„�w : i 'k�
(exfenslue alteratlon0,no alteration max points> �� ? �, � 5
�Z�"�vss'ri�z „i, .,,.-K .dT+.t9,ra,— °a .��.4' 'a�` ,s..�.+.
' ^' t sr'� se� lan2o,De�.�.iv,.} �.+ s� `� ''" `'�``� "'a .,aS' I". „�{"&h
� � (no buffer 0,go'nti uous wlde buffer max pomts)� � _� , � NM ORE
e '�' Vlden eofnitrlento cheul>taldisctiar C '`"�»'�xxa '� ","s• `'
-;[} ' � �;. ' x?.+,�`ka .tu, - �.. --rc- c .,r.:�-g �,t;.r- „ ' S"•a�,xrz R.�k � ", J'pA'� Wm
c .' (s*- 'rye" t '?. ar .�.�rtr`;5...vS pe-.r:.
z extenS]Ve1SOhar eS s� 110,disc}]8r eS =rrmaX
skE € ��^ aOUDdl7'ateT�d1S, 41.r�0 _ " �'rxa� "g �", �'fi�^ATc"`•
z ,no rise. ar a :0 s ran s see Swetlands,etc Jr1ax pgmtsp� r �� ,�
6tt � g1' se eAceofadjac ntloodplalllt
�. .*t3 �7 �� ,r'5�,, #' '.. s ',r' 4�,T�P ZJ t •5�'�''" Q /,�',Z r `� �A� � sG
(no,floodp 0,extensive floodp7am maxpomts � �
_ s w z F
t1' ' s � �'I11rCI1ClI111C11t✓ �OOd�lalll`a CC CSS"� �5r� MINES
ryx
gg g Y adz �fi. '.ee.er.?.<z s�,- �'�. n. a- -� .,� _ 8+. a % "s. f+'"'34 -
f y�_-.x�..R.a�'r z" 1v-' k���� '��':�-,a� '. '� ""'� x , Q S �h. n "`4,Od ���,, s6
x z "�" {dee Ientrench a2=v ire u.`ent'floodln
dgS�ra°re,' sf. sty �'a�a" ss�G--�,»,.q,,tY-�a-.�d;:1,"�.- ��"".4;i�3�,at�' �
a j roCSenCEsO a� a`Cf nt Wet alldS "r zyS Sim o- eax
W z�- �� ".t�,. "'" {� :n. •��
33
(no�wetlands;�,,.0,lar. a aid acent wetaands
a is ✓ ..r x ems' "� * s 1 wu f 'f...
� ��Channels�nuo i �� `'x r � �� �� �� "
il
" € fir k f f a r S O a s bOx u 4 '
o. , �-(e- sire channelizatlgn 0 natural mean er g
S._:�''�.' t-' 1S"° "� R'�Ca 2T�,rs.##Fa` .ci .a�+r!x h.:- , s:.
a �edlmeAt]npn �� r �a� i � » '� x` a�� � '
�`*. - g u s' v y a.,'�,i 9 Y :'�iafi ( pyr ffi L
_� (extens edepositlon 0 �ittIear nog eaimeni maxK olnis � � r
SaieBrdlver }ty Of CbanDel`bei�substrate ��'' "`` ' ggi
" yp �x` �'+
{dine homo eno 0 lar e,�i�verse Oomts}
�� chelncisiW or�i�aening
12 a ann m x r
�?� r. ��,,�,„.� {dee 1inc�sedt st) stably tied=&banks�--#max omts��`�r ,�,,�`' 0{ 4,��'�
,gsa�Msms �, �.fi�a ��� �� ���i:F&a�
t,�rr Presence of mayor a k:failur s � �� � x' A
e+rr„ #` ,. �` x � .ah,'`` '.s.aG�` +� r r a —.5 �,ac0 �'-8. ..� a„
severe erosion 0,no erosion;stable banks :malt otnts�r ° � _ �"� � � � S
e*r c*' aax ^' ., r ^^�.s4sr ?..a,max ..ash ova < 'x '
: 14. Ma �RUot ae�tdndz t Onz d�nk5 Qr �xz„ zf
kfa�. f+' �'
a a n0117S1 le 700t5 dens r6b thrOU lit xmax Oli1 S ' rr� «4f y k�
> Im ac b aaracultu a 1lYestocK Ol tlmbCl 7l7D MUM, t e r«�Sa a�T3 w + sa
Pt7 r�'=+,. Yob)�W".E` 7R'yR m�'�'�'s'',�,r$r,r"'Lz�b �✓,•'�',., «. i ,..e ` �r gs: '�` , c. Q
a � u�011X7Stantlal ln] aC�U nQ;�vlC�ene�-� max„ o7n �t z` �� e�
er SeI1CC Of lr C00 Tie 001 COill�ICXCS �Y ut�
- a16 p Pp P P �
r r 'r x � t rt � I��.r � rr
6 :(nO T1 eS�r] .eS+O� 001S U wel de eloped=maX O]ntS 1-a
�"�xs €rs*s a�✓2s� en,r� �r.,wry.,-.�,� �:;-M.ita
�+��,,a� �'w � zs»c ., ,.
-� Habrtat coin lexi}� ,� - ,: t ' ''' `.�f �.,_ .:�,/�. .� _
. s r`3yye •�s '§ ?� a�'� ��i �;^ '`il `f
,� v(i le r no habitat Q,frequent;�arted ha max�pomts}r �w,.
g.
� 0��-coverage� rr �m a `figs N� � �NOR:
� (n0 Sh'ar1m 4ye: Ctd 0I1 n ��COr1))nU�}GanOp ti�a� ntS r,90"-RIS' Ir �'� '� � *�
xr x �, 'fir F
9�» ��. "� 's .� r" �'^.. a<' x .. x �c �' u r
. ° �t Substra a=etnbe�dedne ss ,' �r r ��,�
eesded0�,.loose�stnicttiremax r. a °��1h�y�� 0�gtlxq 3
1. Y- alp d LxSp '� &s< a
.,�.!" 9, s a3 F€z�.•,�ia--'i�- s�.s ^`-, 4,,rra -^ ,,r ,.ra„�r e „'"s ..ar�.va a n ' ag n M 20 Pesen�cofstream nVerAebiates(seeppage 4 c=max we
"1r70 e ldenCRD,''COmT110ni�lU[nCTOUS a ::1Ila?C� 0171tS a� �g�€����*� � �����'���t��� �a 1
�z �' r rem tI70 ev] enCe �1�;COIT11rlOp' t no evyi d�enxc e 0 comPmroesen nnceu mofie rrTooisUtlts 017t s � x
�' ' X � � , NEW,ess __p
✓
a
Evidence of=vildh�e ase � ° Ho
w (no ev1 ence U„abundante��dence rna?C j}olntsj r M1x 5 " �[ "�" �a
�!
4� �,� �„� Va-La,r s' &i,�",t� a�,._ s'*_-_ s r'S: .� 'r�•� 'ai�. '$ "t �' ''r d�.-!�
M '
u ,rye u-.pax r
��� :<-`. m 1tur.,k"Ai'J ",,d".":c��v �.r•��'f"�.�.��.' ��7,� �"u;�� ,3.,a Amka`C' , -mr� &,k ,.. " d�`-?` 4
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

USACE AID# ^` DWQ# Site#5 (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name:__ ?JCDC>� 2.Evaluator's name: ' (QX)dQ7.7Z, J Bode
3.Date of evaluation:_ 11`t `oc; 4.Time of evaluation: 3,00 Pm
5.Name of stream:_l9 Av 1' P-MkeS `91Vf f 6.River basin: �00LVA_Vl —Rcc D7 c 12.1 V
7.Approximate drainage area: I'-- y M t 8.Stream order: �� Tops Z"d Field Vito
9.Length of reach evaluated: kc>Ywx k5C0 IR 10.County: 10I I KeS
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3(o• 1(.o to Co to to Longitude(ex.—77.556611):
Method location determined(circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
bownsbream of "d.uu roan
14.Proposed channel work(if any):
15.Recent weather conditions: SCtme. G_S bd T)(AJ
16.Site conditions at time of visit:_ SuYlv1M MAYmi YIJ F
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
(rout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters —Nutrient Sensitive Waters --water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18.Ii there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? 'ES NO If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USG quad map? ES O 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: ' L%Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
'0 %Forested %Cleared/Logged _%Other
22.Bankfull width: 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 3
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) Gentle(2 to 41/o) _Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,terrain,vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each 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): Comments: H ldn 1-W.1'k4 I,('lA4tAs
Evaluator's Signature- c of(a y(/�Id_ itrt t1 Date (p f 13I05
This channel evaluation form is intended to be uM 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.
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET SAS J
,ll
�w'�yya.��; 4 y k �, ,.,�,:,,.Yrn,��*�, •• ' t ,�-�51`„�,
w1� } �IECO21JGION POTI,T'l? NG.;E��, 9 �..:;
M x ; CI�ARAC ERISTICS � h
.s �#.,' e.,^�_. �M �.`a 4a �..�t'��: :.r�'r� .� I T":�3� �t�s t,�#_ .r^ -�a�,,•�'`��'S�� �9.:�43C>OaSta��x"�` �}�1edmOnt°�ri��&��0117ltalll�a`�`m�' T�vtv.'�"�a't��ry
b'4iPAi y
��r�P���� y�rCSCnCC�orl�,Osw/pers�lstent
r i u z>".:t,r ;Y2, ono flow or saturation 0�SrOn
-�£`w'�t NF^KP .+r^.S" T '^k.b ,..f.- `ara` .MINIM
'? `n q ,x k rs ¢li'
s � Evidence ofpast�buman alteration'sitm s 3 y r r �a -ri r � i
-�;exte lve alteiatlonO,no alterat1011I17aX O1r1tSmY�d6r }r EOJ 0 �
,�g°'S'
xre ``� i i
Ok
fiwtt0 .4� x � �
Eall
{no buffer 0 cont� uous wide buffer max=points) h ,y; � s
ay-'F'" '_ 'Y ��,+ fia''T1: i ev. h�t srk-� ,�,f`✓^`:C k,ig 4 �.� ..:
+xq r~ - JE• :?:"'`xa,
r-1N E xGrouodvater• 1sc71arge �an. r � ?
s
§ .no dlschar ex,0 bs nn s; ee swetlands etc .maX omts � ��� �� �� Q4 I
RlIN
n Mxl?resence of ad scent 1l00�labia `'
t) W l' � �V 3 � �s u
��cMdx'-z" y'"z � ^� a [ ���
� �; (nofloodp5a�n O,�extensivefloodplam� max�p lo]ontS; � 3 �� �����
'�" Ya _ �Entienchmenf%flood lain accessft
v4iar' e + '��� ar ;5
Er �dee ,l entrenched 0�requentloodm max omts} � '
���`� Pi esence of ad a e i wetland51 5 ..�
etlandsadtacent gJandsV max pofn
� ,yy� � � s ���� x ..._,, ,
" .rsEChaIlnehSlnU0S1y Wawa
BOOM
s4j.� ad:?�
�a a k� S
{extensaue channehzatlon t3,atural meander , max Dints 0 a
�.23'
(
? w'
extensive a o.,osltion,, �
11%, �-rcM�':.' f{7Y�.
' t �=Sze&drversit o�c-hangel bea substrate�3 S w z � �
>,' ,m�.�I,�����'��„1] ���� '�-�.�- 3a� �!�� ����•:;'�.`.�v da`"...gi`,��`"�"£,`�;���� �
� � 2ns �deic�ecafcbannensio lden�ng� r � � , � �
�,» 0
EK e s $ (dee Incised O;stablesbed&;banks ma>� Dints ��� x 00.
4 5
$ ' :` ss�'am'. - . +�-n. ,w�°.s..; 4 'u`
►-t! �1'resence of ia�or�ank ailuresi 3
. z t�"r n. vq'�$se�'a"x,ri°r'" °J, �Y 'f. �", +h' t, ,r� ��'� kr t 'e fi
- severereroslon. .. 0 no 1k,
max$om_ts ��� 0� ,5�g y
`ITk` ..l:r >.
"? 3
�m `yi ` �RO,�It deptllRdDd(1 SI Ullt' an�{S. "'`''"s=: ` s` h �s" ems:
z r tx'�����a` �. a; /7
no`�ulsb'le7oots` ,.der�se7oots�throu'hout�,,.
WE MEmpact by gr c�ul' t $��i ev stocl o 'fin pro uctl0n 3 X S�M "�z� a � �
ROOM,s �Y'v�„`��Sll'bStantl2lln aC;—�,F'I]O.�CYIdenCe'.—max OI11tS �U
Yx 'ny¢,-
I�6 Presenceof ifne poo/n[�ple pool complexes
..3.;'s,si3.A y- kFtFt s ,�' ia . �, �„y,x5.�'}'�w`�
- � noSlffleslrl p1CSkOr OOlSa�Orwell deVeloP10-7]]ax olnts) ,
.°` qa 'q'',�`'>'kx M +e<e�:t.. ,�r4 xria�'F
*,t +,-W, b]tat:C0II1pleXlt�*.a - � `�g n ,d r �+✓� � r=-a 1'� `' ,.��._ �' '. ,"�.,F .
tlno habltatt, OfrequentarieIlab�t> e� v c .� � sr w � E� 3 (] a
Amax ointslx r�� r _
"�
l8 xg ,,Ca�nopcoverage fiver s earn r �� F
5
y,�,. �� xS �� r� ,� �� + *�
..,{ shadln �e etanontconftnuous,,cano maxi otnts1,� � ? x �--
i� " � A11KMff,ga % ca' "NC. "a�"'�W $ ,9t'"S`.s"�3 6 xi ..x
&,. '., '� bsate�e3'tlbeddedness * r �' ' �' "° f� n ' � w
p , k �y 'aa. y ,, 3,,�. k � 4� see enbedded0 ls�triicture= F11
�
a ✓s'. ;1.`, ,*rP*r° . �H�'�.- T•F:
esence.0f st ea �1nVer eb,_rates sge2 e 4 } f Y M�- ft
kz
v P v e fit H �� c ✓
� fn�eydencebcommon�,numerous esmax Dints 5 � r �{
typ P � � ..i.�R, - ,�� .w � ,�a-s'.,�r.r^� �.,� 7d „
Oz1� e c � >resences, p �a, � � �
a 5
a* ( n e O,�omrnolin�3S�mUs ots s
�',z ,y.,k,., .� � fir`.-. �zt-- �" .€ .r� ':�C au�
v"i" fY�� .p,esen Ce of llSll :.�Z 7afi� 'a�fi's+E 5�'s�'T a�.s ,x -' ,,f 'x' vS` aS,', '
� �(n ev]dence �3comirlon;nubu5 CSC 771dX�O1ntSp°z v 1
s tt € k
V1dell D, vlldhfe e�? �"� r �- r�, a sx` - ,o5�""'�?r-�q;
fl^6s� Y `
te'Y1CJlCtO
Cz—t)�2,�anleYl(�CnCe .ma7fsp0]nt.Sa >�' €v t'�r�, �i '&r �na
}NW
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

USACE AID# - -� DWQ# Site#LAY(indicate on attached map)
v STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: -(,O-F 2.Evaluator's name:
3.Date of evaluation: �l �7/0.5� 4.Time of evaluation: I II DO Ph{
5.Name of stream: (AT FD 2ec1c)les 6.River basin:_ Pee DEC el vet
7.Approximate drainage area- l�!1 CA Z 8.Stream order: �// - �1e,1C� M T012)
9.Length of reach evaluated: AV oycy- l MCI 10.County: W,
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 5Ie• l U—I S Longitude(ex.-77.556611): — g[- 8go55
Method location determined(circle): (�9) Topo Sheet Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
!Access bV Cia-k -,EAieek
14.Proposed channel work(if any): _
15.Recent weather conditions: 5 v n fi 7 S
16.Site conditions at time of visit: SVn 7��
i
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_bout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed -IV) W
18.Ii 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 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21.Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial . _%Agricultural
1,00 %Forested %Cleared/Logged _%Other( )
22.Bankfull width: Z 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): 1
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) Gentle(2 to 4%) _Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>]0%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous . _Braided channel
Instructioni4or completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,tertaan,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): Comments: 4W) l.lt',t±I. 4 11 YL+Cr.S
Evaluator's Signature k J4 Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be us d 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.
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
r; z Yrr,3.v �°*101,
�� .y".: RsM +m�C STICSeT
f � A _m� � C
`'�qe°' „,,.7 " .. '.'.,.�9' r c=: � u��:- a+F av'` .aR,�•+>.sx.a,aa°a ?h� N o�.,ui t�t•tw">- `^- rF s' r
r:r i Presence of flow/persistent pools m streamr � , �, NO
4b 1;a. � `�c� r s�"h"°�'""�`S*�^"`£'�` �+ ' ^'�"'Y�s.-�«A �'` '� �.• '� '� a'���.^4��� s� � 5 �" x D Zl�r�'�i n. ^� �v$. �"rs^� —
xv�
S d ,,, -- s� r' *+ °? 7Fa':u -
EI'�IaeI1CC O��paSt human alteratloll� " "`��� r��"�*:n�5a�,�+� s sk y ^�•� xKn•�� 7'`��'`,�
(extensive a]terafion, 0,no alteration max omts b
m �
w«„t'"'.^i. �•`�=a.;<:��z,C t �171arlai)ZODC ` �� 0 "•,,.v,,'�`��,,
wal
-
-,,,
r � �C�enceo ut IenOrCh lCaldlscflarges � � x` > � s � `�
�. ,� ,. (extensrve�dtschar es 0 no�dlsc"har es��m.ax omts � �,`���,� � MI � �
� G�rund atel d1SCna1 8�� p �' �� "rr4 �r ?tIle
�Nomm
� gschar a 0 s �m s see"s rvet]ands etc :"max omts a � h � r �� L/
^fa•�'"% ..yx�<,...�. �a rF'} 9' �"' 'So x „L ��"a'. .�-^ .�a,.
� �Presenceofaacentfloodpl „� �� a *�
{po�floodafn - ext ve flood lam max omts�� x � �= Z
Entrenchma t/ loodplaln ac 'nr��� 5 y fc k �,� -
�(dee ] entrenched0frequentfloolm Amax omts ' � r
.7 n r °rc„ r`s-�i..r."':mgw ar4^,1>..,",i:Y� s3 r.' �r• vas a'�
.�=.' t'i rrs:s.G•��; „�„, „..fix:.
� � Presence of ad a,cent wetla ds ^ Me,
x
sad*''v,. "'' J.r. ''• ,' i. 1°m` c,±.r�e. s M 4e�'`.'� .a' :r�' 2` K
„ , ���� �„(no wetlands.'.-Q��ai• egad acent wetlands Amax omts`� ��~����������;�����, �
'o e n
� ��. �-�, extensive channe`llzatign���0 natural meander;:maxi omts t� �������: �.����' ���� .;
IEV Sediment In U�t $ w � „
,E.t..`�" 4� s.+* ta,.'k�.1��� 4 � � ,�`Y Y�����'�S''- t�.3'-�r-'i rk <$1 �� '�yl. 3 �� +�'��0✓C�, hA z e 4
y
3,�(extensi e: eposltlon�0,lltt�le4 r no se�dlmenL.,,�,max;"otnts 4� ,���•�..,,,�� � ; „��,, _
.' NE -to
au. .-�. � ` #� ,' ra���� I
ax 1�CI1Ce Of Chaunelnclsion Or ldn 3 NOE¢ F . '
; + :�kr � dee 7 t�nciSe $-D 'stable ed=&banks maX poui`ts "ITS µrri3 € �3k � Uin ]OT} f�llUrCS � r �{ 5 ,
hHMy (seuereFeros�on Deno eroslor;stableanks�-:maxi omts� �� � � h
�. -�.01
<x.tzO '�
� � (no u�s5 ]esrootst 0 densexroots ihro� bout rraax otnts � r��� c 7
raw¢g vz, Tm aCt r ult relivestoclt`r Imbe'r roductlon �ri�- h ''
�` � bstant11r1] act` D,no ence
pPresence ofrafi]e pool/n 1e oolcom lexes } "
,"' �-chi ' �F" ll„+. '' `r'�^`'` ..µv r.
no riffle h� les or oohs 0�wel� eo ed� max oms r s
�?!u
r� e �•v C "* {3l 'r ar „r.x-
Hab tat com�lexlty
M(httlegorzno ha itat 0,frequent aped habitats max po nts} WI NW i�xz awt � 1�� � � M, r
r=..•�,z�,7 r3+, a� ,,,.�+...2`.�. ,=...,�.YS"? .�r� -,w.,., - - „"^' m�^hww. Y"^` ,"�' acs*€� 4. r.
��e 18 �� Canopy coerage;ove sireambed .� � �� gg ,
(noshadlnvee afi n „0��connuous cans � �# 0- 5 A` � 1� S
r
r��xrr
!.,..1"1 'a3'��� ��.�'�, %1�3:�,e.a.r�sv,,,�.. kz^�a.:z�a. � as �i� xt �a•.,� may,.���.� r�'� �'s�,.� '9 t�&eea;e�i'> �m+-:. r`��,.
ZOO Q ��resenceost-eam mrteb�rates(see page41 Or?
�� � °ss ,�� ''^��'�. a 7 -...�:,.° ��"�s�*� -'�` �-t,•-`�1���!av �.s.�.�,. '"� �. �"^,rO ��l �� �,X`n��'� rS�� ,,•� � £ �'l O
ono eyadence��D;cornmoli,numerUs;types Amax poants� n � wa
t� y �-r� L���' max asp..�'� �e.•s��. Via' -�s•a€�"r� a ae .� "a�>�" -�.eh'� 3 fi�Ft �'� .,.,.-:
Presenceoamphllans � �rn
�_ e= no ev tp om no n mer0us, es�f�In2X OIiffs� Y 1,ME
y'4" i.'�,{;;s r ,�'4` x'" '%'� 5` T ^�r�✓F.rrr
r tea ' Presence of fish xY * yam . u
a�R � dm" �."� yz"cz° , ''r 's a
xax r r{no ev�dence ;x0commonnumerous es max 61ntS � � � a r°
aa-r� z,a. >- A '�' rt=✓a Evidence o{'a. Ildll C USC : � ..,t'•3-z3,,Y•*'r a'': x�` -�' sr.r r xr s%.x. ' 'a. ;,;
e S .c r Sx.?^•.7 `r .,„� r " S
�(np evidence s O,abun8ant evidence^ ..._ .. arrr
�'� ., ,P�� ��''�'�`," �ota►� O.nrt$.�fl$51�,1e`�xv a:'�� �>. r i`�Y� °'¢s�sa,� �� �:1,. �a�''r.� ',,���� �'^ 3 •�5,,,.3�+,�`' � �
'-
� � 5
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

_ ____..__.....__...............___.._.. _.............
_.._..__..._._
�USACE AID# DWQ# Site#-';kl- (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETy
'a
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: NC CY" 2.Evaluator's name: Pand(1_y o Pladc-
3.Date of evaluation: 4.Time of evaluation: (o TX) sm
5.Name of stream: (LJ ko WddlP5 R1\lef 6.River basin: �nd.k i n 'Pee - Dee V-1 W
7.Approximate drainage area: D aGres 8.Stream-order: Lt TOQO arvd ri w)
9.Length of reach evaluated: 10.County: IIPC
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3G. I Ws Longitude(ex.-77.556611):
Method location determined(circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortbo(Aerial)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
14.Proposed channel work(if any)-
15.Recent weather conditions: Sunni !1.Y1.rm q tJ F
16.Site conditions at time of visit:_ J .CCIiYIP m 0,60VP
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_rout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters ✓Water Supply Watershed (I-IV) n W
18.I1 there a pond.or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (0 If yes,estimate the water surface area:
19.DI oes channel appear on USGS quad map? ES NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE )NO
21.Estimated watershed land'use: %Residential _%Commercial _%Industrial _%Agricultural
%Forested _%Cleared/Logged _%Other( )
22.Bankfull width: i 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank): �f
24.Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat(0 to 2%) _Gentle(2 to 4%) ✓Moderate(4 to 10%) _Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instruction's for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location,tedhin,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): Comments:d_(Do rJ m U)&A-•t n
Evaluator's Signature i Date !nl1,30�
This channel evaluation form is intended to be us d 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.
l

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET �A
3es �",�,- a` �4-�'•� Y'1=�"�' ar(."M� .� � �+ y��xwa
aY �.� ''�Za _a.� `ts" ,. ': '' t '�rs,-z � s�v' .',',' �sb �i. ,U,1� 3 i '"d' a-i �.
1� C CTERISICS PaTFRPIN � �� <
sFa;�ks+r�3'2+ y�' „` ',
$t���
MM
���"`��- ; ��x�.Presence o#'1loSv/�"�ers�stent ools�n stream �'
o> .:
flowor saturation 0,s)ron flow max
.; h � s
2 ` vdence of pas#hpman,a]teratton � Or
, ; �gs
.ate " s. a.�- '- i ,�.. -Fc a, �., x
n (extensrve alterations 0,no alteration rgmax of I x, . � w�„WR
L-)
�.�a,,"..- ` ':a �' IN
, . `
DY
s4. d � 'u,.,�i- .,,'a`�;1% � z YO )i r-3
(nobufferuous,Yvldebu#termax po�nts)rt�, �xt;< s +� �44FO z 1�
,,E v�+ ✓ " , ,- a=rs z. .-, Ys- <r x.iF:. -�r a*. r a ��s.-�', r ` .�u moms
r ,
� Euidence ofnunent o chemical dischar e
fi� 'z gv 4� a «a'aa=,+,r`'�h Tr.� �+d3 1 s�9r,"a'�e '�-'v �'#6.twg ,
a�` 'aews� ''"a "" 5`si� ,'f,
s �extenslue d�schar es U,no rllschaT �dX O1ntS �a 6 ��� F� Dr' r�r
Y� .. - x ^dr, a-'fir- . 4
'311ptng� s s Groundavater�disc ar e + ,z i s € ac.-
x ,vim- fist+. ✓ -a ..-
.. a^�t� +t' G" �� *.� rf g ��"pn„„+ta" i' �"' `+:: ,yam
�. --,� a �. .e� z� 'rs r3 'L...� a I`ll 4u, "s IN" +
r3 r $ n0 I$C}la7 a $f� n.
xS rII1 S; eC SxwCt]a dS BZC Amax OmS) c `rs 3
--t � � 1'x se a cn a"ofad a nf��lgod� lain` £��
ON,
.r", 5 '� p s:'S ''� `�'..,� '.
N r r Ǥ -0
: (no fioodpjainv 0,extensive floodplam max points) r a
e �",
Entrenchment/ ood lain acceS , ,� � '� r� d, � y ,
r�' ', `szz`",ss,».z«^�',-r.� -�m`�'a`'M'r-�°' �: �e� .,?a �,' r` 01'%1�e WINES
(dee I entrenched 0 fre .enf#loolmmax om'ts) r � p ,
e*�'"` r� ''°. *,t t x 4a "`"k'r �s a R ..�'- a ,- .3�� :* r +T -.r A s `
a O> Presence of ad�acent,wetlands °� 1,, g
� �%78 ; �t'�4'rY� � O. '�'r
„ (fiowetlands;-0,7arEeadacentwellands ,max olnts� U } i a
.r50:N.
frr• B.✓ �` '� ate*z -• rzsr+�r s-sx4 ,sg n xw a
�� � .�� �< � �„�hann, �S�DU0S1 � s„ „c��c -+zr�� ••d, F+,.
�ta"-`���1�-a��' ��u5;�
extensive channellzatlgn 0 natural meanders max omts� u � W ,A E
fita+'ro. & ° r,�- : +�i g� Sedlrllenl�u►pu „� ft�« ,xT 5";erg
V�,-
(extensipe die ,osition '0 lltt9e or no selmentmax _orris) �� u � ��0
� ,il." 'fi4Slze&di e>rsiOR
t ofsc-hannel bedgsgnUstrate }�
y
,E�'�,„ �I �s�'; � 1
s(fine�)iomo enot�s Olar eiverse'izesmax oasts t �
v.„d o,;z sy.,'ns°k+., wa Y"c{' .A 's,e £' "ate 'irr`'%"` Cdrrs .+.a ,.kr '^ �#ks� ��.a:Nsy, 41
i2 y �� Ev Bence of channel tncipon r den nO r g°� � r
—ll
9� �?:s' b ,., 7.« �*s O aAS!"r
inctseds r0 stable bedE&banlc�k, maxim omts � $ ;# U4;°
i*.}3,+�^ t v "m r ).s`ma's i� }31,.'<r 9.f` �?i sc> m
ON
1 x ' resence oima rbank ail eS a } k psar s� s-
r)� ,r; 7r ^�.,.v i�a„s rx� ,a^�'s�a-W ,.� �� ' f@11 ,€'.ufi:.° v
.�� (severe erOSIOn, Y� n0 erOS10"_,"Stab le_baiiKtj rm ��a M � -5 � � � q�� x 5
nti,�, wr .�sr a� "',
t4 ��� R�Otdepfh a dC SI�O�aVA
�
t � no��slb)eats 0 8ense,r o hrou out "a 4. h max omts z � � 0,�4� fi ��r �p :f
Z11
s-s -"at� �'"�w��s ^g--''..�-,en
't� QImpacfby agriculture; aiv stockor timber production
�x x 0-5 ' �
zrs � x � � '
r �� r5 101 �subs#antral�m ct b; ]oxevlden�ce ma C olnt3 � y� n� £ �� � Y
s,,..g'"- �-^a sP 'ke' z..-^;""'T' ,w
( 16 u� I'resen pe oirlfile p°�q �pl p of co lexes� ��` f + �
VO
RN
^�'a '�,"av'�,'�^4ffi err 3-«:+ - ��'- }��.'}''�+'
\no�rl#I_les7r] p1,es or! opts O�well�develo ed� max 1 '�- ¢" "�=w+g�^m.ae ,bx 9 p k
az � eags �r abltat°c m �CXIx adw`� �,a' `" � «wr5�,� :z 'r"s �,mw, ��WEi�''�,' 8 "��,�xs�
� r .Y(Il l oreno ha ,'tat—0 frequentvaried Habitats—max' o`in�as Lq�eQ, 6�� la (] O ZN
, nay* x „++k"x ;{. u"',. 4r„3T' S? .eu.+,SS .i' '%� .
= sa ' 'Yn'�k:..'z ,.,rt d *r x. rt
— �GaanopyoyeragewoY�ereambed � �� s- i
15
.' (no shaclln" ue elation0 c sinuous canomaxolnisK 0 ml �w
INI
,
r N� - � S nhC� C�DCw r 'N t "
� de e Prne�osream p S S.7I M".�Z
y
'
idn 0m s xrd .�gt0ev e mmon;omues
_
r aR3-mac` UK
S`I+. - ° £✓ whin-ak'.MEE
ON
Y s'
1 a r MEN
�reSQllce�Of'a1r1 tllhl DS # 4y .« � t s k isZ
(no evdence�—O,acornmoltpumerou�s " e��mn sNA
��p 4�� 5 �0� �#
2?� .:;� c Presen CCf Oft"#1S a ' xr '7'v�tc '°;ce r"•1^-� rx`su ,�5.@`' *:'-
"L ry'ix � ^ap`an a'j6 ' ,�' s2 �: � '�'+', ''
apt Via. (no evidence >common,n merousr, es. .max points :�0�4� �
n`.0 xw.„� a�s ^a, -�s- `.e ;,f �"J;:... s{ r f _s
23 xdenCet01)]]dh�eSCME
-
eul�enceO,aabunant evience� matpomtsF) � � �" � �
n �d, ' s `"% w y "'a m",�, a T.
M
Total>s'o] t s,bie s 1,11 11
�-
T�r7��
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

i
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: qZl iirn�.I e1�ujA+ / IA)IIkP�1c� ��txSS Date: 5 1oZIDS
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County:_V01110s
Investigator: PZGndu-vzo 16cde State: PC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ✓ No Community ID: PFO
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No ✓ Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No ✓ Plot ID: tn11 - we.+
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1: �YY1DCt,1Yf15 CGL.�enS1 S _EAC+.y 9. ?0—,;C mua-h ftoy c' _Z tAPL
FACOJ t 10. LiY.IodPMmvi iwlyl-�e T FACIA
3. 3elula _n►gr�,� T FA .I 11- Ace V LLbv1 a vex T f AC
4. LIalAS11VW1:S1Y1Pn " EA L _ 12.
5. FlknollCA- C T 1J1_ 13.
6. FAG 14.
7.A}Inearlunn i11x- erne H FA_ 16.
8 1 663tea I o vi'mi.n c un—,i H FRCt 16.
i J
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). '
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other _Inundated
v/ Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits .
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) ✓ Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: ® (in.) �/ FAC-Neutral Test
Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SceV CDr nbu-+cs �o hydw[T j� as v.u o s stkr�a t L0

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):Zmn dine ! Mtj balm (InE) Drainage Class: WGII G(.yainect
ZS b (e0'/ S1opPS
Taxonomy (Subgroup): 'wnic. Nanludu l+S Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches)' Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
512 _LE y l? 1})6 _ rnanL/&Sbnd l On M�4 SI I+
l
i �
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 y
✓ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors —Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: -�
i
� I
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes� No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes_✓ No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands.Determination Manual)
Project/Site: �Zl lmnrover-tt (1)11kesbm i3vpass Date: 5J2105
Applicant/Owner:_ NCDOT County:_W11keS
Investigator: State: kk
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No_,/ Community ID:p PFO
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes V" No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No ✓ Plot ID: W 2. -we+
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1: S011da 9.
2. tmpcAtens (�C�vPt'iStS _ 4� 10.
3. Hilcxos -u . irnI urn _ Ct 11.
5. FA 13.
6._Nt us FRCW 14.
7.i?olvsyhclntj "05+tcholdeS H FAG 15.
8.hc nk heltum Manda:Enilmk FAW 16.
J
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). �5—$ •/•
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _Inundated
✓ Saturated in Upper 12"
_ No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) ✓ Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) . �/ FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
- Srrr�.tt po+nc�� c�.�e� obseYv��- unrna�tvt�a.tvt.�d ate.-�e��ar1 ��.s t��
capprox I fk dectO
i
I

l
SOILS -
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): &y _'Saroy I oam (enle) Drainage Class: I lY,ll Iris Iy1PT(
Taxonomy (Subgroup): pIC NraLA is )h Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon IMunsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc. �
D kYtY_
1.5 Vt 41 2 Scar U Or
2-S y 512 S E71 mdm dlsihncf 5t 1p clan
5 �l 2 4 (o Mrx rw C9 tS k1 r ci I�,
i
9_l to ID ufZ S 14 y 51 mares dl-fi Re+ CA 01
i
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _Concretions I '
_Histic Epipedon _High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
I _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:
i
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydro'p�hytic Vegetation Present? Yes_j/ No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Within a Wetland? Yes✓ No
Hydric'Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks:
i
I
i

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: 021 1lmt2rnyenrmt,/ WIIkeslxm) &DISS Date:_ 512)D5
Applicant/Owner: NC,DD-[ County: Wi I IC.eS
Investigator: j2I,�1d.n-2_ ,o f Rodp. State: PJC
d
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:W I+ wiZ -cam
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. uv�i�ae.v�h�iPrj QraS�eS _ 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:
HYDROLOGY
Oecorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other _Inundated
_Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No Y��d�Dlo�� observed

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):-eiosi -inf,sar Al loam C pyl E) -Drainage Class: Wr l d.lro is,)ey1
'LS to (oo,t- 5topeS
Taxonomy (Subgroup):Tvpic �QI ud L;IjS Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriation:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
oam
� i
i �
Hydric Soil Indicators: 4
_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:
i
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No_7' Within.a Wetland? Yes_ No ✓
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: 1
� J
�J

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
a
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site:_y,21: I'mpvn erx��/ LA IIk borb i�vpo�� Date: 5I21o5
Applicant/Owner: NMOT County: Wi l Ves
Investigator:_ Vmndana (Rode State: PX
: I
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ✓ No Community ID: PFo
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No_V Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No ,/ Plot ID:_ W3-u,e:f
(explain.on reverse if needed)
I VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.-SM I< n ea ra. T 01�L 9.
2. kmVjkg1s. eap l/I5L5 _4 Fes_ 10.
3. Juhc A:S- el'• s kus FACwt- 11.
4.CQrpinkAcsrrollnta►wA_ , "5 FA-c, 12.
5. Minus setr'('X.\akr' S _ PA0,W 13.
i- 6. k c-f Yu bvt,k m _r EA_ 14.
7• 16.
$• 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL,FACW,or FAC excluding FAC-). 1 00 v.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Fecorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
— Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge
i — Aerial Photographs Prima Indicators:
— Other Inundated
✓Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
— Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
I
Depth of Surface Water: — (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
i
Depth to Free Water In Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: _Q _(in.) FAC-Neutral Test
— Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Small' PoG1C of undiv J WO-11K C ! '(z iv, aecp ) 7)C&t-4elred
- Cappr�x Ib•�•� c���

j
i
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):-Chewy L 1()t M ((IA) Drainage Class:,5oM1t V,� - pmydlu dV6iwe ed
i
Taxonomy (Subgroup):Fj f n►�C ,r�y� _ Confirm Mapped-Type? Yes No I_
Profile Description: _
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
s-1� lD 2-
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:
� f
i
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Within a Wetland? Yes_✓ No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks:
i—I
. I

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: q21 Date: 51Z105
Applicant/Owner: County: L04fs
Investigator: QrindQ2-7,o ! Roar State: NC,
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 Now/ Plot ID: W3 -ur,
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I. smk4 mom. _T O L 9. 10m r- x "ven .'Jt=13 4
2. Lgmcera \UmIrn. H FAC'- 10.
3. V iA-M 5%2- y - - 11.
4JJdt"+h6.S `�D- - - 12.
5, Ace-r Ni�,t'haru.rn T Fmu_ 13.
6. Rumey, rr►snv5 FAC. 14.
7. 1nnpftkcV'\5 6penstS H FACW 15.
8. M�In�lta;llct�rn larrra rx _I QL. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW,or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
_Saturated in Upper 12"
_-No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
N hjdmlog j Dv,)S-rvc

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): CbCunrAa W),m tR% Drainage Class:50 Yp,:,XYiA+ �wflq c rmn'r
Taxonomy (Subgroup):1FIUUoc LwjAj C b\iS+mr rr j21S Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_No
Profile Description: -,
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc. -
o- ---
�I cv C I"Am► I(I 1AIYA
i �
jl
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 j
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Il`J
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydror'hytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Within a Wetland? Yes_ No ✓ -
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks:
j �
i
I ',

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)"
Project/Site: HZJ Improdr?rurA / la)Ilkesboro 3y(xs9 Date:
Applicant/Owner: NG OT County: V )I IVeS
Investigator• WWOLUD I bode State: k)G-
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes _ No Community ID: PSS
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X/ Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No:Z� Plot ID•_ ,-
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1: I m $ei1S Ca+�eY1S tS -4 _ M0 9.
2.-.&an btkCt!5 wKrA le►nstS FAC_0_ 10.
3. e y lam, PL_ 11.
4. f0"Y-fk Sm. 12.
5. yos& M tlmrk;�K (,IPL 13.
6.SM14, r\1 ira oeL 14.
7.
8. -
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). no _ 101, '/-
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits .
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators: .
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ( (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in:) X FAC-Neutral Test
Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
I - .

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):C1tLL)' (,j0, loam ' Drainage Class:-'3r)mx)hrj+ poorly dreL
Taxonomy (Subgroup):FIuUaQuP1n1ic �USiYbr r� _ Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_No
Profile Description: _
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches ' Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
Z- 10 y CL 3 Z toy- -5jls ri r!ororniren S),_�C-,Q I OGSn,
10 `m 3)z 5I141� cat, �1 '
u
Ctfl I ��- Sand -c laq I M
i
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 X Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
_ReducingConditions lat S
_ C�Listed on C'�u.iona� Hydric Sol Is List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
1
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Within a Wetland? Yeses No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Remarks: �
i
r-
I

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands-Determination Manual)
Project/Site:4L1 ImorDyent". / WIII<esl�n� BVTX�SS Date: 5��
Applicant/Owner: CD01 County: L01114tg
Investigator: !C :s� 0,64a State: KY.,
a Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ­1 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:(k)e,+ =Up
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
,- - Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum • Indicator
1. hrwde,rndron +LAikpFera_L F{kC(,l 9.
2.-Am- rwpf4m, _L FAC 10.
3.@Ixrcw atj� _L FAcu 11.
4..(;0rr)us lortda _Z_ EA CIA 12.
5,.klel lan hV5 SP- _H 13.
6. Vu.bus 0-11 .hen IC IS S l PL 14.
7. 15.
�8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW,or FAC excluding FAC-). C) t
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):. Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _Inundated
_Saturated in Upper 12"
_ No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth.to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ FAC-Neutral Test
Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
f�O Hydrolor�� I)bservp .

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):Chewacla ltXip-� C kjq) Drainage Class:_,�pv ,A-)-oj ,paarly CtrnIM
v
Taxonomy (Subgroup):FIuV%j�,�tic _D\jS+roCb V-Pl2t-S Confirm Mapped Type? Ye's_No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc. _
2.5A4ito C-VAM
Lj
� I
I �
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _Concretions j
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: I I
I
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes_ No
Hydric,Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks:
I ,

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
t� (1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
9.
Project/Site: 4Zl Itr►ernyernevt+./mokesborn Lposs Date: 61510E
Applicant/Owner: County:
Investigator:_ Z.'Ia Bock, State: OJC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes_/ No Community ID: FtJ PSS
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No s/ Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No7' Plot ID: W5- WeA
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1: 4x Alava T 05L_ S. ParkhentcCiS_ t,ts Gtu"(la `V BA01
- 2. ' ra se t� - - 10.
3.
4..aP— ra. T F
q ,.. AcW 12.
5. `t" PAC - 13.
6.AOS S y-u1&+rk_ zS FACW 14.
7. CafpInun earofinl na. -S-- FAC. 15.
8. LI y&h-om Sin . S FA-0- 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW,or FAC excluding FAC-). $$ - loo'/-
- Remarks:
h HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
_ No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits .
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
�/ Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 3 (in.) _ Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: _S(in.) V FAC-Neutral Test
Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
S ry- Gl
Docket OT vz+v (, 11y, ti e, d►spevse� -h�� �r a;.� -gar.
1

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):_ -TOP, Qtd (JC, Drainage Class: Tara -lArll Amined
Tvptc tx ltr'lovellts /
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors . Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches), Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast _Structure,etc.
a-3 10 v 3-2 d&g I,0ain
�} 5 y� �1'-! itodr S1t�lu c�lc�_►�
ts low
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol N/ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking
gin 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-_V No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Within a Wetland? Yes- No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
I
' J
� I

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project I Site: Z Date: 51M05
Applicant/Owner._ )DI County: i1kCS
Investigator: itird0.1La / C State: LYC
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: L06 -VP
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.Pr inphyllnm DeJ4ixham N FACU 9.
2.LtrioAer-Amn tullptFera Fh to 10.
3. Nrer ruloviim T F—C 11.
4.Polys+lcHum ncrvs+tchoidts5 _FA(,_ 12.
5.Llndrra be.nZnin FAVV) 13.
6.' {=AC_ 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC axcluding FAC-). /
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _Inundated
_Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: —(in.) Secondary Indicators:
_Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: fin.) Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ FAC-Neutral Test
Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No hovoln observed

SOILS
Map Unit Name (LUdC)
(Series and Phase): WK+hwA-3—urlxn lard CmPleX, Drainage Class:
i
Taxonomy (Subgroup):udorit ml s Confirm Mapped Type?. Yes_No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches)_ Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
00 sJ u �d1/64
r �
4
( I
Hydric Soil Indicators: �.J
Histosol _Concretions F—
Histic Epipedon _High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils I
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) L'
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
i
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Within a Wetland? Yes_ No e� j
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No V
Remarks: `
I

'
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
a
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
I
Project/Site: H21 lmeypyenjul$rf 011kESIPUM J%WSS Date: r
Applicant/Owner: N County: 41 e,
- Investigator: kro a-ZID1 9cde- State: MCI
Do normal circumstances-exist on the site? Yes No P Community ID: APO
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes ✓ No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No �" Plot ID: WC - wcf
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. arnbucos Cn_rna t S FAC to- 9.
2. SnQxx ".a _T 061- 10.
3. APt( ruloYuvy _T FAC 11.
4. 1m pskn5 ea Ff ,w 12.
5,. 13.
6. 14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW,or FAC excluding FAC-). 100- /•
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
F0�ecorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
1•
Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge
+ _ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
_ No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators: .
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated.Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
,� old T � ►m�,nr bc�we cn 2 reads - U"yy-0j,rk� j"&

SOILS
Map Unit Name wdc)
(Series and Phase):LUOf$'he_Lj�S -Urlaan laved Pnmg1P Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup):-UdD,(J-l)PVI-VS Confirm Mapped Type? lies_ No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
2 '
L_
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 Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ✓ . No
Remarks:
1
I
i -i

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
i �
Project/Site: NZI Imp�vent xt ' Iw1i 1 N,Psl�rr, Rv�s Date: 5 131 n5
Applicant/Owner: K7_DDT County: L► I'l Vf'S
Investigator: famoz-zol F, a State: Mt-
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No ✓ Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes ✓ No T Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID: WC -L)
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
T C1KtiI_fI gYyc-55C5 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:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other _Inundated
_Saturated in Upper 12
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits .
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) . _ FAC-Neutral Test
Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No by dml c 33 obser ved.

SOILS
Map Unit Name (tAdC)
(Series and Phase):Uld0f+ )M/A5-Uytnln land PbunpleX Drainage Class:
►—IS•!- slopes .
Taxonomy (Subgroup): u61Dr+hP-1.qkS Confirm Mapped.-Type.? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (_Munsell Moist) AbundancelContrast Structure,etc.
5 y 5 CI -e
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
Hydr'Ohytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ,/ Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes_ No ✓
Hydric S-oils Present? Yes No
Remarks:

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: �JZI -1rn12yzye #nk / Wiikes}oo<m .P\1aiss Date:
Applicant/Owner: �jZZ County: HA n5
Wilke's
- Investigator: bY1& -10 State: K)C
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No_/ Community ID: FDA
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? YesJL No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No V Plot ID: Wc+ p -W&
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Au v,^U,hv u m T _ r-AC_ 9.
2. 1_MpCAk-eY15 r_rAVen7,,� CW 10.
3. .)tunas,s ek'&- C'us H FACLo t- 11.
4. 0-ay ex 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW,or FAC excluding FAC-). RO -loo �•
Remarks:
oo�c�lnc�. In wCA
- It /duvynpin i,.n W 4
HYDROLOGY
ecorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
+ _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
I No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations:. Sediment Deposits .
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test
Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Small drain w" In w e la a �IDGJIVf3 L,t). ' appro� 1 i� d-
J'

SOILS
Map Unit Name (udC)
(Series and Phase):jjdQj(4he"- llY a� laved (' ltX Drainage Class: - ---
Taxonomy (Subgroup): L1ft0bemits Confirm Mapped`,Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
o _4 Inyp_ ► 11 -Zzje prhm1wrot SIIN (Aw,
kLNit 14 1 10 A- 511 ��1 prorfv"M' nt 1 i.
a
i
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: f
i
! i
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampling Point a
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Within a Wetland? Yes, No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks: i
We-Rand,, appearS ic) VVve loam cv-ea d
rn Gu C 1JC✓#-t r1 a l,l.T 1U YGcd�Gtv1,
W��Un )s h�tiu Ixt�` �I v � , lualer kxLcks up (n It�t� al" O-r,d Can i
no lolnV CUCCLIM \v* Wu t�T
1
1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(19.87 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: H7Z 1mpmyensljf-/ 1&wkecy,0v1z, gvrxss Date:
Applicant/Owner: NC.DDT County: WIIV.eS
Investigator:_ QGr1dca-w ! 60AC, State: !�C
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_V_ Plot ID: Wtib—IIQ
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
T' 1. hrnodendron 4ulipi�ercL 'rAqjL 9.
2. Acer rubrum� T FAC 10.
3. WLA, Y m 1hP91Ct' S
4. R�nuncul��s v 0s N 'EAC 12.
61-C-aeroni ,m mauAla um _�L 13.
6.bUUGV�e55nP�1 InA I cn H_ Facu. 14.
�� � 5ke,Ilaria mr-dicu 15.
• 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW,or FAC excluding FAC-). L12)'b
Remarks:
Ares IS lb��cJ + 5FOW pdrjS ar-c ;tId l
HYDROLOGY
Oecorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary In'dicators:
Other _Inundated
_Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
r
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ FAC-Neutral Test
Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No ���dro�o�y observeo1 .

SOILS
Map Unit Name LUdG):
(Series and Phase):�It Or�1 .r c- j jr-&ji v-ri I" Onru-OLOArainage Class: —
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped.Type?-Yes_No
Profile Description: _
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches), Horizon (Munsell Moist) (-Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
- Ih Af 514
i
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:
a
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓� Within a Wetland? Yes_ No_
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks:

9-�
-� DATA FORM
j ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
-' Project]Site:_HZI IrnrLyPr�ts1� / I�1111kPSla�rt� l�+ltr�.ss Date:' at DS
Applicant/Owner:_ K)C 1)OT County: LL)11 V_e5 .
Investigator: I�Zr nd0AZZc7 JS0A ( State: NG
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ✓ No Community ID: INFO
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No ✓ Transect ID:
y Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No ✓ Plot ID: WE -(A)et
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1._�1Qoc ()�ACG, PAC_ 9.
2. crubrldw► _ FAC 10.
3. (A)dpd waydya areo I04 A H CAL 11.
4. Oxvdkvyinzm arlovfPvrn T FAM 12.
5.Sm I I Q.x r�kurvl too l lX. V rAc 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
$• 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). (p u
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY - ...
— Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators: '
Other _Inundated
D,Saturated in Upper 12'
r No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits .
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
- Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit' — (in. Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
) Water-Stained Leaves
D� Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): ChtWOLUa. tbCm (U_A) Drainage Class:spjy�,-)A)M+ poonq d+ralvlC
b-Z/• slopes, +i-et0Cv1 -1 j �(ooded
Taxonomy (Subgroup); Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
0 oyanflic.
�� 3
vi 5Nq silo r x,�v l orr,� ,rn S)lktA ck,��� 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 isted On Local Hydric Soils List
—Reducing Conditions lRisted- on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydro,phytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point
Wetladd Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes_ No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks:

I
' DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
- Project/Site: W 11�fLbDrp Date:
Applicant/Owner:_ MC'ODT County: MWCS
Investigator:_ydrdZZa 18ocu State: ik C
i
k
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes V No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes NoI/ Transect ID:
Is the area a potential-problem area? Yes No n/. Plot ID: W6 -u�D
(explain on reverse if needed)
E
VEGETATION
I Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. IJysn -,NIvak►crK _L FAC. . 9.
2. 4 uexc us a1bo, _L EA-C Lk 10.
3.T1 ex npn e-& - T FAC_ 11.
—' 4. '5milp rohkMtfoItr, V FA-C 12.
I
5. LyroDodlom 0i0s 1.trorn 1+ FAC a- 13.
I
a rboy-eum T _FAe LA 14.
..kix rubvu m 15.
8.Lwioderdron fwipt xcx T BAM,u 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL,FACW, or FAC excluding FAC+ 'Z5 I-
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
' ecorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
i I Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge
`Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _Inundated
_Saturated in Upper 12"
_ No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots'Channels in Upper 12'.' .
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
'-- _ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in:) FAC-Neutral Test
Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No hydrology observed
,_

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):&l_'.WCICAQ Iry m (C LW) Drainage Class:SDry)eLt)Vnt-- Doorl�t {�+ zed
D-Z-/•.slopu l fre ver3{-I.� flooded '
Taxonomy (Subgroup);_FIU��UPrYhC bvt-ytj��r � Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors . Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (_Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
C 16-M
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 ✓ Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Within a Wetland? Yes_ No ✓
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks: 1
Y-�

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
_ Project/Site: NZI I m proyQnu wi- J i i)knsooya l�v�a cS Date: 519 OS
Applicant/Owner: ►)UbOT County: WtlKC3
Investigator: iCtiaoi2�.o �ed2 State: )JC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:Eg-t f pFfl
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical s.ituation)? Yeses/ No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No_�_/ Plot ID: WF
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1: �11YNLUS P(6e S _ EkWt 9.
2. TI f y ac a �_ FfkC" 10.
3 ►r1O'M C11tX-�e'mine- 4 F 11.
4. KC('Y Y u bmm —I EA C 12.
5. Ctire�>L'sc. t� - - 13.
6._�1,1�od�ul erviru-� rnir �� S VJl_ 14.
7. So-tig "\Qy-ck T 06L 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 51 - 1 I 'I
Remarks:
�
HYDROLOGY
— Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
— Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
— No Recorded Data Available — Water Marks
- _ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) — Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
' De th to Saturated Soil: ►n: .
P �(� ) � FAC-Neutral Test
Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
--, �lyd�olo5y �o,rn Seed J Wc�4e� Sees -From lose � sLoPe,

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):_Pafolek snm�j 166ry) CPa D Drainage Class: (AyA dra Infad
Taxonomy (Subgroup):: _�1c Uy_){y 0I od u f}S Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
SIL stogy ,
Y
i
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_Histosol _Concretions
I
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 Hationai Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other(Explain in Remarks) t
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION -J
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes, No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks:
}I
r ,
t_�

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
: (1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
` Project/Site: 41 I&MCtII-Mi- / WI IKfSbDM BqpGtss Dater 5I9 16S
Applicant/Owner: IBC�0� County:
Investigaton-YAUditz2D/Bode 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: l,OF-- to
(explain on reverse if needed)
r
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1:&0dQrteDd(0Y1 MIVIAAS S KlL 9.
2. S LApL 10.
3. 1-i1t10%App-i.4wOl4ultptfera T FAW 11.
4. Pin )s 5; . —� FIFW 12.
5._ 1e.X opo m 13.
6. kMC riAbmm _T PAC" 14.
7• rbo .m 16.
8. K04rrin�n;;il ah�'nitt�� FAM 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are O.BL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). (o
Remarks:
'HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _Inundated -
_Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations- Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
h �
Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
1 �� Nclrul`5y observed.

'. 5
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): PO-Cold srd� O&M
CPaD") Drainage Class: I,U2f11 IlMlried
IS tv ZS • • SLope3
Taxonomy (Subgroup):T�IC Kan hapl ud u l+s Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
i
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, _
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
0 D t -
r
'1,5 \IV- ?13 0" I oaAY\
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 ✓ Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes_ No-I/
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks:
� I
i

DATA FORM
i ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: 44tl I 12mVermAt 1Wllkeslooro Nye'LS Date: Ia5Ii1o`oy)
Applicant/Owner: QC.DOT County: 1.UIIlCe3
Investigator: 81 dda -IU IbQdC State:_ LAC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes_V No Community ID: EM 55
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No ✓ Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No__-y/ Plot ID: Ix)G -We4
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
z
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1I?l Inrn- i>uS .ho. r N —- 9.
2. L'ig(Asirvtvv 54Am AC- 10.
3. nt\0.x YrxlunA1 i)hc_ V r A e- 11.
4._A\nus snaworv-,. _S _FACW 12.
5. So.L>,x "kGm �_ 08L 13.
6.Lu pahruom,'rncc Lttat rn FAC Lo-- 14.
16.
I_• 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are O_BL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC+ - ICXD*
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY ;
Recorded Data (Descri a In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, r Tide Gauge
Aerial Photpgraphs Primary Indicators:
Other _Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
_ No Recorded Data Available — Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in•) Secondary Indicators:
✓ Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Water-Stained Leaves
-` Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: "2 r6"II�(in:) FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
ached U_)&tCLnd Ayen Sca-tJ rcatd vr6aX m idd-u

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): 1&v) fine SUrdy 1 ham Q n E) Drainage Class:_ WfII dral6ed
Taxonomy (Subgroup); "rU�r, Haplud I t ItS Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description: I.�
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (_Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
101 Z ��— 51.F s1 7 _ byu-,A ( dast►►nr� ��IFia ��c>aA
-(.5 yV- 514 5'1q9 519
— _ —� NL qj I j " IIIh
I NC 41 z -1,5_ e 5�(� So,�l EYMULev►t sIl ht_C,IQAI
UW/2Cind I r1Gl u.Sl on
`(aloe dF SUr�d ust�S - to
h �
, i
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
Hydrp.phytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Within a Wetland? Yeses/ No
.Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks:
ti
I
s

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND'DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination.Manual)
Project/Site:- W0e1hDVO $vnrst Dater 5I1t�1o5
Applicant 1 Owner: lWCDOT County: WllkeS
Investigator__Tanda-7_To/'t5odP State: NC
t
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes_ No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No-7— Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No__�L Plot ID: W6 -u.p
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
enirmLsups g.
2. Lori\ce_ra one + V 17AC" 10.
3._'LllriodP►-rlrori.:-{ T_ FACU 11.
4. P.odTehyll�irn ReI+0-ham = 14 Facu 12.
5.�bxa e'kl l y4r\ Y h►�n nC �i v FAC 13.
6: L s+rurn S FAC 14.
7. U mus;n.,ego,ri C�anr, � FACIA 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are O.BL,FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
..HYDROLOGY
,, ecorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _Inundated
_Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12.'
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
—` Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in:) . FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
_ N0 leyduolom ob5trved .

l
SOILS —�
aI
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): IZiun;i e Xalonsj I01m ( nEE Drainage Class:_ Well—drri IvjM
2s�o (c0 / 51o0e5
Taxonomy (Subgroup): T�1V1 r21ud u IiS Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, i__s
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
11 t A 00LA,'
— i
vi
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 V/ Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes_ No ✓
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks:

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project 1Site: qZJ -IVYtbyLUyev e /[U!Ik sk na S< Date:-
Applicant/owner:_Me,DOT County: WftfS
Investigator:—gand0.aao .Igode State: tilC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: REH
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No__-,L Plot ID:t 'I}:, WH; :Ino
(explain on reverse if needed) wt✓k
2 i
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1:Ssi1�X niGr '( _0 9.
2._M��ro.SFea►um Vt�m�ra 3�_ n N Ci 10.
3. 11.
4, 12.
5. 13.
14.
16.
6. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). I OO /•
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY _
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs - Primary Indicators:
Other _Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
✓ Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 2. (in.) _ Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: Q (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
2 ve l ti Sidi 4 " baS!ns - mm DO co o Yse.

i
f
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):?-Ion TIne Drainage Class:_I/JPit drainer 1
ZS 1v&07- S npeS !
Taxonomy (Subgroup): :141( l�,�ie ` Confirm Mapped Type? Yes—No—
Profile -'!
Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
-t�
\
2•S NI ' ln� 311+y (date_
lb _lo��� 5�1 SI
CA
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _Concretions r
_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:
7
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydro'phytic Vegetation Present? Yes__j/ No Is the Sampling Point
Wetlarid Hydrology Present? Yes,� No Within a Wetland? Yeses No
Hydric Soils-Present? Yes%/ No
Remarks: +�
WN �► .VvN 1oc� a.lre Z SepavzAk Qld. : ►-D red
vntnkkIb Sedtrntn+ basI
<�IYti. old golf Course. � bas�►v1.s have same sol1 �
Y

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: NZl ImVn_ VfM1A+ Lt)Ilkst�om t2yp ss Date:_ 51Itolas
Applicant/owner:_-NCDD`f County: WdVes.
Investigator: Varoaz-w /Bode State: NC
t
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_L/ Plot ID:_h1H - tt
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Plhuc bus _L _VANA 9.
2. tt)y-nos. F1Drldr. T FAC:u 10.
3. Eaau arairui&hcL T FACI,I 11.
4,-.Dxe d rtn admcc nft T FAOjA 12.
5.Ilri06cvr�Yun �t�l�pr4'rr� T _ ',U 13.
. i r:n�►�vutm 1" the_ 14.
.yiQlrrnta. 1Q-hfDFnCA _ n_ Ff�CI( 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are O.BL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 1� '
Remarks:
+ HYDROLOGY _
_ .�',ecorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _Inundated
_Saturated in Upper 12"
_ No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
r Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit' (in. Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12
' Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil:. (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map.Unit Name
(Series and Phase):Zm &y_ lorim (Y_nE� Drainage Class:_ I,uP_ll dra
ZS }v Igo• . ->loQes
Taxonomy (Subgroup): T,plc_ Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
-lam z.s 51 14
si
I l
r �
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)
r.
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes_ No_
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks:
_J

DATA FORM
1 ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project lSite:_H21 .Irnl)YN Y-"tk- /Jk)IlkesbpVo Pwnasc Date: 5111105
Applicant/Owner: ki I)C)T � County: WllLb
Investigator: TA_rd« -r State: QC,
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes_I No Community ID: PFO?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No= Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No__V/ Plot ID:_W-C - wP+
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1:1kcP,r ru bYl�m _-T EA C, S.
3.f a,tA,�;-IY im -,I b1P67Sf' 11.
4.Lo,n�cPM. ,R�an►cc, l/ C_ 12.
5-Tomm Ae'16 n Yndteam V FA C 13.
Qcsra _ S upL. 14.
7. 15.
$• 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are O.BL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). J�0 �•
Remarks:
MO� Much V9fkAon fo&v cd In we-�tanc( .
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other ✓ Inundated
-7Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
2 Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12'
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 3 (in.) _ Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: Q (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
a0'/ o� t�ue�tancA is Inunckai-ed 3inches deer
Area IS 5hr,(A)n .� r� r ►�, t�.Sf�,.S �>,t�n .

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): lon ;n . savviu 10am _Drainage Class: �I1p.11 )tnPr
z5-to coo•/- s►opes
Taxonomy (Subgroup): I1pic N4ol Uctu Ifs Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
l ?;
to _ ('nr e�,,/prnnWcjk+ and Glue j I OCA-n
'1� 6U"y� 5�► `1S`1)Z �,� YrVArv/nmr��nrb S►ItiA IGias, 1 J
l
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol —Concretions
Histic Epipedon _High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
f _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
Hydrp,phytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No
Hydric-Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: {
i
, l
�_J

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
i (1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: H21 Impywey-uAt / Wt metboro gyacsS Date: 51 I-1 W5
Applicant/Owner:_l tip'( County: lei Ikes
Investigator: �Oirvia7�o'�'pzo<AP State: pe-
q
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ✓ No Community ID:
1s the site significantly disturbed(Atypical situation)? Yes No ✓ Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No�� Plot ID: INt, ms, wIL
(explain on reverse if needed) LLp
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 POIy.� tc.lhmt A ro-?hrinaldrs 1A _ Wit'_ 9.
2._U"6cknd yt)n ali p i err. _T FAX-Lk 10.
3.rh4I,.L%ara _Z_ CJA 11.
4: m S —� ArC. 12.
5.1`0b11VU15Mi1L11A_1,h-A: 00L S LLPL 13.
.Toxicad rr yen rnrticans V _�C 14.
15.
8• 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are O.BL, FACW,or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
` 6corded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
— Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
— Other _Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
_ No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
— Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
— Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in,) _ Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data '
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in:) FAC-Neutral Test
Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
_-- _ N� hydro�o5� obseYvecl

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): mn ;be j (Rnt) Drainage Class:_ l )E I c�iTi►hP�
7,5 to too•/• Slopes
Taxonomy (Subgroup); 716C Confirm Mapped Type?..Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors . Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
Ct
S1 I-14 CA _
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _Concretions t,
_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 Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Within a Wetland? Yes No--,/
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No= '
Remarks:

r
DATA FORM
_i ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site:_H21 lml2mgfain / Wllkrsbon 6�psS Date: 511-11'05
Applicant/Owner: K1P,DpT County: I )ilk6
Investigator: `,andazw 3ode State:_ NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No ✓ Community ID: PCH
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No ✓ Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No ,/ Plot ID: I&Q - we+
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. w+ 9.
2. , nl,G _L D BL 10.
3. &knus Q� S Fail _ 11.
4.-(uoha 1[A GlIc- R Ob : 12.
6. 1-V, Ol mkpvls capmsls 9FACI.0 13.
6. leliayly �s _ -- 14.
$• 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are O.BL,FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). I - l l�O•l-
Remarks:
J
-HYDROLOGY '.
a _ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
4 — Stream, Lake,or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators: '
_ Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits .
{ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: on.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
• Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: _�_(in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other(Explain in Remarks)
i
Remarks:
Area +s sY+owr1 as o_ .f o►-,d on I,A,S C1 S Topo , Arca 15 rei lc Seel l yv

SOILS
Map Unit Name }
(Series and Phase):Mon -fine ndv (Dam ( 2n- ) Drainage Class: WP,11 d inec(
25 to 1go opes
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Tunic H4 piuej Ib It, Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon jMunsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
loVt- � 12 �LLi Gc�.w
2-5 i
_1 o y� 51 L4 101 ee 519 CpNXv'0N I CU S4I n& 0
_10 ail? gh Iyiy- Lehe P'rorx� c"`f n�_�r sI�J-�r c(ci�s
q-l C tt1�I_ 5`I!R 51to CmLnors./ yorx�r F yif�1 r u I oC�,m I j
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: i
j1
WETLAND DETERMINATION ij
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes %7T No Within a Wetland? Yes vl No
Hydric-Soils Present? Yes e/ No
Remarks:
i �

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: H21 wI1KeS{->0M 8)ROss Date: 51 1-1 I05
Applicant I Owner:_ ►.N,po-f' County: 0101-6
Investigator: '(Z(twlrlwl rr IIW C State: 00
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ✓ No L Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No—v/ Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No�_ Plot ID:-WV -In1P {-
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1: I mpar vis .Mp:in�t.5 —L— FAQ 9.
2. a _� F�c_ 10.
3• T FA01— 11.
4.Toxtcoclerad ter�nS N F}4(°_ 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7• 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are O.BL,FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
. ""HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream,Lake,or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toc O A ..l L.MM (Toa) Drainage Class:- Well ti r-ri i inec(
0-3'/• 51,C)m>. occaslonalty -Ftocded
Taxonomy (Subgroup): 17,1 11C Udi-�JovPtq-I-,� Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth , Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
° sr►r�f 44 SI 1+tu Icl kL -
.�� I o�(� �I 4.� --s►Its :aa.nd, -
9 °I 311 rkd s..t i I c�(�' '
q-Itv - '
o tz
If
i'
+ _lI
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 Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes y/ No
Remarks:
(1
� I

North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
i 2-1 ll rnprovC
Date: 5 I i Project: Latitude:o ° Og ' "N
Evaluator: awe Site: Longitude: $1' 1q• 53', �}
Total Points: Other 3Wearn Sa
Stream is at least intermittent 1 q County: W t 11 e.g.Quad Name' lt)I I ILeSIjQCVDy
if z 19 or perennial if>_30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1_ 2 3
3. In-channel structure:riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1. 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= 0,5
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter Cr5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes-1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= 9•5 )
20 :'.;Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 ."Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22.'crayfish 0 0:5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 67 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
i

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Latitude: "
Date: Jr 02 os Project:WI{�(�S�DrO 55 3is'0$ 5ls N
Evaluator:p Site: Longitude: 181 11 ly ' y i 11
f�Llh nu) 1606C
Total Points: Other ShrC&M
Stream is at least intermittent Z7 5 County: w 1 1CQ 5 e.g.Quad Name:
if>_19 or perennial if>_30 W t lILe3 b�vD I.k
k
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0) 1 2 3
98 Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= 9.S
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 .3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 `2 t�3
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 es=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= 15 )
206,';Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21;;Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.'Crayfiish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

^r
North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
_ v
Date: Pro ect:�Zt lvnpvovet�uviF Latitude: ° '
J107,1o5 t 11J►IkZSlooro Q$ 5$ N
Evaluator: ndaZ� � C Site: Longitude: '61 ® H ' H14 "
Total Points: Other 5vy2Cctm S b
Stream is at feast intermittent 33 County: W I e.g.Quad Name: �J►t kes�ru
if z 19 or perennial if>30 ✓ l
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 .3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
95 Natural levees 0 1. 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal I D
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 .2 3O
Water in channel-d or growingseason
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes=1.5
C,Piology (Subtotal=--5_)
20�.Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21,•.+Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 .5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: 615 � Latitude: 3�' �c� OO if lN)
Evaluator: , Ce Site: Longitude:
Total Points: G Other F-i5h Darin CrecL (SE)
Stream is at least intermittent County: Wjklte J e.g.Quad Name'
if>_19 or perennial if*a 30 wllkeSborU Vie.
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 5- ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
12. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure:riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2) 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
- 9a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0 Yes=3
evidence.
_ a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= 9
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 3
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 .5,> 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal
20 .Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b.Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0) . 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24.Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0. 1 1
26.Macrdbenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
21 1 rnPMVf_Q L4- %_
Date: � o5 Project: fiJtl sboru J t5 Latitude: �° 09 ' 00 9e f�
i
Evaluator: Z l� .e Site: Longitude: % ° 114' 10 a yv
Total Points: Other :ATK`m gF
Stream is at least intermittent .J? County: Wt(k� e.g.Quad Name: wt\�p t
if 2!19 or perennial if>_30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 J 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 . 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1) 2. 3
9a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 .5
_ 12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= IO.5
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphicc features)present? No=0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal=
20.Tibrous roots in channel 3 2) 1 0
21,.,_Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22:-Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24.Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 3
28.Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. �0 0.5 1 1.5
_ J
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 AV=2.0; Other=0
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:
I .

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
14?k krnj>roYenV_4%A'
Date: 513105 Project: A55 Latitude: 34,0 pq I co"N
Evaluator: �Z r� Site: Longitude: v
Total Points: ,� Other' S�rt°�"ti
5
Stream is at least intermittent o County: t�k�s e.g.Quad Name: 1. lft5baro or
-
if z 19 or perennial if>_30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ��.5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
12. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 00
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure:riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3 .
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2
Water in channel--dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 .5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 .5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= I )
20b.Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b.Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 10) 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 1 0 1 2 3
24.Fish 0 0.5 CD 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. CO 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 5�3op5 Project.W�ti t'kzs cos Latitude: 3(q� 0%' 5q "N
Evaluator:Z�hd0.2 Site: Longitude: $1-o 121 q5
Total Points: other Hlllers Cfeek (SH)
Stream is at least intermittent l County
if z 19 or perennial if�30 e.g. Quad Name: W e I�C5 ba7�,,�C
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 2 2 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
,a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 .
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 �3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3,
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1M 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 A2) 3
7. Braided channel ': 0' 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 ) 3
9a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= 10.5'
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 3\
Water in channel--d or growingseason
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0.
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 to.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) ' 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 es=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal
20b.Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 3) 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves W ) 1 -2- 3
24.Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 Ix0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 IUD
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 e1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
I
1

`r
North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
HZI
Date: /a
Project: DJ�J S� Latitude: 3&- pc a faD I\)
io
Evaluator: z aza Site: U-T �!, (M,p6, Longitude: $1° 12 6 2'1
Total Points: Other '
Stream is at least intermittent County I� lJ I, e.g. Quad Name'
if>_19or perennialifZ30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= _) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
15. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 149 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active4rg)flood plain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9a Natural levees ;0- 2 3
10.Headcuts 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1:
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 5
13.Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2
Water in channel--dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0' 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0. 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? N =0 Yes=1.5
C.,-Biology (Subtotal= )
20 '�Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21 ,.Rooted plants in channel 3 2 0
22:'Crayfish 0 0.5 1' 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0. 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 CUD 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 (V 1.5
29 .
.Wetland plants in streambed FAC= 5• FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other==0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 5I3'�� Project: W1 l�esboY>' 5 Latitude: 3(o" OV 51 " N
Evaluator:Rundavo � Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other�kjMJADU CI(.CCL (-cZ)
Stream is at least intermittent �g County: ��tl e.g. Quad Name:
if>_19 or perennial if 2 30 W t I A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 05 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1' 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 . 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hyddc soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes=1.
C. Biology (Subtotal
20b.Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24.Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5) 1 1.5-
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 6.5 1
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 .5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
5"Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
9
2 t m grave
Date: �C�3`0.5 Project: WftC )0DY0 $5 Latitude: 3(00 O$' 5 N
Evaluator: Randa22b / F3odG Site: Longitude:$1 pp of yJ
Total Points: Other S+rearn SIC
Stream is at least intermittent 23 County: WY 1 Y es e. Quad
if:'19 or perennial if 230
9 Name: W t Ike�IDOov, ,
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 C27 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 0 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls CO) 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= 5
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2
Water in channel--dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hyddc soils(redoximorphic features)present? o=0 Yes=1.5
C.,¢iology (Subtotal=
20 ,,Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 'Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.'Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish CO) 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 00 0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28, Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
mco n SOUY(A. of )DACM 12m

North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form; Version.3.1
Date: Project: 7a MPmv�c►V.t Latitude:
51�105 wllkesloom g 0SS 3c9-08# 28"N
Evaluator: � Site: Longitude: $10 of �rro
Total Points: Other SWCCL.ram SL.
Stream is at least intermittent 2®.5 County: Lk)I(k(?S e.9'Quad Name' 0,JC,
if>_19 or perennial if>_30 I l ��
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= R.5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 %e
rl
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 . 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benchesCO-) 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits CO) 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented ED
Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= q".5
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2O 3
Water in channel--d or growingseason
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? o=0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= `�• )
20b.Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 .5 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 3
28.Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC= .5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
mprovt
Date: H`p5 Project: K)I IILf51 D 55 Latitude: 5(00 Olt'
Evaluator:12QY'1Q2-1D/ Site: Longitude: $(o tap' 3(o" N
��
Total Points: Other Moircim n CI sxV-(SM),
Stream is at least intermittent 3 I County: IN I Il�t'S e.g. Quad Name:
if Z 19 or perennial if>_30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= • ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 . 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel . 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway _T 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= 9.5
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 Q
Water in channel-d or growingseason
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 L0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? o=0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= )
20 .Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
J
Date: I y 1 D5 Project: w I I SPA 55 Latitude: ?j6° O� '5-7 N
1
Evaluator: y�a2� �� Site. Longitude: B ID Iqp" JJ
Total Points: Other yQdhn 1e\ver L 5N
Stream is at least intermittent County: w I)u C$ e.g. Quad Name' ;OSbvra
if>_19 or perennial if>_30 '
Absent Weak Moderate Strong
A. Geomor holog (Subtotal= ��.Jr ) 9
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence . 0 C2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees CO) 1. 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 O3
Water in channel-d or growingseason
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 I Cj 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? C.No=0 Yes=1.5
C', Biology (Subtotal= I_)
26ar.,Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
211•,Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
27 "Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.-Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
421Im u� �-
Date: 5 0'5' Project: tS r- -�PUS5atitude: 349�
Evaluator: Site: Longitude: $t° 13r5Zr1 Tv
Total Points: f Other Slf'mm S© upstrcc�m SCa�
Stream is at least intermittent 33,5 County: I_ )
if>_19 or perennial if;!30 " ` _I e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= IL.5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits S1 2 3
95 Natural levees 0 1_ ey 3
10.Headcuts -® 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 rQ 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= ( '5
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 C3
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
1B.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils (redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Ye =1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= 10.
20 .Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
211).Rooted plants in channel ' 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.5 i 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24.Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton ; 0 1 2 3
28.Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 6E0, 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
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
I 2l 1 rnpwve,
Date: 5I��� Project: W11I(C5bovfl Latitude: 3V pq , Z-Z " 0
Evaluator:'7 ��Z2olz�od� Site: Longitude: o
$1 13 �-!Lv tn)
Total Points: Other 5w1 arm S
Stream is at least intermittent I County: �l lkeS -ss
if 19 or perennialif>_30 e.g.Quad Name: (ill �pyp�NL.
t
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= &5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10.Headcuts CO) 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented o=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 3
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features)present? o=0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal
20 -,f ibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 ,Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish CO) 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OR=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
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:
cln met s cLk coin d

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
NZl 1 M L+
Date: Project t� r Latitude: 3(o0
Evaluator: � Jo-zZm Site: Longitude: $j° `3r i3r+
Total Points: Other SATeamOlk-
Stream is at least intermittent �I 5 County:if>_19 or erennial if>_30 S e.g.Quad Name: s rx io
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=___20-) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 a� 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 Q
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided channel ` • 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 2 3
10.Headcuts a1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No l/ Yes_=3-
evidence. �/
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= 15
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2
Water in channel-d or growingseason
Op
16.Leaflitter 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19.Hydric soils (redoximorphiclfeatures)present? I No=0 Ye -
C. Biology (Subtotal= I )
20°.Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.5 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24.Fish 0 0.5 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 2 3
28, Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0. 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
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:
I

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version,3.1
Date: 'S1pi1o5 Project: wtllcesbar� ` S Latitude: 3�° og r 3l 11 N
Evaluator: Site: Longitude: $(° 13r ZS�r Y J
Total Points: Other { 5 R
Stream is at least intermittent County �) ,/
if 2 19 or perennial if>_30 ('t` e.g. Quad Name: (fit Ik�SbwO �
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=-3--) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure:riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 ,2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 1 • 2 3
11.Grade controls .0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented o=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= q
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) :CO 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features)present? o=0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= (�)
20e.Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 1 2 3
24.Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5) 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) CO) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
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:
�c�V�e � �n�l�+�o►oG�t - Se�

r
North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: d Project: 1 Latitude: °
Evaluator: Die ��� Site: Longitude: $10 13,09 rr.1,%J
Total Points: Other lCllltxs Cne. t,(55) (M �n, SFt)
Stream is at least intermittent L County:
J l
if Z 19 or perennial if>_30 '✓ f l�s e.g.Quad Name:wtlkeSlppm,,NL
j
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= �.3 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 <�S>
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 (!V 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2
7. Braided channel 1 2' 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2. 3
- 9 a Natural levees 0 2 3
10.Headcuts 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 <
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13.Second or greater order channel on existing"
USGS or NRCS map or other documented' No=0 Ye�
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= b.J
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19.Hydric soils (redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes
C. Biology (Subtotal= 5 )
20°;Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21,,,Rooted plants in channel 3 ) 2 1 0
22:Crayfish 0 0.5 $ 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1. 2 3
24.Fish 0 0.5 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 3
28.Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
m p,•v,rer�sf
Date: Project: Latitude: St,0 O 2q IQ
Evaluator: hi2zo Ev- Site: Longitude: $l0 12'
Total Points:
Other r n, ST CL-ViW4 am OF S2)
Stream is at least intermittent rl County: t S e.g. Quad Name'
if>_19 or perennial if>_30 /
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure:riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2, 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1; 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
- 9 a Natural levees f o) 1 2 3
10.Headcuts (0. 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 (0.5� 1 15
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 6-.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
i
B. Hydrology Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3;t
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 .3
Water in channel--dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter {1.5) 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 , 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) (.5 ) 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? jCvo=0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal
20°.Fibrous roots in channel 3 ,2) 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish s 0 ,0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians ;0 j 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0,'�0.5 1 1.5
29 E.Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I ro etv
Date: ID 1 O5 Project:VN e cSbom dS5 Latitude: 3(v°09 '2q � N
Evaluator:') a- �� Site: Longitude: W its 55 "W
Total Points: OtherSW-to_m 5U1down5-kea
Stream is at least intermittent qs� County: w t11�CS e.g. Quad Name: k)l1�e51-_),Dm G
if 2 19 or perennial if>_30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 27 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented' No=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal 9.5
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 �3
Water-in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils (redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal
20,•,''Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 :',Booted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.,Grayfish 0 0.5 kri 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24.Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 I0.5 1 1.5 ,
27.Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5'J 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=6.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 7 ro o� Project: W r f5 r S Latitude: 3io° Dl
Evaluator: Site: Longitude: ¢ 0 12,' 13r'1�
Total Points: Other Simann SU UP.Sil-Cc»
Stream is at least intermittent 3 +• County ( I
if>_19 or perennial if>_30 '/�' S e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 120 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 C 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 © 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 ® 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing -
USGS or NRCS map or other documented N �Q Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2
Water in channel--dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 00115, 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes 5
C. Biology (Subtotal= ��•S )
24""'Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21,,.Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22.''Crayfish 0 0.5 1.5
23.Bivalves 1 2 3
24.Fish 0 0.5 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW= .75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
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:
1
I ' ,

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
7. t rntorovea�,
Date: 5 toy o5 Project: �jl�keS�tp 0�5 Latitude: 3(q ZO" N
Evaluator: ' y-'daz-�o /Zode. Site: Longitude:$io jZ, Oq or y3
Total Points:if z 19 or perennial it Other 2QM S�/
Stream is at least intermittent 23� County: t IkeS e.g. Quad Name: I,t)l lve borro , NX
>_30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= /d 6�) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure:riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic Tloodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented o=0 Yes=-3
evidence.
°Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 �J
Water in channel--dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils (redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= )
20b.Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.BivalvesCO) 1 2 3
24.Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae; periphyton 11 , 2 3
28.Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 .5 _1 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
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:
�urce h� ml oav l rx SArivl
I

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
/ 42-1 1 m t2mvfm net
I
Date: Project: O f l ra ass Latitude: 3�0 ' Odt 19 r r N
Evaluator: Site: Longitude: $i IZ, ()oy► o
a�z-La
Total Points: l (La<
v Stream is at least intermittent FJ/J � County Other
if z 19 or erennial if>_30 /Gd�' ( e.g. Quad Name:
t
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong
12. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 r-2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 ' 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No�`(0 J Yes=3
evidence. 0
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= G1
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 3
Water in channel--dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 `-1 1.5
0
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils (redoximorphic features)present? No=.0 Ye =1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= s )
20b'',,Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21-Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22.Crayfish 0' 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24.Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 Cm 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 2 3
28. Iron:oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 CUD 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
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:
15022 U IS yiV1
I

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 5,�p105 Project:.�) )l�keS�pprpNos Latitude: 3� ° 01 1q r
Evaluator:16rd0_1-M &CCIe Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other Tucker Nok UU-1k- ' SUPS-YCO-m 0(
Stream,is at least intermittent 11 County: ''
if,19 or perennial if* 30 7 5 �l-�i1keS e.g. Quad Name: W1tY�SbOrc, dJ(, ss
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1) 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 3�
Water in channel--d or growingseason
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris CO p 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hyd6c soils (redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal
20°.Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 .1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: d i L Project: P Latitude: -r
5`►0�O5 � 11J11kes�ov� ass 3+9 d� ' 3c� tJ
Evaluator: V,'And0ZZ,0 ItCde Site: Longitude: gfj c 12' 03�r
Total Points: Other - -yuin 5 Y
Stream!set least intermittent County I 1
W
if>_19or erennialif>_30 �� l�kes e.g. Quad Name: l�J1lkeSbOro,Nt✓
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 12. ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2). 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits CO) 1 2 3
9a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= ,.s
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 3O
Water in channel-d or growingseason
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils (redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal
20b'Tibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 .'Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.'grayfiish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24.Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 .5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron•oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
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:
I

North Carolina Division of Water(duality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
ll 421 I h 1 yr kJ'kt
Date: ��/ Project: Latitude:
� ��r o cs 3tflQ c +' Zz" N
Evaluator:�o� (� a Site: Longitude: $to It' Z7 " VJ
Total Points: Other Srtfecl+n S 7
Stream is at least intermittent County / J
if z 19 or perennial if*2 30 W t s e.g. Quad Name: �s L
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 13.� ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 'P_ 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented N Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= q.S
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 3
Water in channel--d or growingseason
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0. 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0.5. 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? N - Yes=1.5
C.Biology (Subtotal= !D )
20'-'',,Fibrous roots in channel CW 2 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22:'Crayfish 0 0.5 1.5
23.Bivalves 1 2 3
24.Fish 0 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0: 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 '0:5 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1- 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75;, OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
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:
i
1 � I

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Z M provt?mtn
Date: Project: Latitude: 3610 Dr1 Zq 'rN
Evaluator: 12Cl uzz+, b Site: Longitude: St° ( ' 10'I IN
Total Points: Other S-breo-m SAA
Stream is at least intermittent,2$,5 County: W11��s J.r
if>_19 or erennial if>_30 e.g. Quad Name: WtIkCStpoya�,
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= /:2.�5_) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 __02 3
6. Depositional bars or benches CO 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 .1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a Natural levees 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 .5
13.Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0 Yes-3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= �j
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 1 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 O3
Water in channel--dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? o=0 Yes
C. Biology (Subtotal=
20°.Fibrous roots in channel 3) 2 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 1 2 3
24.Fish 0 .5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 .5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 .5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
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:
v

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
a
1MPnVF_VU_MtJ
Date,; 51111D5 Project: I,clm'e bom 'gylpass Latitude: 3G0 o9 ' yOrr N
Evaluator:lVandazzo /bodC Site: Longitude: $1 I 1 Oql i VV
Total Points: Other _'Areas, SALE
Stream is at least intermittent �G) County: WJke5 Quad Name' lt]lll
if 2 19 or perennial if> e.g.
_30 1 teZ W y-D,( r
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1". Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 ` 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0) 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
98 Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10:Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
U-SGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= Jc-
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2
Water in channel--d or rowin season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0: M 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils (redoximorphic features)present? o=0 Yes=1.5
C.,Biology (Subtotal= �
20":°Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21,:v Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.''trayrish �'0 0.5 1 1.5
23.-Bivalves CO) 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 .5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW= . 5; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
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:
OVlalmleS nDrival

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
zl rn P*vNQ
Date: 5111105 Project: Wit CSbnr0 3ypacs Latitude: 3400 pq ' t,q2,, 0
Evaluator:1�amazio/Eok Site: Longitude: $0 0 C H5 'r
Total Points: Other TULGUr HOU �k (SAC (UP5i'Mam of
Stream is at least intermittent 3 County
W I I keS e.g.Quad Name: w 11��e5bOrD,1JL a nd SJ
if>_19 or erennial if 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=_Lq-) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
12. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel CU 1 2 3
B. Recent alluvial deposits ,0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 3Q
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 .5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils (redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal=
20'.Fibrous roots in channel 31 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 . 2 3
- 24.Fish 0 0.5 C1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
-26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
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:
I

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: q21 Impvode
5 Latitude:11106 Pro) WIlkesbvro gYP�. titd
, &.0 09 ' Lq.SI
Evaluator:?MCIOL 7,W /bode, Site: Longitude:
Total Points: J Other WeCUln OA E>
Stream is at least intermittent ? County: W11
if>_19or erennialif>_30 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 ' 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9'Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0-.76 1 :5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented o=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 3
Water in channel-d or growingseason
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 .5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils (redoximorphic features)present? o=0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= )
20°.Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.8 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 1 2 3
24.Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5) 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
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:
_y QyAa-Ps fvpm SOri r4

r
North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 5`1 D5 Project: � Latitude: 3(g° (0' 14$"N
Evaluator: Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other Stream Spr
Stream is at least intermittent 3I County: �t 1 e.g.Quad Name:
if>_19 or perennial if>_30 I>vt IiCt,5l�eno tJ�.
A. Geomorphology (subtotal= 12.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
) � g
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 !1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 11.5 1
k.
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented' No=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2
Water in channel-d or growingseason
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris E0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? o=.0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= )
200 Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 :,Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22.•,Crayfish 0 .5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 01 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5) 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 .5 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b.Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 16 0 Project: W t�IDS <o _"6 puSS Latitude: 3(.v- W J 3,,N
Evaluator:C&�1 t?- Site: Longitude: $10 0S, 51 " N
Total Points: 2 Other Seam
Stream is at least intermittent County: 1 I'
e.g.Quad Name:
if z 19 or perennial if>_30 t e e S
A. Geomor holog (Subtotal= �20 5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure:riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5. 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13.Second or greater order channel on existing'
USGS or NRCS map or other documented' No� Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B.Hydrology Subtotal= .Jr
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 3
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter TP 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris ooD 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0: 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes T 1.
C.Biology (Subtotal= �� )
20b.Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 1 2 3
24.Fish 0 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 2 3
28.Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0. 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use 0
back side{oaf this form for additional notes.)
�(Lk �t� - 'Spy-)qJ

North Carolina Division'of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3A
i
bn pvoy
Date: rJ' Le'OS Project: �ItV UYO 76yQa, S Latitude: 31,0 i 0' 26 " N
Evaluator: aZZp/gode Site: Longitude: $ie ��1 ' 2_,c
Total Points: Other P� $raxzch ,(5AE!),.
Stream is at least intermittent S County .t
if z 19 or perennial if>_30 �I e.g.Quad Name: j,)l l kCSWYo1 KNC
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal= cZ3 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure:riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel t0 1 2 3 .
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2) 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10.Headcuts - 1 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
f 12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing'
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0 Yes=3
evidence.
I a Man-made ditches are not rated;.see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris CO 0.5 1 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? Ilqo=0 Yes=1.5
C.'$iology (Subtotal
20 :Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 ,Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 51mos Project: `rzl
Latitude: ° +
Evaluator: ndai;Zo�L3od� Site: Longitude: $(C Oq ' Z 1 ++
Total,Points: Other SArearn SAA
Stream is at least intermittent I County: w WCCS e. Quad •Name
ifz19or erennialifz30 9 • IlJtlkesboro� tsG
A. Geomor holog (Subtotal= ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 (2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits Eto
2 3
9a Natural levees 1 2 3
10.Headcuts E1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing*
USGS or NRCS map or other documented' No=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal= J
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 12 3.
Water in channel--dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? J QNo=0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= )
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24.Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75;.OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

4r
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
' . Irn
_ r `1
Date: S Project: Ides Latitude: 3t.1 lo, 3�"
� Duo cJ
Evaluator:�� r d0.1 Site: Longitude: $(o 0q' 2-1 11
Total Points: SA j
Stream is at least intermittent '��,5 County: f Other ad Nam n
if z 1 or perennial if 2:30 t � e.g.Quad Name: r
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 0� 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 CP 2 3
7. Braided'channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9'Natural levees 1 2 3
10.Headcuts diDy 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No Yes=3
evidence.
e Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= -5,,5
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 3
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1. 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 47 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes-1:
C.,$iology (Subtotal= 10 )
20,'.Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21 ",°Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.5 02 1.5 i
23.Bivalves 1 2 3
24.Fish 0 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 L' 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 2 3
28.Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 ,�0 1 1.5
29 0.Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
1
I
li

North Carolina Division'of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
ll
zt Im�rodea�a�
Date: C� p5 Project: IN11,CC.Sbor0 Latitude: 3�° gyp' �itJ
Evaluator: Q�41d0.2'Zo�aed� Site: Longitude:
Total Points: OtherS-hPMrn SAS
Stream is at least intermittent 3315 county: wl\lLeS e.g.Quad Name: Wtl�C2Sboro NC
if;-,19 or perennial if>_30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= Ile Absent Weak Moderate Strong
V. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 U2 . 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 0 2 3
9 a Natural levees T 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented' o=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;.see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 • 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 O
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 J 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes=1.5
C.,Piology (Subtotal= )
20�Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 a Rooted plants in channel 3 2. 1 0
22."crayfish 0) 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 .5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division'of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I m .e.
X
Date: �' I i Project: �4� lg Latitude:
Evaluator: Z Site: Longitude: .310 C ' 31 of iV
e�
Total Points: Other '
Stream is at least intermittent g 5 County:
e.g. Quad Name:
I if 2 19 or perennial if>_31 t �
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 1�I ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 r
2. Sinuosity 0 /6) 2 3
3. In-channel structure:riffle-pool sequence 0 i 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0111 2 3
9'Natural levees 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 6611 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 qp
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No 0 Yes-3t3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2
Water in channel-d 'or growing season 'lJ
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 <!:OT 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 t'1 0.5 1 1.5
19.•Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes.. .5
C.Biology (Subtotal=
20 .Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0;5> 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 1 2 3
24.Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

•r
North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Pct: yZt rr,pYovetx.t.n*
}
, 51�101�?� ro i . Wft-CSbow 151phs S Latitude: 3l9° 2-1 " N
Evaluator:�(JY tdA22o��D Site: Longitude: $)� oQ +'YV
Total Points: Other Skcltarn spa-
Stream is at least intermittent County: w`�!i eS e.9.Quad Name:
if 2:19 or perennial if 30
WtlkeSb�rt�+IJC
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= _J�) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity. ;0 1 2 3
-3. In-channel structure:riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
I 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 r 2 . 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel CO) 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 01 0.5 1 1 1 5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 .5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing'
USGS or NRCS map or other documented' o=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;.see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= 0
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 • 2 3
1.5.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 3i
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes=1.5
C. 5,iology (Subtotal=
20 ''"Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 !' opted plants in channel 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24.Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 5 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 3
28.Iron`oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 (17 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: iaa J� Project: paSS Latitude: 3�� I p� Z-0 K
Evaluator: `` f Site: Longitude: $1 C Li j � W
Total Points: Other �'Am M
Stream is at least intermittent 2 1 County: I ^ 1 (� e.g.Quad Name: L I
if z 19 or perennial if 2 30 VV o (�t t , N
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure:riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10.Headcuts ® 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No Yes-3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;.see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 0 2 3
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris ® 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) -.0 0. 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils (redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes
C. Biology (Subtotal= 10 )
20 .Fibrous roots in channel i" 2 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves Q 1 2 3
24.Fish 0 0. 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 (A.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 C`0 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0" 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
,I ,

°r
North Carolina Division'of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
W
LJZ
r
Date: °5,,u'O� Project: I mpnrret�.GSborc 1 WI B Po's Latitude: 3�� �0
Evaluator: hd0.Z'Lo�L3tY�e Site: Longitude: $)° OCI ' 53 H
Total Points: OtherSWROrn Skt,1 .
Stream is at least intermittent County: Wl\k eS e.g.Quad Name'
if 21,9 or perennial if z 30 �IikCSbo tiro NC
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal 12.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 .1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 ,1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented o=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 3�
Water in channel-drybr growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils.(redoximorphic features)present? 00=0 Yes=1.5
C.,$iology (Subtotal
20 ''Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21,:,,Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24.Fish 0) 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 D.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division'of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
n �117J Irn1.DM%yf mo n 4-
Date I: f l�65- Project: W 1�5�0�0 $ Latitude: 3(90 10' ZO" N
Evaluator: � Site: Longitude: $1° l o' n"N
Total Points: Other SW'earll SAO
Stream is at least intermittent 'J I County '- ` l e.g.Quad Name: I
if z 1.9 or perennial if>_30 W I s �/f
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 1S ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided channel , 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9'Natural levees AD 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0- G) 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 WS) 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 ,�
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No& Yes=3
evidence.
;'Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= Jc
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 3
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? Nor-:0 Yesr
I C.,,Biology (Subtotal= 6.5 )
20;.Fibrous roots in channel 3) 2 1 0
21.:Rooted plants in channel 6 2 1 0
22.'Crayfish 0 421:) 1 1.5 i
23.Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
�Z I
t
Date: � t'6�p � Project: � rQ 4,.55 Latitude: 31v0 1 0' 23"N!_1
Evaluator:e Q 1 Site: Longitude: �`° ,0' ®Zia W
_ I G..K o.�zo
Total Points: f 1�S Other S�'Yf&rn SAP t
Stream 2�is at least intermittent County: t I e.g.Quad Name: I,J 1 J Ls tom,,,l x
if>_19 or perennial if 230 I
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure:riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 U ) 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel ® 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 2 3
11.Grade controls ,QO 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented' No=0 Yes=_3_
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;.see discussions in manual
B.Hydrology Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 • 2
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2
Water in channel--dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) LOP 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils (redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes
C.Biology (Subtotal=��
20 .Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22.Crayfish 0.5
- 23.Bivalves cip 1 2 3
24.Fish 0' 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 .5 1 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) Cl9 0.5 1, 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Sbuxu OF K�drotoay IS (I
J
II

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: /7 �/ Project: W t S a�� Latitude: 3 V
Evaluator: � � � Site: Longitude: g j' i�' 13
rr
- a
Total Points: ° Other I Cdd.ae5 R1VCf (5AQ)
Stream is at least intermittent 5 County: � J e.g.Quad Name:
if 2!19 or perennial if 2 30 I w t ua ;wl I�f$b00Oc 1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= � ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 -1-
3. In-channel structure:riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 �_3'
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2
7. Braided channel <V 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 3
9'Natural levees ® 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0 Yet=3 �
evidence. ��
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 3
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1: 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.•Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes=1.
C, iology (Subtotal
20 Fibrous roots in channel <_31> 2 1 0
21 r+Rooted plants in channel (9) 2 1 0
22:'Crayfish 0 0.5 1 i
r2
23.Bivalves 0 1 3 '
24.Fish 0 0.5 1
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 3
28.Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW==`0 75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
y

wl
North Carolina Division'of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 7 Project: " �i ISba�c S Latitude: 360
Evaluator: ®, Site: I Longitude: $10 �lu list
Total Points: Other Sfrmm SAR
Stream is at least intermittent 3 County ' /
e.g.Quad Name:
if Z.V or perennial if Z 30 i K�S o N
A. Geomor holog (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 1 3
3. In-channel structure:riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 "
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 ® 2 3
7. Braided channel Q 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.
13.Second or greater order channel on existing*
USGS or NRCS map or other documented' No=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel-dry or growing season 0 1 2
16.Leaflitter 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 .1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 YeSIF 1.
C.�fiology (Subtotal=JQ. 5
20R,Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 LRooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 - 0.5 1.5
23.Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
fl 25.Amphibians 0 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 (01 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland.plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
1
C
- i
1
I

North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
ZI Imp rvvevI- n-
Date: 5�\-I b5 Project: U)ft(5bot� 'B Pam= Latitude: 3(9° )O, I(g"m
Evaluator: 'fY-C\&Z-M /gVje, Site: Longitude: �(° ICY zq �J
Total Points: t Other_'�A+re&y-y\ SAS
Stream is at least intermittent County: U)11k2S e.g. Quad Name'
if>_f9or erennialif>_30 Wl\\CC5bDm , NC
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=�) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees CO) 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 1 21 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 C1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 1 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented o=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see
eeldiscussions in manual .
B. Hydrology Subtotal= /.J_
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 3
Water in channel--d or growingseason
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? o=0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal=
20°.Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b.Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 `0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
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:
Sou�c_C. Q hyr�rot�a�i - Sprt+nq

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 7 b� Project: I o Latitude: 5�, I 09 It IIJ
Evaluator: q:z `1 C7 Site: Longitude: $i- (G, q2 Yv
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent Lf County: I,, I Other S}Y'?L�m SA
G
if>_19 or perennial if>_30 1 3• ' I �� e.g.Quad Name: �S �o c
l
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2" 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 CD 2 3
95 Natural levees 1. 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 4 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No=0 �-3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2
Water in channel--d or growingseason
16.Leaflitter 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris ® ;"0, 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes :5
C. Biology (Subtotal
20,:.Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21,,,Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22:•Crayrish 0 0.5 1 1.
23.Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 <io 1 1.5
Y ,
26. Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 Y 1.5
27. Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 12 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 (P. p 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
r ,

North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form; Version.3.1
`1Z1 I rnprnverta vim+ o
Date: 5 `05 Project: Wt�keSborc� 3y, Latitude: 3(9 i o, i o"N
Evaluator:Vavy),aZZol tom Site: Longitude: ��' �D' 514
Total Points: Other SA-repun SAID.
Stream is at least intermittent County: WII1CeS
if>_19 or perennial if>_30 e.g.Quad Name: W t 1 UC 5 bo rro, j3C
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure:riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9'Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10.Headcuts CO) 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented QED
0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal=
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 3O
Water in channel--dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= l )
20 .Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0.'5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
` 27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 3
28.Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
1

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 5I\1105 Project: I t kes�oro 13 QSS Latitude: 3 10° I o' OZ" N
Evaluator:Tavdo=o/ $wc Site: Longitude: $j0 101 551
/
Total Points: OtherSlye0an SAV
Stream is at least intermittent Z County:
if>_1J or perennial if Z 30 e.g.Quad Name: W l U'sbo m, Q G
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=_J1-,5-) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 . 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 . 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented o=0 Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal= S
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 0
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) . 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal=�)
20 .Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
_ Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
s3a r« of h 4drnlnaV 13 a ��rjmq

North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
9
Date: �'� �,b� Project:WjjK(5boro ;Ij S Latitude: .3(,° 1 O 100"IJ
Evaluator: ROndaVtO $ode, Site: '± Longitude: $(o 1 t' 12-11 w
Total Points: Other 3AfP_am JAW
Stream is at least intermittent County: 9 e. Quad Name: wi1kOL>Dm
ifa19or perennialifa30 '
A. Georhor holo (Subtotal= D ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 d 3
3. In-channel structure:riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
`- 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
95 Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented o=0 Yes=3
} evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 �3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 O
Water in channel-d or growingseason
16.Leaflitter C1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris (0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? o=0 Yes=1.5
1 C.Biology (Subtotal
20,„Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 jRcoted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22:•Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 0 2 3
24.Fish 0 D.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
"- 27.Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 _ 2 3
28.Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 10 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
_ Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: !7/O� Project: /J I Latitude: 31s ° 10' 03"N
Evaluator:j�jQ' � Site: Longitude: $t a
Total Points: Other S+rMm
Stream is at least intermittent County ' J
if z 19 or perennial if z 30 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= q 5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 . 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 -2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 ® 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 ® 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel (' 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits _.1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0) 1 • 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 cu> 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No Yes=3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B.Hydrology Subtotal= 8•S
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0.5 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Yes 1
C. Biology (Subtotal=_
20 .Fibrous roots in channel Q 2 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22.Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 1 2 3
24.Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 1 1 1.5.
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 4V 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW.=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
or p)cL--�S �Dm OL
v

North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: l D Project: +I e5 �_ ; Latitude:MIS 3 r= t+ N
Evaluator:b'j, © Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other S-cream 5AZ
Stream is at least intermittent `� County: 9 I
if Z 19 or perennial if z 30 W i �LQS e.g.Quad Name: I I ro G
A. Georhor holo (Subtotal=� ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
15. Continuous bed and bank 0 1M 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 . 3
3. In-channel structure:riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 Q 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
95 Natural levees 1 2 3
10.Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11.Grade controls 0 1 1.5
12.Natural valley or drainageway 6 0.5 1
13.Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented o=0 Yes-3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal
14.Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 3
15.Water in channel and>48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2
Water in channel-dry or growing season
16.Leaflitter 1.5 T 0.5 0
17.Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles(Wrack lines) 0 0. 1 1.5
19.Hydric soils(redoximorphic features)present? No=0 Ye .-1.
C. Biology (Subtotal=
20 .Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21 b.Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22.Crayfish Q 1 1.5
23.Bivalves 1 2 3
24.Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25.Amphibians 0 0. 1 1.5
26.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5> 1 1.5
27.Filamentous algae;periphyton 0 2 3
28.Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW.=0.75; OBL=1.5 SAV=2.0; Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants,Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
So urce or by d t I ock\j "Wn nA

;:' , �,'` `� ,� 1UETLAND RATING WQRKSI-�EET .Fourth Vernon; _ ��
m
Project Name: iJ21 lY)')t7nauP-vrnt W�1kfS4ac�vt� Nearest road: LDS 4Z1
Coun Wll
ty: 1(PR Wetland area: o tq _acres Wetland width: feet We+lavid �
Name of evaluator: 90. O-7-2o P- Date: S 1 2 1 C6 C P Fp-)
Wetland location Adjacent land use(within %Z mile upstream,
upslope,or radius)
on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation &0 %
✓ on perennial stream agriculture,urban/suburban -0 %
on intermittent stream impervious surface I Q
within interstream divide
other:
Dominant vegetation
Soil series Rion Fine Srin(I w l orxm
predominantly organic CI?n.C) 1) Are`r Yubarur i
(humus,muck, or peat) 2) �e a n
�� predominantly mineral 3) 1ncu S cTFws us
(non-sandy)
predominantly sandy Flooding and wetness
Hydraulic factors semipermanently to permanently flooded
steep topography or inundated
ditched or channelized seasonally flooded or inundated
total riparian wetland width>_ 100 ft _ .intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type(select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh_
Swamp forest Bog/fen
;.. Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest X Other SeP2 Ctnd FIverrru
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
weight
R Water storage I x 4.00 = '�
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization o'� x 4.00 = g
r-) T Pollutant removal I r x 5.00 = 5 a
I Low flow augmentation r x 2.00 = _
N Wildlife habitat x 4.00 =
G Aquatic life o1 x 1.00 = d-
j' CY-C 3-Ion/ Ca ucafi car►
'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and>10%nonpoint disturbance within ''/z mile radius.

Project Name: yZl Jmr7�MC"+f IQ►IkP WYD Nearestroad: US q2.1
DY County: W I I US Wetland area 1'�O.Z I acres Wetland width: (v"� feet W2 E(anti 02
C PI^M/ P Fo)
Name of evaluator: ndaZZO f 13octe Date: 5 IZIOS
Wetland location Adjacent land use(within %2 mile upstream,
upslope,or radius)
on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation (o 0 %
✓ on perennial stream agriculture, urban/suburban 30 %
on intermittent stream impervious surface 10 %
within interstream divide
other:
Dominant vegetation
Soil series
predominantly organic CQnc) 1) IrnrxijIens Cc-pffinu
/ (humus, muck, or peat) 2) A-Cer, rLkb► I rn
V predominantly mineral 3)_ A-I n u.s -e rr,._I a+cA
(non-sandy)
predominantly sandy Flooding and wetness
Hydraulic factors semipermanently to permanently flooded
_ steep topography or inundated
✓ ditched or channelized seasonally flooded or inundated
total riparian wetland width>_ 100 ft ✓ intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest ✓ Other RiVe.ri►ne.
�~ *The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
........................................ ........................................................................................................._..............................................._....................................._........_.......................................................................
weight
R Water storage �_ x 4.00 = 4
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization _� x 4.00 = �—
T Pollutant removal x 5.00 = 10
I Low flow augmentation _ I x 2.00 = 2-
N. Wildlife habitat I x 4.00 = y
G Aquatic life R x 1.00 =
I�eCcea�hon/ Eclu(a:h C)n 10
'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and>10%nonpoint disturbance within %2 mile radius.

.�� � � '� j WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET�Fourth,�'Uersio�� ��` ��� ��
' �,.....�. `'�.`..a.w;� ��r�. �-��s��:.t-,;�s' �?➢ �„a::..�a�,.�n� z`��x�-��,,w w, `ay��.: 3"f�^y .c �� �
� 7
Project Name: 121 Imnrt}�yet o - � 1 PSI��sro Nearest road: W HZl
County: 1,Gt Ikes Wetland area: oAS acres Wetland width: q0 feet Wp_-Har-d 3
Name of evaluator: 1Ra ndo ZZDI/ AA(- Date: 2
C PFo)
1 os
Wetland location Adjacent land use(Within %z mile upstream,
upslope,or radius)
on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation q %
on perennial stream agriculture,urban/suburban %
on intermittent stream impervious surface I t) %
within interstream divide
✓ other:_heQd Of IYI�CrYVt1}1ft�.
3h-earn Dominant vegetation
Soil series CC kA)
predominantly organic 1) AInuS Se.ry-ml6Lkf,_
(humus,muck, or peat) 2)
predominantly mineral 3) JrnpcA
(non-sandy)
predominantly sandy Flooding and wetness
Hydraulic factors semipermanently to permanently flooded
steep topography or inundated
ditched or channelized seasonally flooded or inundated
total riparian wetland width>_ 100 ft T-intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type(se)ect one)
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
;. Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
.........................................._........._..._..............._....._.._................................................................._................................_..................................................................._..............................._....................................
'4 weight
R Water storage x 4.00 = 21—
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization I x 4.00 = L4
T Pollutant removal p2 I x 5.00 = 10
I Low flow augmentation x 2.00 = $ 3
N Wildlife habitat g2_ x 4.00 =
G Aquatic life _ x 1.00 =
Re V-mhon/ EduccLh c n L _l_
'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and>10%nonpoint disturbance within '/2 mile radius.

WETLATD,I2ATING WORKSHEETS Fourth Uerston �
_ ...*»�E�.x, .��. .<.._ �€_ra�r�' �•��„�.s:x�`�,i�-�a..",� �rr'xa � ,� �s�. -'�E . �. � ens+ = .w�rr �at�„y
Project Name: q21 Nearest road: LDS y21
County: LO111S,CS Wetland area: g�5acres Wetland width: 35 feet we.+Iand A,
- C PSS)
Name of evaluator: Ra nda ZZO / E061f Date: S 13105
Wetland location Adjacent land use(within 1/z mile upstream,
upslope,or radius)
on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation
- ✓ on perennial stream agriculture,'urban/suburban 20%
on intermittent stream impervious surface 10
within interstream divide'
other:
Dominant vegetation
Soil series Cneu_Yjdct Iactt ► (f A)
predominantly organic 1) SarnbuC oS n.\ar
(humus,muck, or peat) .2 1 m Pak S C&-0e nsiS
predominantly mineral 3) Ros& tYija►-t- TIcw..
(non-sandy)
predominantly sandy Flooding and wetness
Hydraulic factors semipermanently to permanently flooded
✓ steep topography or inundated
ditched or channelized seasonally flooded or inundated
total riparian wetland width>_ 100 ft . —7'--intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type(select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other eG v nyu
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
............_........._.._.......
weight
R Water storage 1 x 4.00 = '�
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization 0 x 4.00 ._ Total S core
T Pollutant removal ' x 5.00 =
I Low flow augmentation o9, x 2.00 = '1 �g
N. Wildlife habitat I x 4.00 = 4
G Aquatic life I x 1.00 1
'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and>10%nonpoint disturbance within %mile radius.
L-1

" � `�'� � WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Vernon '°� � �����
Project Name: HZI I mr 2nvPvu g Is+ /IAMkPSIna,-o Nearest road: us H Z I
County: (iU►(keS Wetland area: o�y acres Wetland width: I I a feet We-NaOct 6
Name of evaluator: Z&3 de. Date: 5 0'
Wetland location Adjacent land use(within 'h mile upstream,
upslope,or radius)
on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation 10 %
on perennial stream agriculture, urban/suburban 20%
on intermittent stream impervious surface In
within interstream divide
other:
Dominant vegetation
Soil series _-To/-t and Udt%
predominantly organic 1) Sc.11x _n1Gra
(humus,muck, or peat) 2) Alms Anru,lairA
predominantly mineral 3) 5chAAa n lrl,-
(non-sandy)
predominantly sandy Flooding and wetness
Hydraulic factors semipermanently to permanently flooded
steep topography or inundated
ditched or channelized seasonally flooded or inundated
total riparian wetland width?: 100 ft intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type(select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other Seep
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
weight
R Water storage x 4.00 =
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization fl x 4.00 = 0
T Pollutant removal I ' x 5.00 = 5
I Low flow augmentation 3 x 2.00 = a�
N Wildlife habitat oZ x 4.00 = $
G Aquatic life _ x 1.00 =
Fdaca.tion/ IRfmaihor.)
'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and>10%nonpoint disturbance within ''/2 mile radius.

q
:Project Name: K21 IYYlpmyeyaka,&/ln)tlkPslaoro Nearest road: US HZI
County: �MeS Wetland area: moo o.o acres Wetland width: II feet We t tcLnd
Name of evaluator: �(l V1dAZZc� �iCY.I Date: 513105 PFo)
Wetland location Adjacent land use(within '/z mile upstream,
up slope,or radius)-
on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation I %
on perennial stream agriculture,urban/suburban 0%
on intermittent stream impervious surface 140 %
within interstream divide
✓ other:
Inle65 C hOtn Dominant vegetation
Soil series lAdor-rh-trkh-Urjmn land
predominantly organic CO ?Lek 1) K k
(humus,muck, or peat) CudC) 2) Acer rli,b nn
predominantly mineral 3) Saws bur u-,, o is Lra-
(non-sandy)
predominantly sandy Flooding and wetness
Hydraulic factors semipermanently to permanently flooded
steep topography or inundated
ditched or channelized seasonally flooded or inundated
total riparian wetland width> 100 ft ✓ intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type(select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
q'. Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other SiormLoA4r r- otepresslon
` *The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
weight
R Water storage I x 4.00 = `�
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization _ 0 x 4.00 = 0
T Pollutant removal 1 x 5.00. = 5 ' I
I Low flow augmentation _0 x 2.00 = 0
N Wildlife habitat 0x 4.00 = 0
G Aquatic life �_ x 1.00
'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and>10%nonpoint disturbance within %mile radius.

WETLAND RATING WORKSFIEET Fourth Version
Project Name: N21 Irnpm&rxjn+ Jl01lkcsloor0 Nearest road: (AS HZI
t�
County: WIlVieS Wetland area: o.� acres Wetland width: -19 feet Wt—tta✓ld D
Name of evaluator: IZndazzo / aod PE")C Date: 5 ��
Wetland location Adjacent land use(within %2 mile upstream,
upslope,or radius)
on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation 5D 0/0
on perennial stream agriculture,urban/suburban Lf 0%
on intermittent stream impervious surface 10
within interstream divide
v other: DISluvband IQndS
C1uc -b ACWIopvxtKf Dominant vegetation
Soil series Udor+he-rts-Urban+ land
predominantly organict°���x 1)Jm n� r pensi5
(humus,muck, or peat) 2) Jttnrtic PUSCUS
ypredominantly mineral 3) GWex 4D.
(non-sandy)
predominantly sandy Flooding and wetness
Hydraulic factors semipermanently to permanently flooded
yC steep topography or inundated
_ditched or channelized _seasonally flooded or inundated
_total riparian wetland width>_ 100 ft ✓ intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type(select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
✓ Headwater forest Cef,110 Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest i Other 1 epr (CIO cd Ay-co_
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
---------- -- ....
weight
R Water storage I x 4.00 = y
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization x 4.00 = O
Pollutant
I
T Pollutant removal I x 5.00 = 5
1 Low flow augmentation Q_ x 2.00 = SZ/
N Wildlife habitat I x 4.00 = w
G Aquatic life Q x 1.00 = Q
Educa-hon/ 9facabon I J
'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and>1 0%nonpoint disturbance within '/2 mile radius.

Y
�d �' � �� WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET�Fourth�ers�o ���� ��
Project Name: J-JZ I (m mvemi Yt t W i Nearest road: S.e..1313. C Off of OC 10
County: W111KPS Wetland area: oj o acres Wetland width: feet We.t ay-d E
Name of evaluator: CPFO)
��ndnzzo / txnde Date: q 5
Wetland location Adjacent land use (within Yz mile upstream,
upslope,or radius)
✓ on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation e1O%
on perennial stream agriculture, urban/suburban %
on intermittent stream impervious surface 10 %
�— within interstream divide
other:
Dominant vegetation
Soil series Che.wae(a l t)arn CC.Ic )
predominantly organic I TIex. CO-
(humus,muck, or peat) 2) nx �det�di��r 0.Yhoz��a
IJ predominantly mineral 3)_lQoc d tYs_;rJ_,(.C( 0.�eo lotfic�,_
(non-sandy)
predominantly sandy Flooding and wetness
Hydraulic factors semipermanently to permanently flooded
steep topography or inundated
ditched or channelized seasonally flooded or inundated
total riparian wetland width>_ 100 ft intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type(select one)
✓ Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
..........................................._......................................_..............................._.............._..............._........................................_...................._........................................................................................................._........
weight
R Water storage x 4.00
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization x 4.00 = '�
T Pollutant removal �_� x 5.00 = 5
I Low flow augmentation _0 x 2.00 = Q l
N. . Wildlife habitat 1 x 4.00 = 4
G Aquatic life _ x 1.00 = o�
'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and>10%nonpoint disturbance within ''/z mile radius.

°' �� ��� � � WETLAND RATING WORT�SHEE,�.T.h���ourth version �����
Project Name: H2.1 (rnp.mye n l sn I- /IR',t l k(>Sl6vv Nearest road: UIM6. M1.ITh \
County: WiIke.S Wetland area: -0 ll acres Wetland width: Meet e 13 yl
Name of evaluator: Pb n(J ZZc7/ l 'IAe' Date: __5(q IDS ( P FM/PFD)
Wetland location Adjacent land use(within % mile upstream,
upslope,or radius)
on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation 1 DO%
_ // on perennial stream agriculture,urban/suburban %
on intermittent stream impervious surface %
within interstream divide
other:
Dominant vegetation
Soil series RICo(et sarYJq l( i-m
predominantly organic (Pc- 1) OpA r
(humus,muck, or peat) 2) c5AA Ix m gr"rti
predominantly mineral 3) A -hy y-►urn Y-M-h
(non-sandy) 'i) JUn&Q e-FnZUS
predominantly sandy Flooding and wetness
Hydraulic factors semipermanently to permanently flooded
steep topography or inundated
_ditched or channelized seasonally flooded or inundated
total riparian wetland width>_ 100 ft intermittently flooded or temporary
- surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type(select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
!'yl Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest x/ Other e verhu
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
weight
R Water storage 1 x 4.00 = 4
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization I x 4.00 = `F
T Pollutant removal I 1 x 5.00 = 5 oZl�
I Low flow augmentation I x 2.00 = 2
N Wildlife habitat 1 x 4.00 = 4
G Aquatic life I x 1.00 =
1�&kCOAor,/ Rtcr-coboas -a s2
'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10%nonpoint disturbance within ''/z mile radius.
i '
� I

�� WETLAND RATING WORI�SHEE'F`Fourth�ers�on' ,� '�.�kk ��-�
r
Y � � �, ',. A '4.•Y .� 6k �L J S9�} � '" �. �" d�' '"c.�' 3z 9'f- ����$6�
Project Name: y21 irnpm4ieY !t.rJ & IKPSboro Nearest road: 111tori r-1 (ipFf Eg Coo f'd)
`ice
County: [0 l ,6 Wetland area: nacres Wetland width: Coq feet WC7Hand 6
- (PEW PASS
Name of evaluator: � lnzrt�J j cx� Date: _5 110 05
Wetland location Adjacent land use(within %2 mile upstream,
upslope,or radius)
on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation ID%
-" ✓ on perennial stream agriculture, urban/suburban 1 O %
on intermittent stream impervious surface 20 %
within interstream divide
other:
Dominant vegetation
Soil series Zor, Fiver. Qrrtrj I cx,_rr►
predominantly organic (f-nF) 1.) HehaYMWS Qv.
(humus,muck, or peat) 2)_A1nus :: e tatty
predominantly mineral 3) EupoJ r rsrvr nin- 'u 4a`h. "
(non-sandy)
predominantly sandy Flooding and wetness
Hydraulic factors semipermanently to permanently flooded
steep topography or inundated
ditched or channelized seasonally flooded or inundated
total riparian wetland width> 100 ft intermittently flooded or temporary
_ surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type(select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh .
Swamp forest Bog/fen
-� Wet flat Ephemeral wetland .
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
................................................................................. _.........................................................................................................................................
weight
R Water storage x 4.00 = LA
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization v2 x 4.00 = 6
T Pollutant removal t x 5.00 = t 0 3�
I Low flow augmentation I x 2.00 = 2.
N Wildlife habitat I x 4.00 =
G Aquatic life _ I x 1.00 =
12ee-rreoubm /EdVcaticVq
'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and>10%nonpoint disturbance within '/2 mile radius.

r WETLAND RATING WORKSHEETS FourtliyUers�o i g
a. .
,Project Name: HZI I nnI2mvPyt o rt+/II)i I VTSb0V0 Nearest road: SSuww+ bri% e,
County: I,O i I K eS Wetland area: oQpacres Wetland width: W feet 1-1
` C PEM)
Name of evaluator: Ra.rt4d 22® f P n,M P_ Date: -
Wetland location Adjacent land use(within %mile upstream,
upslope,or radius)
on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation 9 0 %
on perennial stream agriculture,urban/suburban 10 %
on intermittent stream impervious surface
within interstream divide
other:
Dominant vegetation
Soil series Eton one 5rarejw IMr"
predominantly organic (RnE) 1) �I1CrQ j I ) et
(humus,muck, or peat) 2) O Lu n-�6 ra-
y predominantly mineral 3) u
(non-sandy)
predominantly sandy Flooding and wetness
Hydraulic factors semipermanently to permanently flooded
steep topography or inundated
ditched or channelized seasonally flooded or inundated
total riparian wetland width>_ 100 ft V intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type(select one)
"- Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other Old SPel d sue.n# 5g-sun
- *The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
........................................................................._................................................__.................__................................._....._.__.........__......_...................._..._..............__........__.........._..._......_.........._._.................
weight
R Water storage �_ x 4.00 = '�
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization x 4.00 = 1-Score
T Pollutant removal I x 5.00 = 5
I Low flow augmentation 0 x 2.00 = 0a
N Wildlife habitat I x 4.00 =
G Aquatic life �_ x 1.00 = I
ReCV-eoon/ Ed v c>n _Q_
I 'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and>10%nonpoint disturbance within ''/z mile radius.

� r
- " ��' � 1ZATING �O�SHEETY Feurth Vers�on� � ,�u
WETLAND x
9
Project Name: HZI Im rrnle`Y,[AA-/ IA rlY- Nearest road: Ca+e �cf �cl 01& US L42-1�
' y�ctss
County: Wl I keL Wetland area: o.oa acres Wetland width: Iq feet WtJ r ►
Name of evaluator: may-ela2��f I�nde Date: 51 n C5 C PFO 7)
Wetland location Adjacent land use(within Y2 mile upstream,
ups)ope, or radius)
on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation %
on perennial stream agriculture, urban/suburban l0 %
on intermittent stream impervious surface 10 %
within interstream divide
other:
Dominant vegetation
Soil series Zon'nm wrvi r IDam
predominantly organic R n E) 1) Ar e v' Y-Worn.. xn
(humus,muck, or peat) .2) Li n o dcrdran +Lo i a►�E rc.
✓ predominantly mineral 3) LIGtAS41-iA m Si nne,
(non-sandy)
predominantly sandy Flooding and wetness
Hydraulic factors semipermanently to permanently flooded
V steep topography or inundated
_ditched or channelized V/ seasonally flooded or inundated
total riparian wetland width>_ 100 ft intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh .
Swamp forest Bog/fen
r Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other.
-- *The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
weight '
R. Water storage I x 4.00 = °�
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization o1 x 4.00 =
T Pollutant removal I ' x 5.00 = a
I Low flow augmentation �_ x 2.00 = 2_
N Wildlife habitat 1 x 4.00 = q
G Aquatic life _3 x 1.00 = 3
9ce-y-m5ho, -A—
'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and>10%nonpoint disturbance within ''/z mile radius.

I
� INat
Project Name: HZI Itrnomyeig o h�-- l I�l b ealpm Nearest road: n1d US 1421
County: �I k�eS Wetland area: ��L
I,t) acres Wetland width: 9]_feet
Wet to�brx�l .�
Name of evaluator: . � �� tad e Date:
{ j
Wetland location Adjacent land use(within%mile upstream,
upslope,or radius)
on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation %
-- on perennial stream agriculture,urban/suburban 20%
'on intermittent stream impervious surface %
within interstream_ divide
other:
Dominant vegetation
Soil series Rion flvw--Sti_ve!j loam -
- predominantly organic U&E) 1) Carey, l u.hdA
(humus,muck, or peat) 2) 11m.OMC M P.Q pPxts i S
V"_ predominantly mineral 3) J"cA_A3 effias US
(non-sandy)
predominantly sandy Flooding and wetness
Hydraulic factors semipermanently to permanently flooded
✓ steep topography or inundated
_ditched or channelized seasonally flooded or inundated
total riparian wetland width>_ 100 ft V ,intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type(select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
j Bog forest _ Other Vkd is pprid
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
weight
R Water storage x 4.00 =
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization x 4.00 = 1 l0
T Pollutant removal _ x 5.00. _
I Low flow augmentation I x 2.00 = ? 3
N Wildlife habitat I x 4.00 = `�
G Aquatic life I x 1.00 = �_
gecreabon / E60c0410 , 1 �
!Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and>10%nonpoint disturbance within '/2 mile radius.

;" ""�� ,,s s r WETLAND RATII�G WORKSHEET `Fourth Version�� �`4�s �Q�' x
9
Project Name: H2.1 1m mvPvv rL& LJA2►l�,S Igo ro Nearestroad: 0Inl US L121
County: WO kes Wetland area: D. 12-acres Wetland width: 20 feet W&Iand �
Name of evaluator: `-aV- (_kTZ0 ,/ 6CAP Date: _�_���.05
Wetland location Adjacent land use (within %z mile upstream,
upslope,or radius)
_ on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation 9 0;% _
on perennial stream agriculture, urban/suburban %
on intermittent stream impervious surface %
within interstream divide
other:
Dominant vegetation
Soil series Toccna:ard,,t loam (.To A)
predominantly organic 1)_ IPx Oare�
(humus, muck, or peat) 2) Ucius+rom .SnE'SP_
predominantly mineral 3)_1 m�. �� t�Pe�St 5
(non-sandy)
predominantly sandy Flooding and wetness
Hydraulic factors semipermanently to permanently flooded
I/ steep topography or inundated
ditched or channelized seasonally flooded or inundated
_total riparian wetland width>_ 100 ft ✓ intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland ty a (select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
�'.. Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
. ..
.........................................................................................................._......................................................................................................................................................................._...............
weight
R Water storage I x 4.00 = 4
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization x 4.00 = g
T Pollutant removal I ' x 5.00 = 5
I Low flow augmentation 0 x 2.00 = O
N Wildlife habitat I x 4.00 =
G Aquatic life I x 1.00 = �_
l�ec rudAC)r, /E&LLCCI-1I on 0
'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and>10%nonpoint disturbance within ''/z mile radius.
. I

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MicHAEL F.EASLEY LYNDO DPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 26, 2004
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele WETL4
NC Division of Water Quality NOS/401 GROUP
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1650 MAY U 5 2004
Dear Ms. Van Der Wiele: WA'trt UUALITYSEC77CN
SUBJECT: NEPA/404 Concurrence Meeting for the US 421 Wilkesboro Corridor
Study, Wilkes County, TIP Project U-3468 and US 268/US 421 Business
Corridor Study, TIP Proiect R-616
A merger team meeting is scheduled for June 15, 2004 at 1:00 PM. The purpose
of the meeting is to discuss alternatives to be carried forward for TIP Projects U-3468
and R-616. An agenda detailing the location of this meeting will be forwarded under
separate cover.
Enclosed is information regarding the purpose and need for the project. Please
look over the enclosed materials so that we may discuss your concerns prior to the
June 15 meeting. Should you have questions,my phone number is [phone],
extension 244 and my email address is jmsafron(a,)dot.state.nc.us.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Safron, PE
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
Enclosure
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOTSTATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

3
NEPA/404 MERGER CONCURRENCE POINT #2
ALTERNATIVES TO BE CARRIED FORWARD
FOR DETAILED STUDY
of lAORT11 �q
co
fi p
OF TRANgQ
US 421 WILKESBORO CORRIDOR STUDY
US 268/US 421 BUSINESS CORRIDOR STUDY
WILKES COUNTY
TIP PROJECTS U-3468 & R-0616

TIP Project U-3468
WBS ELEMENT 34954.1.1
State Project 8.1761901
Federal Aid Project NHF-421B(1)
TIP Project R-0616
WBS ELEMENT 34349.1.1
State Project 8.1761701
Federal Aid Project STP-268(4)
Purpose of Today's Meeting
The purpose of today's meeting is to present information regarding alternative corridors
for TIP Projects U-3468 and R-0616. The project team will then decide on alternatives to carry
forward. Preliminary study corridors that are based on functional designs will be presented as a
starting point. The project team will then decide to eliminate or add additional alternatives.
Project Description
TIP Projects U-3468 and R-0616 have been included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program to improve the US 421 corridor and the NC 268/US 421
Business corridor in the vicinity of Wilkesboro and North Wilkesboro, in Wilkes County (see
Figure 1). U-3468 focuses on the section of US Highway 401 from west of NC 16 to NC 268,
and R-0616 focuses on US 401 Business from US 401 Bypass to its intersection with
NC 268/NC 18.
Project Purpose
The Purpose and Need was concurred upon at the merger meeting held for U-3468 and R-0616
on August 15,2002. The Purpose and Need statements are as follows:
' xpeeted fu'ture local and regional vM cularzcongestiori rn£thrs area of Wilkes=
r Cciunty mdreates the need for g panded trarisportatro facilities j '
The purpose of LT3468isto reduce cangeshon, rmprove safety,sand reduce travels
trine forthe 'WA com or�VW he vacir hJ,- f W�ZTcesbory In c ddi Zon R 616 all 3 NMI
s 7 3 33 �.,
Z.
k <alleviate uehrcularcorigestion on ,
z r
s 5 the l&268 anMi
d CIS 421 Business cofridor
At the August 15, 2002 meeting,team members agreed that all subsequent concurrence meetings
for TIP Projects U-3468 and R-616 should be joint meetings.

Project Schedule/Cost .
Citizens' Informational workshops were held for these projects in July 2003 and February
2004.
Right of Way acquisition for U-3468 is currently scheduled for Federal Fiscal Year 2006
and construction is set to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 2009.
Right of Way acquisition for R-616 is currently scheduled for Federal Fiscal Year 2008
and construction is set to.begin in Federal Fiscal Year 2010.
The current estimated total cost for U-3468 is $63,000,000,based on the northern
corridor alternatives. This cost includes $ 11,700,000 for right of way and $ 50,806,000 for
construction.
The current estimated total cost for R-616 is $60,200,000,based on Alternative 1. This
cost includes $ 13,000,000 for right of way and$ 47,000,000 for construction.
Project Alternatives
Several alternatives have been developed in early planning for the project.
U-3468
Northern Option 1 extends from NC 16 to the US 421/NC 268 interchange,north of
existing US 421, approximately 4.3 miles. This study corridor provides interchanges at US 421
Business/SR 1372 and with Alternative Study Corridor 1 of TIP Project R-0616. The yellow line
shows this alternative on the aerial. At the Citizens' Informational Workshop held in July,2003,
NCDOT was informed this alternative did not go far enough to the west of Wilkesboro to
provide an adequate bypass of the commercial development on US 421. It was noted that any
new-location alternative for U-3468 would need to tie back in to US 421 to the west.of NC 16 to
be an adequate bypass. For this reason,NCDOT supports removing Northern Option 1 from the
list of alternatives to be studied in detail.
Northern Option 2 closely follows Northern Option 1 west of SR 1323. It then shifts
northward, allowing for a different interchange configuration at US 421 Business/SR 1372 and
the proposed bypass: This alternative is approximately 4.2 miles. The pink-line shows this
alternative on the aerial. At the Citizens' Informational Workshop held in July, 2003,NCDOT
was informed this alternative, like Northern Option 1, did not go far enough to the west of
Wilkesboro to provide an adequate bypass of the commercial development on US 421. It was
noted that any new-location alternative for U-3468 would need to tie back in to US 421 to the
west of NC 16 to be an adequate bypass. For this reason,NCDOT also supports removing
Northern Option 2 from the list of alternatives to be studied in detail.
2

1 �
Northern Option 3 runs north of Option 1, crossing NC 16 with an interchange and
tying back in to US 421 furthest west of all the alternatives. This alternative was added as a
result of input from the first workshop held in Wilkesboro in July 2003. This alternative is
approximately 5.0 miles. The dark blue line shows this alternative on the aerial.
The Southern Option extends from NC 16, south of existing US 421,to the US 421/NC
268 interchange and is approximately 5.6 miles. The light blue line shows this alternative on the
aerial. This alternative is representative of the Bypass alternative studied for TIP Project R-
2240, described as widening to a 4-lane divided facility with a 46 foot median,US 421 from the
existing four-lane section east of Maple Springs to the existing four-lane section east of NC 268
in Wilkesboro. The Environmental Assessment(EA) for TIP Project R-2240 was completed in
November 1995. The Bypass alternative for R-2240 recommended a new location portion of
US 421 south of the existing facility,between NC 16 and the US 421/NC 268 interchange,the
same corridor as the Southern Option for U-3468. The Bypass alternative was not recommended
based, in part, on the following: 1)4(f) considerations as a result of direct conflicts with the
Johnson Farm Complex—a historic property determined eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places; 2) greater environmental impacts, notably with respect to areas of biotic
importance which included the removal of marginally disturbed forested areas along the new
location segment; 3)more residential and commercial relocations; 4)potential conflicts with the
Montford Stokes site—an archaeological site determined eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places; and 5) greater construction costs based on the substantial amount of earthwork
that would be required along the bypass segment(TIP Project R-2240 EA, 1995). NCDOT
would like to eliminate the Southern Option from alternatives to be carried forward for these
same reasons.
The Improve Existing Facilities alternative would widen the existing US 421 Bypass.
This alternative is approximately 4.4 miles. The teal line shows this alternative on the aerial.
R-616
Alternative 1 extends from US 421-NC 16 to the NC 18-268 intersection. This study
alternative is approximately 4.6 miles. The red line shows this alternative on-the aerial.
Alternative 2 begins at the intersection of US 421 bypass and NC 268 and ends at the
NC 18-268 intersection. This alternative is approximately 3.3 miles. The orange plus red lines
shows this alternative on the aerial.
The Improve Existing Facilities alternative would widen the existing NC 18-268 and
US 421 business corridors. This alternative is approximately 4.6 miles. The green line shows
this alternative on the aerial.
3

ALTEIRNATWE COMPMUSONS
U-3468.
NOTES:
• Some impact totals are not for the full 1000'corridor width. The Northern Option 3 and
Southern Option will likely utilize 300' in right-of-way width within their 1000'corridor,
therefore, acreage impacts and relocatees were divided by 3 to represent right-of-way widths
for these two alternatives (these values are marked with an *asterisk*). The "widen
existing" alternative could possibly utilize the entire 1000'corridor due to the necessity of
frontage/service roads and new grade-separated intersections, therefore no impacts were
divided for this alternative.
• The pink and yellow alternatives are not analyzed below, since these alternatives do not meet
the purpose and need for the project.
• Impacts computed from DWQ-based GIS data.
• The "widen existing" alternative would require NOT tying in R-616 at the intersection of
US 421 and NC 18-268 intersection, meaning only the red alternative for R-616 would work
with the -"widen existing alternative"for U-3468.
WIDEN EXISTING Northern Optlon'3 1_fil"PA 9l OPttoltIt
%
`^@3' �xA 1b F - '� K, 'H`fl 1 $, 1 �.
r US 421 t (Dark b1IIe"1000' (Eighf B1IIe 10t10'
�,.�, r. rya - `£� -t` , v w. ab £. ,,. a
COITI(IOr� , COrrldor) ,
x,. R12141 "
RESIDENTIAL
RELOCATEES 49 35* 19*
BUSINESS RELOCATEES 87 14* 24*
SCHOOLS 0 0 0
CHURCHES 1 2 2
CEMETARIES 0 2 2
NATIONAL REGISTER
LISTED PROPERTIES 0 0 1
ACRES WETLANDS
AFFECTED (NWI) 0 0 0
ACRES WETLANDS
AFFECTED (HYDRIC 16 25* 75*
SOILS)
ACRES HIGH QUALITY
WATER ZONE 0 0 0
ACRES WATER SUPPLY 35 64* ;52
CRITICAL AREAS
STREAM IMPACTS (FT.) 12000 2300* *
LENGTH NEW
LOC.TION(MI.) 0 3.7 2.8
INTERCHANGES 1 2 1
TOTAL LENGTH(MI.) 4.4 5.0 5.6
4

a' 1.
R-616
NOTES:
• Some impact totals are not for the full 1000'corridor width. The Red Alternative land
Orange Alternative 2 will likely utilize 300'in right-of-way width within their 1000'
corridor, therefore, acreage impacts and relocatees were divided by 3 to represent right-of-
way widths for these two alternatives (these values are marked with an *asterisk*). The
"widen existing" alternative could possibly utilize the entire 1000'corridor due to the
necessity of frontage/service roads and new grade-separated intersections, therefore no
impacts were divided for this alternative.
• Impacts computed from DWQ-based GIS data.
WIDEN EXISTING Alternatrve2� � AlternatNe 1
US 421�Bus ess (Orange, 1000' (Red24, 000"corridor)
109
�� $ .9� "
22-
RESIDENTIAL
RELOCATEES 9 56* 78*
BUSINESS RELOCATEES 66 22* 27*
SCHOOLS 1 1 2
CHURCHES 2 1 1
CEMETARIES 2 1 1
NATIONAL REGISTER
LISTED PROPERTIES 0 0 0
ACRES WETLANDS
AFFECTED (NWI) 0 0 0
ACRES WETLANDS
AFFECTED (HYDRIC 1 7* 12*
SOILS)
ACRES HIGH QUALITY
WATER ZONE 0 134* 134*
ACRES WATER SUPPLY 0 0 0
CRITICAL AREAS
STREAM IMPACTS (FT.) 300 315* 665*
LENGTH NEW
LOC.TION(NII.) 0 2.8 4.2
INTERCHANGES 0 1 1
TOTAL LENGTH(MI.) 4.3 3.3 4.6
5

NEPA/404 MERGER CONCURRENCE POINT #2
ALTERNATIVES TO BE CARRIED FORWARD
FOR DETAILED STUDY
WETLANDS/401GROUP
OF jAORTH Cq MAY 0 5 2004
90�- WATER UUALiTY SECTION
y
o z
o
0
OF TRA�S�
US 421 WILKESBORO CORRIDOR STUDY
8
US 268/US 421 BUSINESS CORRIDOR STUDY
WILKES COUNTY
TIP PROJECTS U-3468 & R-0616

Project Schedule/Cost
Citizens' Informational workshops were held for these projects in July 2003 and February
2004.
Right of Way acquisition for U-3468 is currently scheduled for Federal Fiscal Year 2006
and construction is set to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 2009.
Right of Way acquisition for R-616 is currently scheduled for Federal Fiscal Year 2008
and construction is set to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 2010.
The current estimated total cost for'U-3468 is $63,000,000, based on the northern
corridor alternatives. This cost includes $ 11,700,000 for right of way and $ 50,800,000 for
construction.
The current estimated total cost for R-616 is $60,200,000, based on Alternative 1. This
cost includes $ 13,000,000 for right of way and $ 47,000,000 for construction.
Project Alternatives
Several alternatives have been developed in early planning for the project.
U-3468
Northern Option 1 extends from NC 16 to the US 421/NC 268 interchange, north of
existing US 421, approximately 4.3 miles. This study corridor provides interchanges at US 421
Business/SR 1372 and with Alternative Study Corridor 1 of TIP Project R-0616. The yellow line
shows this alternative on the aerial. At the Citizens' Informational Workshop held in July, 2003,
NCDOT was informed this alternative did not go far enough to the west of Wilkesboro to
provide an adequate bypass of the commercial development on US 421. It was noted that any
new-location alternative for U-3468 would need to tie back in to US 421 to the west of NC 16 to
be an adequate bypass. For this reason,NCDOT supports removing Northern Option 1 from the
list of alternatives to be studied in detail.
Northern Option 2 closely follows Northern Option 1 west of SR 1323. It then shifts
northward, allowing for a different interchange configuration at US 421 Business/SR 1372 and
the proposed bypass. This alternative is approximately 4.2 miles. The pink line shows this
alternative on the aerial. At the Citizens' Informational Workshop held in July, 2003,NCDOT
was informed this alternative, like Northern Option 1, did not go far enough to the west of
Wilkesboro to provide an adequate bypass of the commercial development on US 421. It was
noted that any new-location alternative for U-3468 would need to tie back in to US 421 to the
west of NC 16 to be an adequate bypass. For this reason,NCDOT also supports removing
Northern Option 2 from the list of alternatives to be studied in detail.
2

Northern Option 3 runs north of Option 1, crossing NC 16 with an interchange and
tying back in to US 421furthest west of all the alternatives. This alternative was added as a
result of input from the first workshop held in Wilkesboro in July 2003. This alternative is
approximately 4.5 miles. The dark blue line shows this alternative on the aerial.
The Southern Option extends from NC 16, south of existing US 421,to the US 421/NC
268 interchange and is approximately 4.3 miles. The light blue line shows this alternative on the
aerial. This alternative is representative of the Bypass alternative studied for TIP Project R-
2240, described as widening to a 4-lane divided facility with a 46 foot median,US 421 from the
existing four-lane section east of Maple Springs to the existing four-lane section east of NC 268
in Wilkesboro. The Environmental Assessment(EA) for TIP Project R-2240 was completed in
November 1995. The Bypass alternative for R-2240 recommended a new location portion of
US 421 south of the existing facility, between NC 16 and the US 421/NC 268 interchange,the
same corridor as the Southern Option for U-3468. The Bypass alternative was not recommended
based, in part, on the following: 1)4(f) considerations as a result of direct conflicts with the
Johnson Farm Complex—a historic property determined eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places; 2) greater environmental impacts, notably with respect to areas of biotic
importance which included the removal of marginally disturbed forested areas along the new
location segment; 3)more residential and commercial relocations; 4)potential conflicts with the
Montford Stokes site—an archaeological site determined eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places; and 5) greater construction costs based on the substantial amount of earthwork
that would be required along the bypass segment(TIP Project R-2240 EA, 1995). NCDOT
would like to eliminate the Southern Option from alternatives to be carried forward for these
same reasons.
The Improve Existing Facilities alternative would widen the existing US 421 Bypass.
This alternative is approximately 3.8 miles. The teal line shows this alternative on the aerial.
R-616
Alternative 1 extends from US 421-NC 16 to the NC 18-268 intersection. This study
alternative is approximately 4.6 miles. The red line shows this alternative on the aerial.
Alternative 2 begins at the intersection of US 421 bypass and NC 268 and ends at the
NC 18-268 intersection. This alternative is approximately 4.1 miles. The orange plus red lines
shows this alternative on the aerial.
The Improve Existing Facilities alternative would widen the existing NC 18-268 and
US 421 business corridors. This alternative is approximately 3.9 miles. The green line shows
this alternative on the aerial.
3

ALTERNATIVE COMPARISONS
U-3468
WIDEN EXISTING Northern Option 3 Southern Option ;
US 42Y (Dark blue 10®0' (Light Blue 1000'
(Teal 1000'} corridor) corridor)
-corridor)
RESIDENTIAL
RELOCATEES 44 46 15
BUSINESS RELOCATEES 53 15 24
SCHOOLS 0 0 0
CHURCHES 1 2 1
CEMETARIES 0 2 1
NATIONAL REGISTER
LISTED PROPERTIES 0 0 1
POTENTIAL NR*
ELIGIBLE PROPERITES 0 0 1
ACRES WETLANDS
AFFECTED (NWI) 0 0 0
ACRES WETLANDS
AFFECTED (HYDRIC 17.4 15 28
SOILS)
ACRES HIGH QUALITY
WATER ZONE 0 18 0
ACRES WATER SUPPLY 0 11 22
CRITICAL AREAS
STREAM IMPACTS (FT.) 6800 1417 2734
LENGTH NEW
LOC.TION(MI.) 0 4.5 4.3
INTERCHANGES 3 1 0
TOTAL LENGTH(MI.) 3.4 4.5 4.3
NOTE: Some impact totals are not for the full 1000'corridor width. The Northern Option 3
and Southern Option will likely utilize 300'in right-of-way width within their 1000'corridor,
therefore, acreage impacts and relocatees were divided by 3 to represent right-of-way widths
for these two alternatives. The "widen existing" alternative could possibly utilize all of the
1000'corridor due to the necessity offrontage/service roads and new grade-separated
intersections, therefore no impacts were divided for this alternative.
4

R-616 -
WIDEN EXISTING Alternative 2. Alternative 1
iTS 421 Business {Orange+„`red 1000' (Red 1000''corridor)
(Green `150' corridor)
corridor)
RESIDENTIAL
RELOCATEES 9 65 78
BUSINESS RELOCATEES 66 34 27
SCHOOLS 1 1 2
CHURCHES 2 2 1
CEMETARIES 2 2 1
NATIONAL REGISTER
LISTED PROPERTIES 0 0 0
POTENTIAL NR*
ELIGIBLE PROPERITES 0 0 _ 0
ACRES WETLANDS
AFFECTED (NWI) 0 0 0
ACRES WETLANDS
AFFECTED (HYDRIC 0 15 6
SOILS)
ACRES HIGH QUALITY
WATER ZONE 0 134 134
ACRES WATER SUPPLY 0 18 0
CRITICAL AREAS
STREAM IMPACTS (FT.) 300 1800 370
LENGTH NEW
LOC.TION(MI.) 0 4.1 4.6
INTERCHANGES 0 2 1
TOTAL LENGTH(MI.) 4.3 1 4.1 4.6
NOTE: For Alternative 2 and 1, acreage impacts and relocatees were divided by 3 to represent
the likely right-of-way width utilized within a 1000'corridor. None of the "widen existing"
alternative impacts were divided, as a realistic right-of-way width of 150 feet is represented in
the 150'corridor shown for this alternative.
5

U-3468 & R-616 Project Locations
1�•V9uM.r�•Roann
Trsohdl Thurman
IB
McGndr Autnn
Nails Mdl NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
W I L E S OF TRANSPORTATION
wdbar Haws DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
S` Ron ma I l n t PROTECT DEVELOPMENT AND
a r0larna AA, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
c.r,,, 5. 1--0 MOWS JOa Dada •• ••
PurTc.Mro rlaetbor "
ic Ikesbwo US 421 Bypass & N. Wilkesboro Bypass
W K.,. _ 1. Wilkes County
Mar Wan f a05 11 TIP Projects U-3468 & R-616
y oomrr
1fl
♦♦
Cri::♦♦♦♦♦00
♦ WILK SBORO
18
Congo ♦
� 421
Buck
BUS
B
BEGIN PR JECT
Its o111 /� 1
END PROJECT
i
j 16
WILKESBORO 421
__J
ERV01 '
LEGEND
EoR ■II■ U-3468 Proposed Project
■III■ R-616 Proposed Project

t
I � .
Irk
r . per P0.1
77,
�e+"9 C e � r L�
PORTATION
OF HIGHWAYS
DEVELOPMENT AND
J _
1 'P -- f � � t. _ ENTAIL ANALYSIS BRANCH
i .
;4
'
a � Wilkes County

June 27,2002
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Alethia Raynor
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: US 421 Wilkesboro Corridor Study, Wilkes County,
F.A. Project NHF-421B(l), State Project 8.1761901,
TIP Project U-3468
A concurrence meeting for the subject project was held on May 15, 2002. The objectives
of the meeting were to present general information about the project study area to the team
members, and to establish purpose and need for the project(concurrence point 1). The following
people attended the meeting:
Jean Manuele US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh
Jake Riggsbee Federal Highway Administration
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service
Cynthia Van Der Wiele NC Division of Water Quality
David Cox North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Renee Gledhill-Earley State Historic Preservation Office
Nya Boayue NCDOT,Roadway Design Unit
Ted Walls NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Rob Hanson NCDOT,Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Jay McInnis NCDOT,Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Alethia Raynor NCDOT,Project Development and Environmental.Analysis Branch
Purpose and need documentation for the subject project was provided to participants prior
to the meeting. Handouts made available at the meeting included a copy of all slides and figures
referenced,during the presentation. The following is a summary of the information presented to
the team members. Comments and recommendations discussed at the meeting are also included.
Project Description
TIP Project U-3468 has been included in the Draft 2004-2010 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program(TIP)to improve the US 421 corridor in the vicinity of
Wilkesboro, in Wilkes County. This project focuses on the section of highway from west of
NC 16 to NC 268. This portion of US 421 is approximately 3.4 miles.
Project Purpose
The project purpose presented at the meeting was stated as follows:

f
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve travel time for e
traffic using the US 421 corridor in the vicinity of Wilkesboro.
Project Need
The needs identified for the project are:
1) Growing traffic volumes along US 421 in the project area,
2) High number of rear-end collisions, and
3) Growing delay in travel time due to amount of traffic and number of signals
along US 421 in the area.
Project History
Improvements are currently being made to US 421 in the study area under TIP Project
R-2240B. US 421 is being widened to five fanes between NC 16 and the US 421.Business
intersection. From the US 421 Business intersection to east of NC 268,US 421 is being widened
to four lanes with a median. This work is anticipated to be completed in December 2003.
The Environmental Assessment (EA) for TIP Project R-2240 was completed in November
1995. One alternative considered for the project included a bypass around the existing business
district. The Bypass alternative recommended a new location portion of US 421 south of the
existing facility, between NC 16 and the US 421/NC 268 interchange. The Bypass alternative was
eliminated from further consideration based, in part, on the following: 1) 4(f) considerations as a
result of direct conflicts with the Johnson Farm Complex—a historic property determined eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places; 2) greater environmental impacts, notably with
respect to areas of biotic importance which included the removal of marginally disturbed forested
areas along the new location segment; 3)more residential and commercial relocations; 4)potential
conflicts with the Montford Stokes site—an archaeological site determined eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places; and 5) greater construction costs based on the substantial
amount of earthwork that would be required along the bypass segment(TIP Project R-2240 EA,
1995).
Recommendations
TIP Project R-616 is programmed as the NC 18-268 (Wilkesboro and North Wilkesboro
Bypass) from NC 18 to US 421. In the Draft 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP), right of way is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2008 and construction is scheduled to begin
in 2010. A meeting to discuss purpose and need (concurrence point 1) has not been held on this
project.
At this time, it is recommended that the western termini of the Bypass (R-616) connect to
US 421 within the U-3468 project study area. All the team members emphasized the need to
coordinate planning of these two projects. They expressed concern about precluding options for
both projects since information about project R-616 was not available at the meeting.
Ms. Manuele noted that the NC 18-268 Bypass will direct more traffic onto US 421. The 2025
traffic projections provided at the meeting assume the Bypass is in place. One team member then

•9
questioned if the NC 18-268 Bypass was driving the need for improvements along US 421. On
US 421, east of.SR 1323,traffic volumes will range between 3%000 and 49,400 in 2025 with the
NC 18-268 Bypass in place. If the Bypass is not constructed,traffic volumes will range between
.48,600 and 65,000 in 2025. Even with TIP Project R-616,US 421 will operate between a level of.
service (LOS)E and F in 2025.
Jay McInnis emphasized that planning for the projects will-be coordinated,but.believed it
was more appropriate to tie the projects together at the alternatives stage. Since the two projects
are routing traffic in different directions,then the purpose and need for each project is different.
Mr. McInnis recommended revising the purpose and need for U-3468 to incorporate a
commitment for coordination of the two projects. Rob Hanson agreed and recommended the
purpose statement include addressing the needs of this and other transportation projects in a
manner that minimizes the combined environmental impact.
Marella Buncick and Jean Manuele both stated that there is a demonstrated need for
improvement to US 421. However, all of the team members agreed that another meeting should
be scheduled to discuss TIP Projects U-3468 and R-616 together. Team members want to gather
all available information and then draft purpose and need statements for both projects. They
recognize the importance of TIP Project U-3468 in light of the other improvements to US 421
currently underway, and want to approach project development from a system level.
Ms. Raynor asked for final comments on the purpose and need documentation for TIP
Project U-3468. Ms. Manuele questioned if the purpose statement should be revised to
recommend an interstate or freeway facility for the project. Mr. McInnis disagreed with this
recommendation. David Cox noted that a facility with driveways and a large number of access
points would not meet the stated purpose for the project. Therefore, certain types of facilities will
be excluded from consideration because they do not meet the purpose and need. No other
comments were made.
Cc: Merger Team members

r"
November 7, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Alethia Raynor
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
SUBJECT: US 421 Wilkesboro Corridor Study, Wilkes County,
NCDOT Division 11, F.A. Project NHF-421B(1),
State Project 8.1761901, TIP Project U-3468
A concurrence meeting for the subject project was held on August 15, 2002. The
objectives of the meeting were to present information about TIP Project U-3468 and R-616 and
discuss the purpose and need of each project(concurrence point 1). The following people
attended the meeting:
Jean Manuele US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh
Donna Dancausse Federal Highway Administration
Christopher Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency, Raleigh
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service, (by video-conference)
Cynthia Van Der Wiele NC Division of Water Quality
Marla Chambers NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Sarah McBride State Historic Preservation Office
Nya Boayue NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Gary Foster NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Rob Hanson NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Jay McInnis NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Ben Upshaw NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Lubin Prevatt NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cindy Sharer NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Richard Brewer NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Dion Viventi NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Alethia Raynor NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
A meeting to discuss purpose and need for the subject project was held May 15, 2002. At
the meeting, there was some discussion regarding an adjacent TIP Project, R-616. Because of
the proximity of the two project study areas,team members requested a joint meeting to receive
information and discuss the purpose and need for each project. At the May meeting, no changes
were recommended to the U-3468 purpose and need documentation. Therefore, no additional
materials pertaining to the subject project were distributed prior to the August 15th meeting.

s
Ms. Raynor began the meeting by restating the following information about TIP Project
U-3468:
Project Description
TIP Project U-3468 has been included in the Draft 2004-2010 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)to improve the US 421 corridor in the vicinity of
Wilkesboro, in.Wilkes County. This project focuses on the section of highway from west of
NC 16 to NC 268. This portion of US 421 is approximately 3.4 miles.
Project Purpose
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve travel
time for traffic using the US 421 corridor in the vicinity of Wilkesboro.
Improvements are currently being made to US 421 in the study area under TIP Project R-
2240B. US 421 is being widened to five lanes between NC 16 and the US 421 Business
intersection. From the US 421 Business intersection to east of NC 268,US 421 is being widened
to four lanes with a median. This work is anticipated to be completed in December 2003. One
team member asked about level of service(LOS) information along US 421 for the current year.
Ms. Raynor stated that a LOS discussion is included in the purpose and need documentation;
however,present year information is not included.
Coordination of TIP Projects R-616 and U-3468
Following the discussion on TIP Project U-3468, Richard Brewer presented information
on the adjacent project. TIP Project R-616 involves improvements to the NC 18-268 and US 421
Business corridor in the vicinity of Wilkesboro. One team member questioned why the existing
US 421 Bypass does not function to alleviate congestion in the R-616 study corridor. It was
stated that the primary function of US 421 is to serve intrastate and regional traffic. The
facilities included in the R-616 study serve regional and local trips.
Team members emphasized the connectivity of the two projects and the importance of
planning coordination. While the projects share a common study area,they each have
independent utility. Chris Militscher noted that a project which meets the stated purpose for TIP
Project U-3468, will not alleviate the need for TIP Project R-616. Rob Hanson agreed that the
projects share commonalties, but expressed hesitation to link the two projects together. This may
result in problems if one of the projects lost funding. Lubin Prevatt recommended that the
purpose and need of each project be prepared independently. He also recommended that
concurrence meetings for the two projects be held jointly. This would provide independent
documentation for each project, but ensure that coordination of the two projects occurred. The
team members agreed that all subsequent concurrence meetings for TIP Projects U-3468 and R-
616 should be joint meetings.
Cc: Merger Team members

r'
dM5fA7Ea
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F.EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 26, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Richard L. Brewer, P. E.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Minutes from Concurrence Meeting'—Purpose and Need, NC 18-268/
US 421 Business Corridor Improvements, Wilkes County, F. A.
Project STP-268(4), State Project 8.1761701, T.I.P. No. R-0616
A merger team concurrence meeting to discuss and approve the purpose and need of the
subject project was conducted on August 15, 2002. The meeting place was the NCDOT Board
Room.
Summary of the meeting discussion:
1. The meeting began at approximately 9:10 am with a presentation by Alethia Raynor of the
purpose and need for TIP project U-3813. She reminded the agency representatives that
NCDOT was holding this meeting jointly with TIP project R-0616 at their request.
2. After specific discussion of U-3813, the purpose and need statement for R-0616 was read. A
description of the project location, traffic demand, congestion, level of service, and adjacent
land use was discussed.
3. Because the only deficiency of the study corridor is present and future traffic volumes and
resulting congestion, the question of crash history was asked. Recent 3-year crash data
shows crash rates in the corridor being lower than statewide averages for similar highways.
NCDOT explained that crashes only become a justification in the purpose and need if existing
conditions are worse that statewide averages.
4. A question was asked concerning the existing US 421 bypass, and why it does not function to
alleviate congestion in the study corridor. The R-0616 project will mainly handle local and
regional traffic flow. The US 421 bypass, as its designation suggests, handles some local and
regional traffic but has the primary purpose of accommodating statewide and interstate traffic.
5. A team member asked about the population projections for the study area. Although the
numbers weren't available at the meeting, it was explained that the traffic volumes in the
corridor are expected to double from 2000 to 2025. This may or may not correlate with the
population trends forecasted for Wilkes County.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET _
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

.g
6. The common features of both projects were briefly discussed. The projects have independent
utility. However the team selection of the R-0616 LEDPA will determine the location of its
western terminus and its length. If the merger team chooses the existing corridor as the
LEDPA for R-0616, the westernmost segment would likely end at existing or proposed US
421. But if R-0616 has a new bypass as its LEDPA, its western terminus would likely shift
further west.
7. Doesn't the draft 2004-2010 TIP include a 'bypass'for R-0616? The current wording in the
TIP does specify a bypass on new location. However, at this stage of project development,
other reasonable and prudent alternatives to be developed, including improving the existing
corridor, will,be studied for comparitive purposes.
8. The purpose and need statement was read again. The team agreed to add the phrase'local
and regional"to the 2nd sentence, to indicate the need of the project was to serve this element
of traffic, as opposed to mainly through traffic now(and in the future) using US 421 bypass.
9. The agencies asked if the two projects could hold concurrent merger.meetings. It was agreed
upon by the team members to carry out these common meetings.
10. Extra time should be given to discuss possible alternatives for study at the next meeting.
11. Without any further substantive comments, the meeting adjouned at 10:25 am.
If you feel that any statement(s)included the above minutes contains errors or needs
clarification, please notify me at rbreweradot.state.nc.us or phone [phone], extension 242.
R-0616 CONCURRENCE POINT 1 MEETING ATTENDEES
August 15, 2002
R-0616 TEAM MEMBERS
NAME AGENCY
Richard Brewer NCDOT/PDEA
Marella Buncick(by teleconference USFWS
Marla Chambers NC.WRC
Donna Dancausse FHWA
Jean Manuele USACE/Ralei h
Sarah McBride SHPO/DCR
Cynthia Van Der Wiele NCDWQ .
OTHER NCDOT STAFF
N a Boa ue Roadway Design
Gary Foster Roadway Design
Rob Hanson PDEA
Jay McInnis PDEA
Lubin Prevatt PDEA
Alethia Raynor PDEA
Cindy Sharer PDEA
Ben Upshaw PDEA
Dion Viventi PDEA

January 28, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Alethia Raynor
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
SUBJECT: US 421 Wilkesboro Corridor Study, Wilkes County,NCDOT
Division 11,F.A. Project NHF-421B(l), State Project 8.1761901,
TIP Project U-3468
A concurrence meeting for the subject project was held on November 14, 2002. The
objective of the meeting was to discuss alternatives for TIP Projects U-3468 and R-616 that may
be shown to the public at the citizens informational workshop. The following people attended the
meeting:
John Thomas US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh
Jake Riggsbee Federal Highway Administration
Rob Ayers Federal Highway Administration
Christopher Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency, Raleigh
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service (by video-conference)
Cynthia Van Der Wiele NC Division of Water Quality
Marla Chambers NC Wildlife Resources Commission (by video-conference)
Sarah McBride State Historic Preservation Office
Nya Boayue NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Ted Walls NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Allison White NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Art McMillan NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Sue Flowers NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Anthony West NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Wayne Atkins NCDOT, Division 11
Jerry Parker NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Elizabeth Lusk NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Rob Hanson NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cindy Sharer NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Jay McInnis NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Dion Viventi NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Richard Brewer NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Alethia Raynor NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
A joint concurrence meeting for TIP Projects U-3468 and R-616 was held on August 15,
2002. At this meeting, information was presented and concurrence on purpose and need
(concurrence point 1) was reached for both projects. At the August meeting, team members
agreed that all subsequent concurrence meetings for TIP Projects U-3468 and R-616 should be

joint meetings. The November meeting was held in order to continue coordination of the two
projects. Prior to the meeting, documentation on project alternatives for both projects was
distributed to the team members. Quad maps showing the various alternative study corridors
accompanied the documentation.
TIP Project R-616 Summary
Following introductions by meeting attendees,Richard Brewer briefly reviewed the three
alternatives for TIP Project R-616. During discussions, staff from Roadway Design raised
objections to TIP R-616 Alternative Study Corridor 2. In reviewing this alignment within the
context of the U-3468 alternatives,they believed two interchanges would be placed in
approximately the same location. This creates an undesirable situation by not maintaining the
minimum separation between interchanges. Team members emphasized that without
Alternative 2, only one new location alternative existed. Rob Hanson questioned if enough design
work had taken place in order to determine that these interchange configurations would not work
together. It was decided that all three alternatives for TIP Project R-616 would be shown at the
citizens informational workshop. Roadway Design will re-examine the design details for
Alternative 2 along with possible interchange configurations for TIP U-3468. Details regarding
additional discussion on TIP Project R-616 are addressed in a separate memo.
TIP Project U-3468 Summary
Upon request,Alethia Raynor briefly reviewed the purpose and need for TIP Project
U-3468. As demonstrated in the purpose and need documentation,without improvements beyond
those currently under construction,US 421 will likely operate between level of service (LOS) E
and F in the design year(2025). Another part of the purpose and need is to improve travel time
for traffic using the US 421 corridor in the vicinity of Wilkesboro. Upon completion of
improvements currently underway for US.421 between Winston-Salem and Boone,US 421 will
be a freeway or expressway facility, with the exception of through the study area.
Chris Militscher began discussion of U-3468 project alternatives by questioning the
location of the Southern Option. He noted that it appears to swing far south of existing US 421
through some severe topography. Although not shown on the quad map,there is a great deal of
development to the south of existing US 421 that this alternative attempts to avoid. In addition,
Ms. Raynor mentioned that the southern option is intended to represent the Bypass alternative
studied in the environmental document for TIP Project R-2240. Therefore, every effort was made
to show the alignment in the same location.
John Thomas questioned if NC 268 was examined as a possible alternative for the project.
He recommended utilizing existing NC 268 as part of a southern bypass option. From NC 268,
the bypass would then cross the Yadkin River on new location near the old airport before
connecting with US 421 near NC 16. Wayne Atkins expressed concern with this proposal due to
existing and/or proposed development in the area. He specifically mentioned the YMCA, located
in proximity of the old airport. Mr. Atkins questioned this proposal meeting the purpose and need
for the project. He felt the conditions along NC 268 would mirror the conditions on US 421
unless NC 268 was made a controlled access facility. Without this measure, he did not feel this
2

e
alternative could meet the purpose and need of the project. No additional comments were made
recommending this alternative be included for further study.
The team members agreed the following three alternatives for TIP Project U-3468 should
be shown at the citizens informational workshop: Northern Option 1,Northern Option 2, and
Southern Option. Ms. Raynor requested input regarding the consideration of further
improvements to US 421. The general consensus of the group was that it would not be reasonable
or feasible to.examine additional improvements to US 421 in the project area. It is unlikely that
additional improvements to the existing roadway would meet the project's purpose and need.
Cc: Merger Team members
3

eµ5V17gq
y ,wow,
P '
Nan
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F.EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 15, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Richard L. Brewer, P. E.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Minutes from Concurrence Meeting—Alternatives for Study,
NC 18-268/US 421 Business Corridor Improvements,Wilkes
County,F.A. Project STP-268(4),State Project 8.1761701,
T.I.P. No. R-o616
A merger team concurrence meeting to discuss project alternatives for study was
held on November 14, 2002. The NCDOT Board Room was the meeting site.
Summary of the meeting discussion:
i. The meeting began at 9:10 am with an introduction and distribution of handouts and
maps by Alethia Raynor. (The minutes concerning Alethia's project, U-3468, are
addressed in a separate memo.)
2. I opened by introducing the three alternative corridors NCDOT has developed to this
point. The first alternative is the corridor selected by Statewide Planning through a
phase i environmental analysis and report,published in July, 1993• This corridor
would carry a 4-lane roadway on new location,running from US 421-NC 16 to the NC
'18-268 intersection. Access would be fully controlled between at-grade
intersections.
3. The second alternative corridor discussed begins at the intersection of US 421 bypass
and NC 268, and ends at the NC 18-268 intersection. This alternative provides a
veritable bypass of NC 268 due to its aligning across from the US 421 bypass. In the
eastbound direction the bypass carries traffic south of the Yadkin River to an
interchange with NC 268. This corridor met opposition from Roadway Design. A
junction where the interchanges of this alternative and the U-3468 highway would
be spaced too closely, and merging and weaving distances between the two would
• create high crash potential.
4. The third alternative corridor indicates improvements to the existing NC 18-268 and
US 421 business roadways. At this point in the process,it appears feasible that the
existing corridor can be widened. However, numerous traffic signals along the route
would remain, creating extensive travel delays. Another disadvantage raised would
be the disruption to existing traffic during construction. But an initial capacity
analysis shows that in the design year 2025,the existing corridor with improvements
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET -
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

P '
would operate at LOS D. A no build scenario indicates the corridor operating at LOS
F in 2025.
5. It was agreed that all 3 alternative corridors will be shown to the public at an
upcoming Citizens'Informational Workshop.
6. After discussion of project R-o616,Alethia Raynor began talking about her U-3468
project; the meeting adjourned at 10:4o am.
If you feel that any statement(s)included above contains errors or needs
clarification,please notify me at rbrewer(@dot.state.nc.us or phone[phone],
extension 242.
R o616 CONCURRENCE POINT 2 MEETING ATTENDEES
November 14, 2002
R-o616 TEAM MEMBERS
NAME AGENCY
Richard Brewer NCDOT PDEA
Marella Buncick(by USFWS
teleconference)
Marla Chambers(by NCWRC
teleconference)
Sarah McBride DCR SHPO
Chris Militscher EPA
Jake Riggsbee FHWA
John Thomas USACE Ralei h
Cynthia Van Der Wiele NCDWQ
OTHER NCDOT&AGENCY STAFF
Art McMillan Roadway Design
Ted Walls Roadway Design
N a Boa a -Roadway Design
Sue Flowers Roadway Design
AnthonyWest Roadway Design
Allison White Roadway Design
Rob Hanson PDEA
Jay McInnis PDEA
Alethia Raynor PDEA
Cindy Sharer PDEA
Elizabeth Lusk PDEA
Jerry Parker PDEA
Dion Viventi PDEA
Wayne Atkins DIV 11
Rob Ayers FHWA

January 28, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Alethia Raynor
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
SUBJECT: US 421 Wilkesboro'Corridor Study,Wilkes County, NCDOT
Division 11,F.A. Project NHF-421B(1), State Project 8.1761901,
TIP Project U-3468
A concurrence meeting for the subject project was held on November 14, 2002. The
objective of the meeting was to discuss alternatives for TIP Projects U-3468 and R-616 that may
be shown to the public at the citizens informational workshop. The following people attended the
meeting:
John Thomas US Army Corps of Engineers,Raleigh
Jake Riggsbee Federal Highway Administration
Rob Ayers Federal Highway Administration
Christopher Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency, Raleigh
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service (by video-conference)
Cynthia Van Der Wiele NC Division of Water Quality
Marla Chambers NC Wildlife Resources Commission (by video-conference)
Sarah McBride State Historic Preservation Office
Nya Boayue NCDOT,Roadway Design Unit
Ted Walls NCDOT,Roadway Design Unit
Allison White NCDOT,Roadway Design Unit
Art McMillan NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Sue Flowers NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Anthony West NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Wayne Atkins NCDOT, Division 11
Jerry Parker NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Elizabeth Lusk NCDOT,Project Development.and Environmental Analysis Branch
Rob Hanson NCDOT,Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cindy Sharer NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Jay McInnis NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Dion Viventi NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Richard Brewer NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Alethia Raynor NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
A joint concurrence meeting for TIP Projects U-3468 and R-616 was held on August 15,
2002. At this meeting, information was presented and concurrence on purpose and need
(concurrence point 1) was reached for both projects. At the August meeting,team members
agreed that all subsequent concurrence meetings for TIP Projects U-3468 and R-616 should be

joint meetings. The November meeting was held in order to continue coordination of the two
projects. Prior to the meeting, documentation on project alternatives for both projects was
distributed to the team members. Quad maps showing the various alternative study corridors
accompanied the documentation.
TIP Project R-616 Summary
Following introductions by meeting attendees,Richard Brewer briefly reviewed the three
alternatives for TIP Project R-616. During discussions, staff from Roadway Design raised
objections to TIP R-616 Alternative Study Corridor 2. In reviewing this alignment within the
context of the U-3468 alternatives, they believed two interchanges would be placed in
approximately the same location. This creates an undesirable situation by not maintaining the
minimum separation between interchanges. Team members emphasized that without
Alternative 2, only one new location alternative existed. Rob Hanson questioned if enough design
work had taken place in order to determine that these interchange configurations would not work
together. It was decided that all three alternatives for TIP Project R-616 would be shown at the
citizens informational workshop. Roadway Design will re-examine the design details for
Alternative 2 along with possible interchange configurations for TIP U-3468. Details regarding
additional discussion on TIP Project R-616 are addressed in a separate memo.
TIP Project U-3468 Summary
Upon request, Alethia Raynor briefly reviewed the purpose and need for TIP Project
U-3468. As demonstrated in the purpose and need documentation, without improvements beyond
those currently under construction, US 421 will likely operate between level of service (LOS)E
and F in the design year(2025). Another part of the purpose and need is to improve travel time
for traffic using the US 421 corridor in the vicinity of Wilkesboro. Upon completion of
improvements currently underway for US 421 between Winston-Salem and Boone, US 421 will
be a freeway or expressway facility, with the exception of through the study area.
Chris Militscher began discussion of U-3468 project alternatives by questioning the
location of the Southern Option. He noted that it appears to swing far south of existing US 421
through some severe topography. Although not shown on the quad map, there is a great deal of
development to the south of existing US 421 that this alternative attempts to avoid. In addition,
Ms. Raynor mentioned that the southern option is intended to represent the Bypass alternative
studied in the environmental document for TIP Project R-2240. Therefore, every effort was made
to show the alignment in the same location.
John Thomas questioned if NC 268 was examined as a possible alternative for the project.
He recommended utilizing existing NC 268 as part of a southern bypass option. From NC 268,
the bypass would then cross the Yadkin River on new location near the old airport before
connecting with US 421 near NC 16. Wayne Atkins expressed concern with this proposal due to
existing and/or proposed development in the area. He specifically mentioned the YMCA, located
in proximity of the old airport. Mr. Atkins questioned this proposal meeting the purpose and need
for the project. He felt the conditions along NC 268 would mirror the conditions on US 421
unless NC 268 was made a controlled access facility. Without this measure, he did not feel this
2

t
alternative could meet the purpose and need of the project. No additional comments were made
recommending this alternative be included for further study.
The team members agreed the following three alternatives for TIP Project U-3468 should
be shown at the citizens informational workshop: Northern Option 1, Northern Option 2, and
Southern Option. Ms. Raynor requested input regarding the consideration of further
improvements to US 421. The general consensus of the group was that it would not be reasonable
or feasible to examine additional improvements to US 421 in the project area. It is unlikely that
additional improvements to the existing roadway would meet the project's purpose and need.
Cc: Merger Team members
3

t
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v rTl LANDS pUP
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 28, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO: File )
FROM: Alethia Raynor 4L
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
SUBJECT: US 421 Wilkesboro Corridor Study, Wilkes County,NCDOT
Division 11, F.A. Project NHF-421B(l), State Project 8.1761901,
TIP Project U-3468
A concurrence meeting for the subject project was held on November 14, 2002. The
objective of the meeting was to discuss alternatives for TIP Projects U-3468 and R-616 that may
be shown to the public at the citizens informational workshop. The following people attended the
meeting:
John Thomas US Army Corps of Engineers,Raleigh
Jake Riggsbee Federal Highway Administration
Rob Ayers Federal Highway Administration
Christopher Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency, Raleigh
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service (by video-conference)
Cynthia Van Der Wiele NC Division of Water Quality
Marla Chambers NC Wildlife Resources Commission(by video-conference)
Sarah McBride State Historic Preservation Office
Nya Boayue NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Ted Walls NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Allison White NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Art McMillan NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Sue Flowers NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Anthony West NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Wayne Atkins NCDOT, Division I 1
Jerry Parker NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Elizabeth Lusk NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Rob Hanson NCDOT,Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cindy Sharer NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Jay McInnis NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WLMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. NWWDOH.DOTSTATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Dion Viventi
NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Richard Brewer NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Alethia Raynor NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
A joint concurrence meeting for TIP Projects U-3468 and R-616 was held on August 15,
2002. At this meeting, information was presented and concurrence on purpose and need
(concurrence point 1) was reached for both projects. At the August meeting, team members
agreed that all subsequent concurrence meetings for TIP Projects U-3468 and R-616 should be
joint meetings. The November meeting was held in order to continue coordination of the two
projects. Prior to the meeting, documentation on project alternatives for both projects was
distributed to the team members. Quad maps showing the various alternative study corridors
accompanied the documentation.
TIP Proieet R-616 Summary
Following introductions by meeting attendees, Richard Brewer briefly reviewed the three
alternatives for TIP Project R-616. During discussions, staff from Roadway Design raised
objections to TIP R-616 Alternative Study Corridor 2. In reviewing this alignment within the
context of the U-3468 alternatives, they believed two interchanges would be placed in
approximately the same location. This creates an undesirable situation by not maintaining the
minimum separation between interchanges. Team members emphasized that without
Alternative 2, only one new location alternative existed. Rob Hanson questioned if enough design
work had taken place in order to determine that these interchange configurations would not work
together. It was decided that all three alternatives for TIP Project R-616 would be shown at the
citizens informational workshop. Roadway Design will re-examine the design details for
Alternative 2 along with possible interchange configurations for TIP U-3468. Details regarding
additional discussion on TIP Project R-616 are addressed in a separate memo.
TIP Project U-3468 Summary
Upon request, Alethia Raynor briefly reviewed the purpose and need for TIP Project
U-3468. As demonstrated in the purpose and need documentation,without improvements beyond
those currently under construction, US 421 will likely operate between level of service (LOS) E
and F in the design year(2025). Another part of the purpose and need is to improve travel time for
traffic using the US 421 corridor in the vicinity of Wilkesboro. Upon completion of
improvements currently underway for US 421 between Winston-Salem and Boone,US 421 will be
a freeway or expressway facility,writh the exception of through the study area.
Chris Militscher began discussion of U-3468 project alternatives by questioning the
location of the Southern Option. He noted that it appears to swing far south of existing US 421
through some severe topography. Although not shown on the quad map, there is a great deal of
development to the south of existing US 421 that this alternative attempts to avoid. In addition,
Ms. Raynor mentioned that the southern option is intended to represent the Bypass alternative
studied in the environmental document for TIP Project R-2240. Therefore, every effort was made
to show the alignment in the same location.
2

r
John Thomas questioned if NC 268 was examined as a possible alternative for the project.
He recommended utilizing existing NC 268 as part of a southern bypass option. From NC 268,
the bypass would then cross the Yadkin River on new location near the old airport before
connecting with US 421 near NC 16. Wayne Atkins expressed concern with this proposal due to
existing and/or proposed development in the area. He specifically mentioned the YMCA, located
in proximity of the old airport. Mr. Atkins questioned this proposal meeting the purpose and need
for the project. He felt the conditions along NC 268 would mirror the conditions on US 421
unless NC 268 was made a controlled access facility. Without this measure,he did not feel this
alternative could meet the purpose and need of the project. No additional comments were made
recommending this alternative be included for further study.
The team members agreed the following three alternatives for TIP Project U-3468 should
be shown at the citizens informational workshop: Northern Option 1,Northern Option 2, and
Southern Option. Ms. Raynor requested input regarding the consideration-of further
improvements to US 421. The general consensus of the group was that it would not be reasonable
or feasible to examine additional improvements to US 421 in the project area. It is unlikely that
additional improvements to the existing roadway would meet the project's purpose and need.
Cc: Merger Team members
3

0
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F.EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 31,2002
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele
DENR—Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh,NC 27604-2260
Dear Ms. Van Der Wiele: GR
�I �-W-WTI-tom-per OUP
�J
R U ITY SECTION
SUBJECT: NEPA/404 Concurrence Meeting for the NC 18-268 /US 421 Business
Corridor Improvements(TIP project R-616); and US 21 Bypass,NC 16 to
Yadkin River(TIP project U-3468); Wilkes County.
A merger team meeting for the subject projects is scheduled for November 14,
2002 at 9:00 AM. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss and determine the projects'
alternative corridors for further study, and to obtain written concurrence on this issue.
The meeting will be held in the Department of Transportion Board Room.
Attached to this letter are draft alternative corridor statements for both projects. If
you have any questions or concerns prior to the 14', please contact me by phone at(919)
733-7844 ext. 242, or by E-mail (rbreweradot.state.nc.us).
Sincerely, p
Richard L. Brewer, P.E.
Project Development Engineer
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOTORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

US 421 WILKESBORO CORRIDOR STUDY
Preliminary Alternatives
TIP Project U-3468 fcd ale�
State Project 8.1761901
Federal Aid Project NHF-421B(1)
Project Description
TIP Project U-3468 has been included in the Draft 2004-2010 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)to improve the US 421 corridor in the vicinity of
Wilkesboro, in Wilkes County. This project focuses on the section of highway from west of
NC 16 to NC 268. This portion of US 421 is approximately 3.4 miles long.
Purpose of Project
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve travel
time for traffic using the US 421 corridor in the vicinity of Wilkesboro.
Purpose of Today's Meeting
The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss alternatives to be shown to the public at the
citizens informational workshop.
Project Alternatives
Improve Existing Facilities
Improvements are currently being made to US 421 in the study area under TIP Pro ec
R-2240B. US 421 is being widened to five lanes between and the US 421 Business
intersection. From the US 421 Business intersection to east of NC 268,US 421 is being widened
to four lanes with a median. This work is anticipated to be completed ir)December 2003.
rVT aw t tf .-nee. ' �l 1,2 '%j� a4e A— /r2e e,L„ U 3g 613
rat AY 42_1 I R� ' U S Construct)bypass YL 1 ar �3a fl)"
Q To date, three alternatives have been developed for the project. Study corridors for each
of the alternatives are shown on the accompanying quad map. These corridors are approximately
1,000 feet wide.
Alternative Study Corridor(Northern Option 1)
Northern Option 1 extends from NC 16 to the US 421/NC 268 interchange, north of
existing US 421. The alternative is approximately 4.3 miles. This study corridor provides
interchanges at US 421 Business/SR 1372 and with Alternative Study Corridor 1 of TIP Project
R-0616.

Alternative Study Corridor(Northern Option 2)
Northern Option 2 closely follows Northern Option 1 west of SR 1323. This alternative
then shifts northward, allowing for a different interchange configuration at US 421 Business/SR
1372 and the proposed bypass. This alternative is approximately 4.2 miles.
Alternative Study Corridor (Southern Option)
The Environmental Assessment (EA) for TIP Project R-2240 was completed in
November 1995. One alternative considered for the project included a bypass around the
existing business district. The Bypass alternative recommended a new location portion of
US 421 south of the existing facility, between NC 16 and the US 421/NC 268 interchange. The
Bypass alternative was not recommended based, in part, on the following: 1) 4(f) considerations
as a result of direct conflicts with the Johnson Farm Complex—a historic property determined
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places; 2) greater environmental impacts, notably
with respect to areas of biotic importance which included the removal of marginally disturbed
forested areas along the new location segment; 3) more residential and commercial relocations;
4) potential conflicts with the Montford Stokes site—an archaeological site determined eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places; and 5) greater construction costs based on the
substantial amount of earthwork that would be required along the bypass segment (TIP Project
R-2240 EA, 1995).
TIP Project U-3468 Alternative Study Corridor (Southern Option) is representative of the
Bypass alternative studied in the R-2240 document. This alternative extends from NC 16, south
of existing US 421,to.the US 421/NC 268 interchange. This alternative is approximately 4.3
miles.
Project Status/Schedule
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held March 27, 2001. A meeting to
discuss purpose and need was held May 15, 2002. Another meeting followed on August 15,
2002. At the meeting, there was some discussion regarding an adjacent TIP Project, R-616.
Because of the proximity of the two project study areas, team members requested a joint meeting
to receive information and discuss the purpose and need for each project.
A joint meeting was held on August 15, 2002 and concurrence on purpose and need was
reached for both projects. Citizens informational workshops for both projects will be scheduled
following agreement on the alternatives to be shown to the public. Concurrence on alternatives
to be studied in detail will be requested following the workshops.

R-616
ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS
A. PREFACE C' v' c.9-F eb 0'e' 3a bf�• �� vraec e
The Draft 2004-2010 TIP includes Project R-616 in Wilkes County, which is referred to as the
Wilkesboro—North Wilkesboro Bypass, from US 421 to NC 18. The scope of work indicated in the TIP calls
for a multi-lane highway partly on new location. A cooperative effort of NCDOT's Statewide Planning
Branch and environmental regulatory and resource agencies began in 1991. In this particular pilot study, a
phased environmental analysis approach was used, as the agencies became involved in the early stages of
the thoroughfare plan process. The team of the Federal Highway Administration, NCDOT and the
environmental agencies analyzed multiple corridors against typical engineering and environmental
parameters.
B. CORRIDOR 1
In July of 1992, the team selected Corridor 1, referred to as alternative C-31D-2 in earlier
documentation, as the most reasonable and feasible thoroughfare corridor for a bypass.
The principal objectives used in determining the preferred corridor include (in no particular order):
Avoidance of residential housing and businesses,
Avoidance of properties and sites on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places,
Avoidance and minimization of stream relocations and filling of wetlands,
Minimization of severing neighborhoods, big individual tracts of land, and farmlands.
From the beginning of the alternative at US 4211NC 16 and SR 1323 (Dancy Road), the alignment
tracks on new location to the north and then northeast. After crossing Tucker Hole Creek, the alternative
intersects SR 1372 (Boone Trail Road)south of Cricket. Further east the alternative crosses the Reddies
River before ending at the NC 18-268 intersection (total length=4.94 miles).

-�F
The proposed typical section is four lanes, divided by a 46-foot wide, graded, natural median. The
proposed highway will have partial control of access, employing at-grade intersections. A corridor width of
1000 feet will be analyzed, and the feasible alignment that minimizes environmental impacts would be
placed within this corridor.
C. CORRIDOR C Gi2� ✓ .
Corridor 2 runs concurrently with Corridor 1 from the west of SR 1372(Boone Trail Road) to the
NC 18-268 intersection. However, Corridor 2 begins at US 421/NC 18 and SR 1327 (Woodleaf Road),
some 1.2 miles east of the Corridor 1 starting point. This shortens the corridor by about 0.5 miles.
An advantage Corridor 2 has is better connectivity to NC 268. By beginning at Woodleaf Road, the
corridor becomes an authentic bypass of NC 268. Existing US 421 bypass/NC 16 is easily accessible, and
the connection to existing NC 268 south of the Yadkin River is accomplished.
The proposed typical section is the same as Corridor 1, with four lanes divided by a 46-foot wide,
graded, natural median. The proposed highway will have partial control of access, employing at-grade
intersections. A corridor width of 1000 feet will be analyzed, and the feasible alignment that minimizes
environmental impacts would be placed within this corridor.
D. CORRIDOR 3
Corridor 3 is a proposal to widen US 421 Business/NC 18-268. Beginning at SR 1185 (Curtis
Bridge Road), Corridor 3 follows existing US 421 Business and crosses the Reddies River before entering
downtown North Wilkesboro. Downtown, the existing pair of one-way streets (Main Street and CBD Loop)
would continue to carry cross-town traffic. On the east side of downtown, existing NC 18-268 would carry
traffic to the project's eastern terminus(NC 18 and NC 268 intersection).

Multi-lanes exist in certain areas of Corridor 3. US 421 Business, Main Street and CBD Loop all
have multi-lanes in places. Without detailed information, one should expect the existing corridor to have
fewer impacts to the natural environment than Corridors 1 and 2, since man-dominated environment
prevails. However, with all of the residential and business development, higher impacts to the human
environment are likely. For example, heavy trucks would continue to use downtown and neighborhood
streets, already a complaint by locals.
On both sides of downtown, a 4-lane divided cross-section with 46-foot wide median would be
proposed. It is assumed at this juncture of the planning process that in the immediate downtown area,
Main Street and CBD Loop would continue to carry one-way flow.
E. "NO BUILD" OPTION
A"No Build"option is being addressed to illustrate in the impacts (mainly to the human
environment) of not having any highway improvements in place by the design year of 2025. The"No Build"
option is typically discarded from further consideration since it does not satisfy the purpose and need of the
project, which is to alleviate vehicle congestion on the NC 18-268 and US 421 Business corridor.

AS .7v Z.-W
A4
j.-
wy,
NORTH CAROL 0. ek� I
OF TRANSPORT.
DWISION OF HIWiWAYS
M
r
PRO
ENYMONWNi ANALYSIS WANCM
Aw
0 US 421 Wilkesboro Coffidor Study
VIAlkeaboro
A,
Wilkes County
TIP ProjeCtB U-3468
J
r IR 26�,'
E K,
'_--k'N �_7'91
IZ-
r.. i ^a\ , t!-.• r->/'�G'\ l6� rg�j i !�,`1\ /�•� C� -i�_r�: i/ C� �� _.. i ti��tn l,`\ f '� 'r f'eN_ ' •%/.f '.v• La ul'i z" ,hY. � •�
1"7 A)
N /_2,
7
It
_'V I
N",Nit,
LEGEND
Do Wetlands(NN)
Hydnc Soils (Wilkes County Soil Survey)
Trout Streams
Streams
High Quality Water Zone
Water Supply Watershed
Water Supply Watershed-Critical Area
`ALTERNATIVES LEGEND
National-Register Listed Properties
TIP IP Wdlyorridor(Northern Option 1) Narwral Heritage Occurrence Sites

NORTH CAROUNA DEPARTMENT
OF HICWWAYS
OF TRANSPOKYJ e
PROJECT DEVELOPM-41
• DrASION i
ENIAROMMENTAL ANALYSr BRANCH
ZJ • Z i. r;r :W2
NC 18-2WUS 421 Business Corridor
Improvements
0�
ViAlkesboro
Wlikes County
-7
6
TIP projects R-0616
IV
I. 1 A14
N,
V lk I
4k� _ C !`I ., � 'j' •�;'✓�}� ' �•'y \,/ w/' ,'/ice- ,.\., .^' �. /: J ..,r^ ' � rb 1'.� .q l.,_��, �,. ` ,vl,,, t4��-y
. _-L \!.t i�, \\,^^ �i 7'-`.�I :,�,. r. R F
Vk\
r �/J^`���-- �,.., aoS Y:et
41 R 1372 I'l'o,
•
--x
L
W ---A
A R�11L
LEGEND
Wetlands(NN)
Hydnc Soils(Wilkes County Soil Survey)
"'Y
Trout Streams
Olt
Streams
High Quality Water Zone
Water Supply Watershed
-3
Water Supply Watershed-Critical Area
4
LEGEND
t, National-Register Listed Properties
Wilkesboro
Quad Aj6W;W"§h;dy1
dorridor 1 Natural Heritage Occurrence Sites

l­Jq
E1 i " 5NOM ARO" DEPARTMENT 1 1w1 Q) 7
OF TRAMOPMADON
MION OF HIGHWAYS
L
)JECr DEVELOPMERr AND
qKONAAEKTAL ANALYSIS MtAKCM
O
NC 18-26 21 Business Corridor M
=Dj8ments Wilkesboro
if A
Wilkes County " M
6�q
7M..
'
TIP Projects R-0616 K
_7a
7,
c
-,_2M
47I)l M', ag
01, A
k-A
It
LEGEND
vi°r Watlards(NIWI)
11, il
Zi
Hydric Soils(Wilkes County Soil Survey)
Trout Streams
Streams
High Qualty Water Zone
Water Supply Watershed
Water Supply Watershed-Cntcal Area
ALTERNATIVES LEGEND
-0610 National-Register Listed Properties
TIP Pr act R
• Afterr S
Quad . .Study M
(improve rig a ifies
a I pr I
Natural Heritage Occurrence Sites

"j. '-'N\
40111 CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
r ';,!
PORTATIDN . I .. ..I.
OF HIG41i ",ey,_ bail
)F Tki
)NISION
IROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
INVIPONIMEMAL ANALYSIS 1RAMib �tb is q�,, ?/,',• +m rh ? - G' \ - '�P,'- --J°/y'•`,aw : IA -r {.r %:�- IJ� �'_ /f y.,/`!� �i ' r\'' `. \ J _•-. Z}. \,
NC 18 0
-2681US 421 Business Corridor
Improvements 4,=T�
Wilkesboro
Wilkes County
ITC Z_
q\
TIP Pirvilecis R-0616
AS
Ulk
7y
7
-001,
I t_i
1, - \ l \ r'4 ,'(p� S 1 �;��. __i J. J,� L, '�•, � '/r '{ 'ti — �- � f.=J:I. \ I "�� ..V, c AT �LJ �., <
77r., j
kiii try
_f4."M
r:j -elm_
LEGEND
ovL
Wetlands(NN)
Hydric Soils(Wilkes •County Soil Survey)
Trout Streams
High Quality Water Zone
f Water Supply Watershed
Water Supply Watershed-Critical Area
,ALTERNATIVES LEGENDY
National-Registarl-isledProperfies
T=R-0616
Study Corridor 2
Natural Heritage Occurrence Sites

NORTH CAROUNA DEPARTMBa
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS MRANCH
-7
/TTTT
US 421 Wilkesboro Corridor Sh*
%,'� I'\- "
cz
T1.
Wilkesboro
Mikes
County
f •
TIP Projects U-3468 V
# _ ..:.♦ '( . C�.`. I�5..�� � , 1 �s ! �, �_ .,t /t. .u`li\\v � \,'` �.r>� �- YI �/•.
N
N
4<*_
I / '; � j- .\ C�, _ l r'� �!'j f/s ``�\_ist• P. .\ v. \JI�+\�_'`—'i•I',(.. �.(.'I� .JI �� ( ii'�`— % c ✓ _ rvhla, i
1z
"IN
KA�
14 4
45!
I <J
LEGEND
f E;A Wetlands(NWI)
Hydric Soils(Mikes County Soil Survey)
Trout Streams
Streams
f High Quality Water Zone
2 0
Water Supply Watershed
�NO A Z, Water Supply Watershed-Critical Area
ALTERNATIVES LEGEND
FIXT National-Register Listed Properties
Xmn U-3468
a=Study Cofficlor(Northenn Option 2) Natural Heritage Occurrence Sites

NOUN CAROLINA DEPAfffMOrT Y 71
OF TRANSPOUATION
DIVISION OF HW.FMAYS
MtOJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
04MONWHIAL.ANALYSIS BRANCH V J
US 421 Wilkesboro Corridor Study
.,Ix,
Wilkesboro
�t,'.(, \ i•s.-.=y'f 5 1'�J \•14`\`.h.. \3k—
county A`
Wilkes
TIP Projects U-3468
J-
L L
-,T
111/
r^-' - ], -`l�! i/,-' ;�/ .:y cn'i` r`kb} I i / '\_%// _ _/�. t_.^ ,J•:ppit / t � f ••.1, 1 \ \y I.\ •/ L '� _ _ !Ju / it f "!: X
J
7
-D
A %
w,-
71
iv
I f
k z:�> :L,
LEGEND
Wetlands(NVIA)
7
Hydric Soils(Owlikes County Soil Survey)
Trout Streams
Streams
High Quality Water Zone
Water Supply Watershed
Water Supply Watershed-Critical Area
ALTERNATIVES LEGEND
National-Registar Listed Properties
/7
wnaM-Study T-orroor(Southern Option)
Natural Hentage Occumence Sites
Iwo
, .-� TVV .5 .., -

LTyd fi Swt�
ti
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR
SECRETARY
November 7, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Alethia Raynor
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
SUBJECT: US 421 Wilkesboro Corridor Study, Wilkes County,
NCDOT Division 11, F.A. Project NHF-421B(l),
State Project 8.1761901, TIP Project U-3468
A concurrence meeting for the subject project was held on August 15, 2002. The
objectives of the meeting were to present information about TIP Project U-3468 and R-616 and
discuss the purpose and need of each project (concurrence point 1). The following people
attended the meeting:
Jean Manuele US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh
Donna Dancausse Federal Highway Administration
Christopher Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency, Raleigh
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service, (by video-conference)
Cynthia Van Der Wiele NC Division of Water Quality
Marla Chambers NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Sarah McBride State Historic Preservation Office
Nya Boayue NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Gary Foster NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Rob Hanson NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Jay McInnis NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Ben Upshaw NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Lubin Prevatt NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cindy Sharer NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Richard Brewer NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Dion Viventi NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Alethia Raynor NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
A meeting to discuss purpose and need for the subject project was held May 15, 2002. At
the meeting,there was some discussion regarding an adjacent TIP Project, R-616. Because of
the proximity of the two project study areas, team members requested a joint meeting to receive
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGHNC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

information and discuss the purpose and need for each project. At the May meeting, no changes
were recommended to the U-3468 purpose and need documentation. Therefore, no additional
materials pertaining to the subject project were distributed prior to the.August 15`'meeting.
Ms. Raynor began the meeting by restating the following information about TIP Project
U-3468:
Project Description
TIP Project U-3468 has been included in the Draft 2004-2010 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program(TIP)to improve the US 421 corridor in the vicinity of
Wilkesboro, in Wilkes County. This project focuses on the section of highway from west of
NC 16 to NC 268. This portion of US 421 is approximately 3.4 miles.
Project Purpose
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve travel
time for traffic using the US 421 corridor in the vicinity of Wilkesboro.
Improvements are currently being made to US 421 in the study area under TIP Project R-
2240B. US 421 is being widened to five lanes between NC 16 and the US 421 Business
intersection. From the US 421 Business intersection to east of NC 268, US 421 is being widened
to four lanes with a median. This work is anticipated to be completed in December 2003. One
team member asked about level of service (LOS) information along US 421 for the current year.
Ms. Raynor stated that a LOS discussion is included in the purpose and need documentation;
however,present year information is not included.
Coordination of TIP Projects R-616 and U-3468
Following the discussion on TIP Project U-3468, Richard Brewer presented information
on the adjacent project. TIP Project R-616 involves improvements to the NC 18-268 and US 421
Business corridor in the vicinity of Wilkesboro. One team member questioned why the existing
US 421 Bypass does not function to alleviate congestion in the R-616 study corridor. It was
stated that the primary function of US 421 is to serve intrastate and regional traffic. The facilities
included in the R-616 study serve regional and local trips.
Team members emphasized the connectivity of the two projects and the importance of
planning coordination. While the projects share a common study area,they each have
independent utility. Chris Militscher noted that a project which meets the stated purpose for TIP
Project U-3468, will not alleviate the need for TIP Project R-616. Rob Hanson agreed that the
projects share commonalties, but expressed hesitation to link the two projects together. This may
result in problems if one of the projects lost funding. Lubin Prevatt recommended that the
purpose and need of each project be prepared independently. He also recommended that
concurrence meetings for the two projects be held jointly. This would provide independent
documentation for each project,but ensure that coordination of the two projects occurred. The
team members agreed that all subsequent concurrence meetings for TIP Projects U-3468 and R-
616 should be joint meetings.
Cc: Merger Team members

L
�' •. . AFL ?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO nPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
July 22, 2002
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele
DENR—Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh,NC 27604-2260
Dear Ms. Van Der Wiele:
SUBJECT: NEPA/404 Concurrence Meeting for the NC 18-268 /US 421 Business
Corridor Improvements, Wilkes County,TIP project R-616
A merger team meeting for the subject project is scheduled for August 15, 2002 at
9:00 AM. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the project's purpose and need, and to
obtain written concurrence on this issue.
The meeting will be held in the Department of Transportion Board Room. The meeting
will be held in conjunction with Ms. Alethia Raynor's U-3468 concurrence meeting,
since both projects are located in the same vicinity.
Attached to this letter is a draft purpose and need statement for R-616. If you have any
questions or concerns prior to the 15'",please call me at(919) 733-7844 ext. 242. My
email address is rbrewer ndot.state.nc.us.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Brewer, P.E.
U Project Development Engineer
•
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOTORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

NEPA®404 MERGER CONCURRENCE POINT #1
PURPOSE AND NEED DOCUMENTATION
FOR
NC 18-268 ® US 421 BUSINESS
CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
co
.OF TFRI
TIP PROJECT R-0616 WIL.KES COUNTY

NC 18-268 / US 421 BUSINESS CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS
TIP Project R-0616 * State Project 8.1761701* Federal Aid Project STP-268(4)
Purpose of Today's Meeting
The purpose of today's meeting is to present information regarding the
purpose and need of TIP Project R-0616. The goal is to reach written
concurrence on the purpose and need. Any discussion relating to probable
alternatives for this project will not take place at today's meeting, but only after
concurrence on purpose and need has been achieved.
Project Description
TIP Project R-0616 is included in the draft 2004-2010 N. C.
Transportation Improvement Program. The TIP project description is:
Wilkesboro-North Wilkesboro bypass, NC 18 to US 421, multi-lanes, part on
new location. Figure 1 shows the project vicinity.
Purpose and Need Statement
Ar The purpose of this project is to alleviate vehicular congestion on
the NC 18-268 and US 421 Business corridor.
/VM8204 Expected future vehicular congestion in this corridor indicates the need
for expanded transportation facilities.
Existing Highway and Land Use Conditions
NC 18 and NC 268 are north-south highways serving both through and
local traffic in Wilkes County. The two routes merge (NC 18-268) north of City
of North Wilkesboro and pass through the central business district (CBD) before
crossing the Yadkin River. US 421 Business carries traffic through the CBD.
The roads are generally multi-lane facilities.. In the CBD the routes are
carried by one-way pairs (Main Street is one-way westbound, CBD Loop one-
way eastbound) with two travel lanes in each direction. D Street also serves
CBD traffic. The speed limit is 35 mph in the CBD and 45 mph outside of the
CBD.
Existing land use adjoining the roadways is a combination of residential,
commercial and industrial.
2

Existing (2000) Traffic Conditions and Level of Service
Current (2000) estimated average daily traffic (ADT) on NC 18-268 east of
the CBD is 22,400 vehicles per day (vpd). In the CBD volumes are 9,100 vpd on
each one-way street (18,200 vpd total traffic), and 15,400 vpd on D Street.
West of the CBD, volumes on US 421 Business are 27,400 vpd. Current ADTs are
shown in the attached figure (top number).
The existing NC 18-268 and US 421 Business corridor operates at level of
service (LOS) D. The corridor's most congested intersection is the NC 18 and
Elkin Highway (NC 268A) junction. During the peak travel periods, the
intersection operates at LOS E.
The capacity of the corridor and its busiest intersection is defined as LOS E.
Currently these facilities are operating at or just below capacity.
Design Year (2025) Forecasted Traffic and Level of Service
The design year for this project is 2025. If no improvements are made to
the NC 18-268 and US 421 Business corridor by that time, vehicular demand is
forecasted to be 41,600 vpd.on NC 18-268 east of the CBD; 14,900 vpd on
each one-way pair in the CBD; 25,400 vpd on D Street; and 46,200 on US 421
Business west of the CBD. Forecasted ADT for the no build condition is depicted
in the attached figure (bottom number).
If improvements in traffic-carrying capacity are not made to the NC 18-
268 and US 421 Business corridor, these facilities will operate at level of service
LOS F during the peak travel periods by 2025. At the congested intersection
of NC 18 and Elkin Highway (NC 268A), LOS F is forecasted to occur during
peak .travel periods.
LOS F occurs when the capacity of a transportation facility is exceeded.
The resulting traffic operations are forced flow and highly variable travel speeds
on the main road, and long queuing at intersections.
Summary
The proposed project will alleviate vehicular congestion in the general
east-west direction in Wilkesboro and North Wilkesboro. Alternatives to meet
the purpose of the project will be submitted to the merger team and the public
as the development of the project progresses.
9— f o ►moles
3

74 1g63
� 152z
N _ L- - -----------
(existing -:, m p3 , --- ----- - �z
2000ADT CORRIDOR '°'-- °''-
I 1 1971
2025 ---2140 19W 1 -
ADT (no build) 'UNDER STUDY -
1625 .03 --col 1979
i •.
12 N - t
" 00 20600
O o n -
44200 °' 234
19_20 � IS-11 03 3820019 —
1517 5 1523 Ir`_`
N N I515 h
1514 19-17 152N - -d 1525 1'/ ---_'- - z3m
576
1585 1517 A
S 11 1526' 1
`1 —• ,1525' tY• 2334 , a
1593 1334' I° 1513 1514
4 ''1
333 1369
.• 1416 ' S12. 1641 ,5 ' 22400
-
--
1332 41 _ _ �e 41 600 /
1 Il
J
CRICKET •1 �, /�_, \ ���
n (UNINC.) C"df1393
'` 1721 '
d 1372 ` �' - NORTH WILKESBORO 2333
13331331'
150a ZM
1505
1519
AR 1320 ie .ro ,e 1506 - --\� 4 0 z33s .
15 421 —
ISM R -, ,�
,3
g�,51 BUS
1325 \
� 12 25400
330 --., 11507
a79~' , 26 91 0 0 y flow]
361 One wa
.;3z9 _ ;- 14900
3�p
15.0 - 39
®
1320
1329 46200
fi 23e6 zsxi
vas.
1322
92 le 4 2363
L..—� /• �: (` IB-10bI a l lo
Ce
-6 5 0 0 0 421N� 1 2451 2446
L= \ l try
�O i2510
.05 7 y
1
•\ 11lA �/ � 2453 � a0
2448 2449
alp 16
1 \ \ q l V.
2460 •73. 1001
2446
1
2' WILKESBORO
I' ,pL 3,090
60
1198 .. .
1186
\ ! / `� `— •39 2461111 Q 2533 25-V 1.r

US 421
EAST OF MAPLE SPRINGS TO
EAST OF NC 268 NEAR VVILKESBORO
M KES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
STATE PROJECT No. 6.769002T
T.I.P. No. R-2240
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
l Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)
I
By the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION.
and the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
i
Da a of pprovaI H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date of Approval FaP— Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
v.

US 421 9
3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
.l
3.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The no-build alternative would result in no improvements to US 421 in the study area.
The existing 12-mile segment of US 421 would remain a two-lane facility, with the
exception of the 1.2-mile, existing five-lane section in the vicinity of the US 421
Bypass/US 421 Business intersection.
Benefits associated with the no-build alternative include: no residential relocations; no
impacts to biotic communities, wetlands, wildlife, and agricultural lands; and no
temporal increases in noise, dirt, and dust during construction. In addition, no state or
federal funds would be expended for right of way acquisition and construction.
l
The no-build alternative would have a profoundly negative effect on level of service.
(LOS) and highway capacity in the project area. As previously described in. Section
2.3.4, projected traffic volumes for the design year will result in current signalized
intersections exceeding their capacity. Travel in this area will be characterized by
extensive stopping delays at these intersections of well over 60 seconds per vehicle.
Key unsignalized intersections in the project area will operate at a LOS "E" during
peak periods. Increased traffic volumes on the unimproved highway will also likely
increase the incidence of vehicular accidents, especially at intersections.
1
1
In summary, the no-build alternative will result in significant travel delays and traffic
congestion along this portion of US 421. The unacceptable level of service will conflict
i with US 421's important role as the main highway link between the Piedmont and the
western part of the state. Without the recommended improvements, US 421's ability to
function as a safe and effective part of the Intrastate Corridor System will be
substantially compromised. In conclusion, the no-build alternative is not considered a
reasonable or feasible alternative for this project.
1 3.2 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A series of preliminary construction alternatives were considered for the project,
ranging from improvements along the existing US 421 facility, to alignments on new
location that would bypass the existing commercial district.
Preliminary highway alternatives were developed through the application of land
suitability mapping (LSM) within the study area. This mapping shows factors that
would limit or discourage highway development by utilizing overlays at a common
scale. The factors mapped and subsequently evaluated included wetlands, floodplains,
j biotic communities, agricultural uses (prime farmland), soils, topography, residential,
commercial, and industrial development density and archaeological and historic
architectural resources. The overlay process revealed specific areas or "windows" that
would minimize potential impacts. These windows, in turn, were linked to form
potential highway corridors.
NCDOT Federal EA July 1995

US 421 1 y
3.2.1 Bypass Alternatives
Through the above-described process, a series of potential alignments on new location
were developed. These bypass alternatives were preliminarily sited south of existing
US 421, between NC 16 and the US 421/NC 268 interchange. Five new location
corridors were identified, both north and south of the Yadkin River. These corridors
exited the existing US 421 roadway in the vicinity of NC 16 and tied back into US 421
just west of the Yadkin River bridge. Each of the proposed controlled access
-? alternatives bypassed the existing business district. New right of way would be required
to accomodate the proposed four-lane divided facility. A preliminary centerline was
established for assessing environmental impacts. The assessment process concluded that
f-, a bypass north of the Yadkin River, thereby requiring only one crossing of the river,
L was the most reasonable and feasible.
1 West of NC 16, this Bypass Alternative was identical to the current Recommended
Alternative. At NC 16, however, the Bypass Alternative departed from the existing
US 421 facility in a southeast direction. This four-lane divided freeway facility,
in approximately 3.0 miles in length, would cross Millers Creek, Tucker Hole
extending pp y �
Creek, and two unnamed tributaries before tieing back into US 421 approximately 500
feet west of the Yadkin River bridge. This segment, on new location, would have full
control of access. The bypass would be designed with a 46-foot median and.require the
purchase of 250 feet (minimum) of new R/W.
A detailed evaluation and comparison between the Improve Existing and the Bypass
' Alternatives was then performed. The comparison of these two reasonable and feasible
alternatives or "build" alternatives considered a variety of factors, including
environmental impacts (i.e., impacts to wetlands, floodplain, vegetative communities of
biotic importance, et al.), ability to.meet the purpose and need of the US 421 Intrastate
Corridor System, safety and engineering, traffic (level of service), and estimated
construction costs.
As a result of this evaluation the Bypass Alternative was eliminated from further
consideration based, in part, on the following: 1) 4(f) considerations as a result of
direct conflicts with the Johnson Farm Complex - an historic property determined
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (refer to Section 4.1.6); 2) greater
environmental impacts, notably with respect to areas of biotic importance which
included the removal of marginally disturbed forested areas along the new location
segment; 3) more residential and commercial relocations; 4) potential conflicts with the
Montford Stokes site- an archaeological site determined eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places (refer to Section 4.1.6); and 5) greater construction costs
based on the substantial amount of earthwork that would be required along the bypass
segment. Contrastingly, the Improve Existing Alternative would 1) result in no conflicts
with historic or archaeological properties, 2) have minimal impact on forested areas of
biotic importance, with proposed improvements to be largely confined within the
existing right of way, and 3) require approximately 60% less earthwork.
3.2.2 Improve Existing Alternatives
North side widening of existing US 421 was also evaluated. This alternative would
involve the addition of two westbound travel lanes and a 46-foot median north of the
NCDOT Federal EA July 1995

US 421 11
existing roadway. This alternative was compared with the Recommended Alternative
(south side widening) and eliminated from further consideration based, in part, on the
following: 1) greater wetlands and floodplain impacts; 2) more involvement with
operational gas stations'and potential conflicts with underground storage tanks; and 3)
more residential and commercial relocations - this alternative would fail to take full
advantage of the existing right of way which has been offset to the south to
accommodate future widening.
3.3 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The proposed improvements will involve constructing additional eastbound travel lanes
south of the existing roadway. The proposed roadway will follow the alignment of
existing US 421 and provide partial control of access.
West of NC 16 and east of the US 421 Bypass/US 421 Business intersection, the
proposed widening will involve the addition of two eastbound lanes and a 46-foot
grassed median south of the existing roadway. East of NC 16 this four-lane divided
section will transition to a five-lane section to tie into the existing five-lane facility
located between SR 1323 and the US 421 Bypass/US 421 Business intersection. The
Typical Sections and Design Criteria governing the proposed improvements are
included in Appendix A. Functional Design Drawings of the Recommended Alternative
are presented in Appendix G.
As previously described, US 421 between SR 1323 and the US 421 Bypass/US 421
Business intersection was recently upgraded to a five-lane section as part of TIP Nos.
W-2817 and W-2861. Further minor improvements to this 1.2 mile segment will be
considered, as necessary, during final design of this project. These minor improvements
will be contained within the existing right of way.
3.3.1 Project Terminus
The western terminus of the project is located east of the community of Maple Springs
and approximately 2,700 feet west of SR 1304. West of the project, US 421 is a four
lane divided facility with partial control of access. The eastern terminus of R-2240 is
1,000 feet east of the US 421/NC 268 interchange. East of the project is a 1.8-mile
segment of the US 421 North Wilkesboro Bypass with full control of access and a four-
lane divided cross section.
3.3.2 Length of Project
The overall length of this project, including the 1.2-mile section of existing five-lane
roadway from SR 1323 to east of the US 421 Bypass/US 421 Business intersection, is
approximately 12 miles.
3.3.3 Design Criteria and Typical Sections
West of NC 16 and east of the US 421 Bypass/US 421 Business intersection-, the
proposed widening will involve the addition of two eastbound lanes and a 46-foot
grassed median south of the existing roadway. East of NC 16 this four-lane divided
F July 1995
NCDOT Federal FA

US 421 21
US 421 and NC 268 encourages visitors from North Wilkesboro, Wilkesboro, Boone,
Hickory, Lenoir,'Winston-Salem, and Morganton (Wilkes County Land Use Planning
Committee, 1987). Improvements of US 421 will,enhance accessibility and may
increase visitation and utilization of,this park.
4.1.5 Public Services and Utilities
At the present time, no intercity bus lines pass through Wilkes County. Six taxicab
companies operate in the county and all of the companies are located in either
Wilkesboro or North Wilkesboro (Travel, et al., 1989). Neither a Rideshare Program
nor commuter rail service exists in the county.
The new Wilkes County Airport provides services and facilities for private aircraft as
well as private-for-hire flights. This airport is located northeast of North Wilkesboro.
The former county airport site is located south of the Yadkin River and northwest of
t the US 421/NC 268 interchange. Airports for commercial flights are located
approximately two hours from Wilkesboro in the cities of Charlotte, Winston-Salem,
t Greensboro, and High Point.
Emergency response services in the project area include police, fire, and ambulance.
During construction activities, traffic flow will be maintained along US 421, thereby
minimizing any disruption in the movement of emergency vehicles.
The completion of the project will have a positive impact on the above-described
services and other users of US 421 by improving traffic flow, relieving traffic
congestion, and improving the driveability and safety of the roadway.
Existing utilities in the study area include electric, sewer, and water. Most of the utility
lines follow existing roadways. Consequently, the Recommended Alternative will result
in expenditures for utility relocations. Based on a utility conflict severability-scaleof
low, medium, or high, utility conflicts are anticipated to be medium for the project.
The preliminary estimate for utility relocations for the Recommended Alternative is
$440,000.
r 4.1.6 Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources
Archaeological Resources
An Archaeological Survey was conducted for the proposed project corridors. This
survey was coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in
accordance with the Federal Highway Administration's procedures for compliance with
the National Historic Preservation Act and the Federal-Aid Highways Act (Department
of Transportation Act, as amended). The archaeological survey was conducted to
;.; evaluate the project's probable impact upon archaeological resources.
During the survey, nine previously unrecorded archaeological sites were recorded and
J i two previously recorded sites were revisited. In addition, the archaeological remains of
the Montford Stokes house site were recorded as archaeological site 31WK121. The
Montford Stokes house was listed in the National Register of Historic Places, but was
delisted after the structure burned in 1972. The archaeological components of this site,
NCDOT Federal EA Jul, 1995

J -
US 421 22 —4
i
however, were assessed as potentially eligible for the National Register. In a letter of
August 27, 1992, the Deputy SHPO concurred with this recommendation (See
Appendix-_C).- -
The proposed widening of US 421 along the existing right of way will have no effect
on archaeological sites previously identified in the southern bypass alternative. The
project's area of potential effect does not include archaeological resources currently
listed in the National Register or on the State Study List.
{ Historical Architectural Resources
An Architectural Resources Survey has been completed for the project. The survey had
} the following goals: (1) to determine the "area of potential effects" (APE) of the
project; (2) to identify all historic architectural resources within this area; (3) to
t evaluate these resources according to National Register Criteria; and (4) to provide
preliminary assessments of effects for properties listed in or evaluated as eligible for the
National Register, if such properties exist. The architectural survey within the APE was
necessary for the project's compliance with both Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act.
The survey identified a total of 31 resources considered to be 50 years of age or-older
within the APE. Of these, eight were recorded, of which one, the Johnson Farm
Complex, has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The
approximately 51-acre complex is located on the north side of the Yadkin River. This
F potential National Register property includes cultivated bottomland, pasture, and
woodland, a 1913 vernacular, frame, story-and-a-half house, a 1935 gable-front, story-
and-a-half house, and eight associated farm outbuildings. The approximate location of
the Johnson Farm Complex property is presented on Figure 6. The findings of the
= survey were coordinated.with the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources and
the SHPO has concurred (Appendix Q.
FHWA has determined and the SHPO has concurred that the proposed widening of
US 421 along the existing right of way will have no affect on the National Register-
eligible property located within the project's APE (Appendix Q. The APE does not
contain architectural resources currently listed in or eligible for the National Register or
on the State Study List.
The completed architectural survey report, a technical appendix to this EA, is available
for review at the NCDOT Planning and Environmental Branch, located in the
Transportation Building at One South Wilmington Street in Raleigh, North Carolina.
4.2 ECONOMIC EFFECTS
The population of Wilkes County has steadily increased since the 1960s. The period
from 1970 to 1980 experienced a 9.4% increase in population. This trend is "directly
attributable to the location of manufacturing firms and businesses into the county,
effectively reducing the out-migration of the young to seek employment in the adjoining
`. counties." (Wilkes County Land Use Committee, 1987). The 1990 Census lists the
population of Wilkesboro as 2,573 (2,086 over the age of 18) and the population of
Wilkes County as 59,393 (45,423 over the age of 18) (NC Data Center, 1990). By the
NCDOT Federal EA July 1995
s

tr i
w
$ ! e W4rEt Gs►p�v
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F.EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 27, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Alethia Raynor Q
42)
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: US 421 Wilkesboro Corridor Study, Wilkes County,
F.A. Project NHF-421B(1), State Project 8.1761901,
TIP Project U-3468 concurrence meeting for the subject project was held on May 15 2. The objectives
of the meeting were to present general information about the project study area to the team
members, and to establish purpose and need for the project(concurrence point 1). The following
people attended the meeting:
Jean Manuele US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh
Jake Riggsbee Federal Highway Administration
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service
Cynthia Van Der Wiele NC Division of Water Quality
David Cox North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Renee Gledhill-Earley State Historic Preservation Office
Nya Boayue NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Ted Walls NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Rob Hanson NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Jay McInnis NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Alethia Raynor NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Purpose and need documentation for the subject project was provided to participants prior
to the meeting. Handouts made available at the meeting included a copy of all slides and figures
referenced during the presentation. The following is a summary of the information presented to
the team members. Comments and recommendations discussed at the meeting are also included.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH VYILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW..DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

} I
Project Description
TIP Project U-3468 has been included in the Draft 2004-2010 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)to improve the US 421 corridor in the vicinity of
Wilkesboro, in Wilkes County. This project focuses on the section of highway from west of
NC 16 to NC 268. This portion of US 421 is approximately 3.4 miles.
Project Purpose
The project purpose presented at the meeting was stated as follows:
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve travel time for
traffic using the US 421 corridor in the vicinity of Wilkesboro.
Project Need
The needs identified for the project are:
1) Growing traffic volumes along US 421 in the project area,
2) High number of rear-end collisions, and
3) Growing delay in travel time due to amount of traffic and number of signals along
US 421 in the area.
Project History
Improvements are currently being made to US 421 in the study area under TIP Project
R-2240B. US 421 is being widened to five lanes between NC 16 and the US 421 Business
intersection. From the US 421 Business intersection to east of NC 268, US 421 is being widened
to four lanes with a median. This work is anticipated to be completed in December 2003.
The Environmental Assessment(EA) for TIP Project R-2240 was completed in November
1995. One alternative considered for the project included a bypass around the existing business
district. The Bypass alternative recommended a new location portion of US 421 south of the
existing facility, between NC 16 and the US 421/NC 268 interchange. The Bypass alternative was
eliminated from further consideration based, in part, on the following: 1) 4(f) considerations as a
result of direct conflicts with the Johnson Farm Complex—a historic property determined eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places; 2) greater environmental impacts,notably with respect
to areas of biotic importance which included the removal of marginally disturbed forested areas
along the new location segment; 3) more residential and commercial relocations; 4)potential
conflicts with the Montford Stokes site—an archaeological site determined eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places; and 5) greater construction costs based on the substantial
amount of earthwork that would be required along the bypass segment(TIP Project R-2240 EA,
1995).
Recommendations
TIP Project R-616 is programmed as the NC 18-268 (Wilkesboro and North Wilkesboro
Bypass) from NC 18 to US 421. In the Draft 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP),right of way is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2008 and construction is scheduled to begin

s G:,
in 2010. A meeting to discuss purpose and need (concurrence point 1) has not been held on this
project.
At this time, it is recommended that the western termini of the Bypass (R-616) connect to
US 421 within the U-3468 project study area. All the team members emphasized the need to
coordinate planning of these two projects. They expressed concern about precluding options for
both projects since information about project R-616 was not available at the meeting.
Ms. Manuele noted that the NC 18-268 Bypass will direct more traffic onto US 421., The 2025
traffic projections provided at the meeting assume the Bypass is in place. One team member then
questioned if the NC 18-268 Bypass was driving the need for improvements along US 421. On
US 421, east of SR 1323,traffic volumes will range between 39,000 and 49,400 in 2025 with the
NC 18-268 Bypass in place. If the Bypass is not constructed,traffic volumes will range between
48,600 and 65,000 in 2025. Even with TIP Project R-616, US 421 will operate between a level of
service (LOS)E and F in 2025.
Jay McInnis emphasized that planning for the projects will be coordinated, but believed it
was more appropriate to tie the projects together at the alternatives stage. Since the two projects
are routing traffic in different directions,then the purpose and need for each project is different.
Mr. McInnis,recommended revising the purpose and need for U-3468 to incorporate a
commitment for coordination of the two projects. Rob Hanson agreed and recommended the
purpose statement include addressing the needs of this and other transportation projects in a
manner that minimizes the combined environmental impact.
Marella Buncick and Jean Manuele both stated that there is a demonstrated need for
improvement to US 421. However, all of the team members agreed that another meeting should
be scheduled to discuss TIP Projects U-3468,and R-616 together. Team members want to gather
all available information and then draft purpose and need statements for both projects. They
recognize the importance of TIP Project U-3468 in light of the other improvements to US 421
currently underway, and want to approach project development from a system level.
Ms. Raynor asked for final comments on the purpose and need documentation for TIP
Project U-3468. Ms. Manuele questioned if the purpose statement should be revised to
recommend an.interstate or freeway facility for the project. Mr. McInnis disagreed with this
recommendation. David Cox noted that a facility with driveways and a large number of access .
points would not meet the stated purpose for the project. Therefore, certain types of facilities will
be excluded from consideration because they do not meet the purpose and need. No other
comments were made.
Cc: Merger Team members

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 22, 2002
Ms. Jean Manuele 2 8 20
US Army Corps of Engineers j
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road WETLANDS GROUP
Suite 120 µ WATER QUALITY SECTION
Raleigh,North Carolina 27615-6814
Dear Ms. Manuele:
SUBJECT: NEPA/404 Concurrence Meeting for the US 421 Wilkesboro Corridor
Study, Wilkes County, TIP Project U-3468
A merger team meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 11`" at 9:00 AM. The purpose of
the meeting is to discuss purpose and need for TIP Project U-3468, improvements to the US 421
corridor in the vicinity of Wilkesboro. An agenda detailing the location of this meeting will be
forwarded under separate cover.
Enclosed is information regarding the purpose and need for the project. Please let me
know if you have any questions or need additional information prior to the April 11 m meeting.
My phone number is(919) 733-7844, extension 247 and my email address is
afra�r(a)dot.state.nc.us.
Sincerely,
Alethia Raynor
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
afr
Enclosure
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Cc: Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele,NC Division of Water Quality
Ms. Marella Buncick,US Fish and Wildlife Service
Ms. Maryellen Haggard,NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley, State Historic Preservation Office
Mr. Jake Riggsbee,Federal Highway Administration
Mr. Jimmy Norris, P.E.,NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Rob Hanson, P.E.,NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Mr. Jay McInnis,P.E.,NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
90 !' SO4

J
NEPA/404 MERGER CONCURRENCE POINT #1
PURPOSE AND NEED DOCUMENTATION
FOR
OF lAORT11
co
fi p
0
OF TRA�54
US 421 WILKESBORO CORRIDOR STUDY
WILKES. .COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3468

US 421 WILKESBORO CORRIDOR STUDY
TIP Project U-3468
State Project 8J761901
Federal Aid Project NHF-421B(1)
Purpose of Today's Meeting .
The purpose of today's meeting is to present information regarding the purpose and need
of TIP Project U-3468. Likely alternatives for this project will not be discussed at today's
meeting. Discussions on alternatives will follow concurrence on purpose and need.
Project Description
TIP Project U-3468 has been included in the 2002-2008 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program to improve the US 421 corridor in the vicinity of Wilkesboro,in Wilkes
County (see Figure 1). This project focuses on the section of highway from west of NC 16 to
NC 268.
Purpose of Project
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve travel
time for traffic using the US 421 corridor in the vicinity of Wilkesboro.
Existing Conditions
US 421 is an intrastate highway facility that connects the southern coastal area to the
piedmont and the northwestern part of the state: In the western part of North Carolina, US 421 is
primarily an east-west facility. In this area', US 421 serves to connect Winston-Salem and .
Boone. US 421 is classified as a principal urban arterial.
US 421 INTRASTATE CORRIDOR ar
NIt S 0"M.
..-'
\: �
AVI:s�Y�
�2 1-2240 A 2�39",
LW, ! EX,M UC
PO

i 1 .
,h
Several ski resorts are located in the vicinity of Boone. Appalachian State University,is
located in Boone. US 421 is the primary route for motorists traveling from the eastern part of the
state to these resorts and the university. The Blue Ridge Parkway can be accessed from US 421
east of Boone, as well.
US 421 has two different typical sections within the project study area. West of NC 16 to
SR 1323,US 421 is a two-lane facility. From SR 1323 to US 421 Business,the roadway has five
lanes. East of the US 421 Business intersection, US 421 returns to two lanes. The posted speed
limit within the study area is between 45 and 55 mph.
Improvements are currently being made to US 421 in the study area under.TIP Project
R-2240B. US 421 is being widened to five lanes between NC 16 and the US 421 Business
intersection. From the US 421 Business•intersection to east of NC 268,US`1421 is being widened
to four lanes with a median. 'This work is anticipated to be completed in December 2003.
Existing land use along US 421 varies. US 424 is surrounded by dense commercial and
business development between SR 1323 (Darcy Road) and US 421 Business. Multiple access
points exist along US 421 for the different shopping centers. West of SR 1323,the land use
consists of residential areas with scattered businesses. Signalized intersections exist within the
project study area at the following locations: NC 16, SR 1323, Addison Avenue, SR 1322, and
US 421 Business.
Current(year 2001) daily traffic volumes along US 421 range between 12,200 and
34,800 vehicles per day: Traffic volumes are the highest within the dense commercial area along
US 421. In that area,the volumes range between 25,200 and 34,800 vehicles per day. Current
traffic volumes for the study area are shown on Figure 2.
The portion of US 421 in the project study area serves a mixture of local and through
traffic. Most of the retail space in Wilkesboro is located along or near US 421. During
weekends in the fall,tourists traveling to the mountains to view the leaves and football traffic
contribute to traffic congestion along US 421.
Anticipated Future Conditions
In 2025, daily traffic volumes along US 421 are anticipated to range between 23400 and
58,200 vehicles per day. Within the commercial area, volumes are the highest and are
anticipated to be between 46,800 and 49,400 vehicles per day: Figure 3 shows the anticipated
traffic volumes along US 421 for 2025.
As described in the Wilkes County Growth Management Plan,the Town of Wilkesboro is
experiencing substantial commercial growth along the US421 corridor. They are anticipating
that this trend will continue in the future.
2

Deficiencies of Existing Facility
Traffic Carrying Capacity
Without further improvements beyond those currently under construction, US 421 in the
study area will operate between level of service (LOS)E and F in the design year(2025). .
The following signalized intersections are anticipated to operate at a LOS F in 2025:
• US 421 and SR 1323 (Dancy Road)
• US 421 and SR 1322, and
• US 421 and US 421 Business intersection.
The intersection of US.421 and NC 16 is anticipated to reach LOS E in 2025. As a result
of the spacing of these signals along US 421, it is anticipated that the level of service at the
signals will control the level of service along the facility.
Accident Record
An accident study was conducted along US 421 in the study area for the time period
between November 1998 and October 2001. During the studied time period, 113 crashes
occurred between NC 16 and SR 1323. The accident rate for this section of US 421 was 320.66
accidents per 100 million vehicle miles. This is higher than the statewide average of 290.84
accidents per'100 million vehicle miles for urban two-lane US routes (1996-1998 three year
average). On the five-lane section of US 421 between SR 1323 and the US 421 Business split,
124 crashes were reported for the studied time period. This results in a crash rate of 386.53
accidents per 100 million vehicle miles. In comparison,the statewide crash rate for urban US
four-lane highways with a continuous left turn lane was 470.97 accidents per 100 million vehicle
miles.
In the study area,the most frequent type of accidents involved rear end collisions due to
vehicles slowing or stopping and angle accidents. Often,these types of crashes are more likely
to occur on congested roadways. The recorded accidents in this study are based on the current
typical section. 'Upon completion of the widening of US 421 (TIP Project R-2240B),the crash
rates should decrease;however, it is expected the rates will not fall as much as they might
otherwise due to the congestion expected along this section of roadway.
Travel Time
Improvements are currently underway along US 421 between Winston-Salem and
Wilkesboro. Upon completion, US 421 between these areas will be a four-lane divided highway
with limited access. Many portions of US 421 will be full control of access. US 421 between
Winston-Salem and I-77 in Yadkin County has been upgraded to a freeway and the facility is
posted at 65 mph. US 421 west of Wilkesboro is currently being widened to four lanes with a
median, as well. When all of the projects which are now under construction are complete,
US 421 will be a freeway or expressway from Winston-Salem to Boone,with the exception of
through the study area.
. 3 .

Through traffic using US 421 in the project area will experience significant delay, even
after completion of the current widening, due to the amount of traffic and the number of signals
along this section of US 421. During the peak hour in the design year (2025), it is anticipated
that approximately 20,minutes of delay will be experienced along the 2.5 mile signalized section.
L
4

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS '
.�" PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
e mwm ..es`o`
MY.1p11
`W I L E S
.y. US 421 Wilkesboro Corridor Study
Wilkes County
Y
`' ='Y '. �•�" TIP Project U-3468
Project Study Area Fig. 1
� weed�a �,� li' 2•(�/to �. �un�✓' ,� �.eeci'� e7�._—�
041o, —
—NORTH
B i
16 oN: WILKESBORO
Q�o;O�' \\ 18
1311 Q: �T^1^ 68
,. 1372 421 --�
1322 I BUS
• l \�
1314 1146 1319
131 1323L
TIP ProjectR'2240 421 \
\ I I
1147 1143
1
� I
I I
�R �?,14 \\\WILKESBORO 421 1
", y i LEGEND
',
V� `f( t, ------ Adjacent Projects
)l�^7`=—��/�j�r�� �\ \\' (Not a part of this study)

TIP PROJECT U-3468
US 421 WILKESBORO CORRIDOR STUDY
2001 ADT VOLUMES
NC 16 SR 1.372 N
No Scale
12 PM 65 12PM 60
1� 2 FM 60 SR 1321 (3 5)
(5,6) SR 1313 (5,4)
SR 1322 v5��ey
SR 1323
0
12,200 18,200 21,200 262 00 34,800
US 421 . 21 000
19,400 20,400 25,200 33,400
To SR 1185
12 PM 65 Addison Ave. 28,600
SR 1182 (, 3,5)
- A
SR 1143 aakm Rwet J�00
NC 268
-26,800
—_ 'US 421
TO.Yaak�
Kerr Scott Reservoir WILKESBORO
%DHV\ %DIRECTIONAL
.40
PEAK HOURS 1�2 PM 60
DIRECTION (5,6)
%DUALS/ \%TTST
-FIGURE 2.

i y
TIP PROJECT U-3468 .
US 421 WILKESBORO CORRIDOR STUDY
2025 ADT VOLUMES
NC 16 SR 1372 N
No Scale
12 PM 60 12 PM 65 112 PM 60
(5,6)
SR 1313 (5,4) — SR 1321 (3,5)
5
749,400
SR 1323
23,400 33,000
US 421 37.800V3� ,400 48 200
35,000 36,800 V45,600 46,800
�— SR 1185
To Boone
1♦ 2 PM 65 Addison Ave. 58,200
SR 1182 (3,5) �2
A
SR 1143 �aaK�rRNec !J'li0o
NC 268
54,400
US 421
\ To ya�
//,9
Kerr Scott Reservoir WILKESBORO
%DHV\ % DIRECTIONAL
PEAK HOUR----A 12 PM
DIRECTION (5,6)
DUALS/ \%TTST
FIGURE 3

TIP PROJECT U-3468
NEPA/404 MERGER TEAM
MEETING
Objectives of Today's Meetinz
• Present general information about Project
Study Area -
• Establish Purpose and Need for the Project
(Concurrence Point 1)
1

Location
Wilkes County, North Carolina
y�' k£.�t5':/^ry 0 j .
A L E E A 4❑ .R
Existing US 421
• Two-lane facility from west of NC 16 to
SR 1323 (Dancy Road)
• Five lane typical see:' from SR 1323 to -
US 421 Business
• US 421 is currently being widened to five
lanes as part of TIP Project R-2240B.
2

,,.irslilac
c �]t -"'3 �y • �� a"r �"+M,.P��.¢¢ ;�l >r,. � �r i q is,
a � �
Ell
IF
.y+ •/.y w i i 3 m �q r a"'-. *xs S 'f r6i`� xw � $ - T� e
- 'slums,
' x 4uf+cYr b 4
-2k Mi
�1 �r4�<t hx �� � •:. v y .�- A ��"* tt. tip
Mi
,3 1 c t ^sr.; 4 3 9' ..s.r• m
�`.des ,:�.•V

TIP PROJECTU3468
US 421 W LKESBORO CORRIDOR STUDY
2025 ADT VOLUMES
NC 16 SR 1372 N
No Scale
tz pen sa a pen es t���°
tssl SR 1313 ,� (sA) SR 1321 4 (]St
SR 1322 4`0gy
SR 1323 J`'pry
Z],400 33,000 49.400
U$42 37 600 36,000 39000
35.000 36,600 46,600
mone
SR 1165
T.
tz FM ss Addis.Ave. 56,200
SR 1182 (]St
( SR 1143
NC 268
. 49.80
US 4]
u
Kerr Scott R mma i W ILKESBORO
%OHV\ %DIRECTIONAL Esk t44 1.e1110 Ssrvke
DRECTI N (6)60/ Appo4mabNLOS0
'DIRECTION (5,6)
%DUALS/ \%TTST
App,,i,WV LOS F
® - ,
PROJECTNEED -
Needs to be addressed by project:
1) Growing traffic volumes along US 421.in the project area - -
2) High numbeof"rear-end collisions -

f
ACCiaentW by Type
h
along US 42a1 �n project area
� � k
f Angle-
m Animal/dMovable Oblecf
3,Backing Up
O Jackkrife
3 Left tuin £
Right tum
Other collision vwth reWit
p Other noh:,-,p sion
�;� � O�,ertumlRollo�er` >~
F
Parked motor vehicle
p Rear'End Collisions
5 �
R � 1
ides
x
PROJECT NEED
Needs to be addressed by project:
1)Growing traffic volumes along US 421 in the project area
2) High number of rear'end"collisions
\ 3) Growing delay in travel time due to
amount of traffic and number of signals
along US 421 in the area

US 421 Intrastate Corridor
ASHE SURRY u
iRkesUEra ul YADKJN
AVERT, ELLZ
E
R-2615 R-529 &-2240 R-22�4 R:2120:
NA t}C ;EX:MI. Ff) EX!�1 UC
PD
cl ded
Corn arrn ADT;and Ca aci alon US
..p, �;.
P..a ,�! . . 9
80,000z
a 6�
s
60,000 � � 4
40,000 a.
20 000 p
0 825 29' 32, 36 41 51 59 69 ' 80
Approximate Distances(miles)
ADT,(Year 2000) Capacity. ADT(Year 2025)*
WATAUGA WILKES YADKIN FORSYTH
Boone Wilkesboro Winston-
US 421 US 421 Salem
NC 194 NC 16 I-77 140
'in vidnil of Wilkesboro
7

TIP PROJECT U-3468-
US 421 WILKESBORO CORRIDOR STUDY
2025 ADT VOLUMES
NC 16 SR 1372 N
No Scale
12 PM 60 12 PM 65 12 PM 60
(5,6) SR 1313 ( SR 1321 (3,5)
' S
/ SR3293 SR 1322 J5 000
J
23,400 33,000US 421 37.800 38,000 3 49,400
SeS =
D 35,000 36,800 f 46,800
~
To Boone SR 1185
12 PM 65 Addison Ave. 58,200
SR 1182 (3,5)
SR 1143 �aaK�rRNecJ2'60
NC 268
49,800
US 42
20
-! Yaakr
Kerr Scott Reservoir WILKESBORO
%DHV\ % DIRECTIONAL
PEAK HOUR----A 12 PM 60/
DIRECTION (5,15)
%DUALS/ \%TTST
FIGURE 3
Updated May 2002

1/Ti
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Y
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 4, 2001
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Alethia Raynor t-'-J ✓tJC
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
SUBJECT: US 421 Wilkesboro Bypass,NC 16 to the Yadkin River,
Wilkes County, F.A. Project No. NHF42IB(1),
State Project No. 8.1761901, TIP Project No. U-3468
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on March 27, 2001, at 1:30 P.M. in
the Roadway Design Conference Room at the Century Center. The following people were in
attendance:
Gary Page Wilkes County Manager
Ken Noland Town of Wilkesboro Manager
Wayne Myers Wilkes County Chamber of Commerce
Arnold Lakey Wilkes County Commissioner
Mary Ellen Haggard Wildlife Resources Commission
Carl McCann Division Engineer, Division 11
Debbie Barbour Highway Design
Jerome Nix Hydraulics Unit
Bob Deaton Human Environment Unit, Community Impacts
Sid Autry Location& Surveys
Len Hendricks Public Involvement
Ann Steedly Public Involvement
Van Argabright Program Development
John Shambley Program Development
Betty Yancey Right of Way
Mark Salter Right of Way, Utilities
Marc Clifford Roadway Design
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH VOLMINGTON STREET
1549 MAIL SERVICE CENTER VWBSITE. WWW..DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1549

a:.
Sue Flowers Roadway Design
Gary Foster Roadway Design
Betsy Watson Signals & Geometries
Tom Payne Structure Design
Walker Armistead Structure Design
Basir Rashid Traffic Engineering, Signing
Richard Helms Traffic Control
Lubin Prevatt Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Jay McInnis Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Ray Lotf. Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Matthew King Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Alethia Raynor Project Development and Environmental Analysis
After brief introductions, Ms. Raynor discussed the following:
Project Description
TIP Project U-3468 is programmed in the Draft 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) as the construction of a US 421 Bypass on new location north of existing US 421
from NC 16 to the Yadkin River,west of Wilkesboro. The total project length is 3.4 miles.
Project Background
An adjacent project, TIP Project R-2240,recommended improvements to existing US 421
in the area of this project. The environmental document for Project R-2240 was completed in
1995. As part of the environmental study, some alternatives on new location were evaluated.
These alternatives were primarily sited south of existing US 421 and bypassed the Wilkesboro
Business District. The bypass alternative was eliminated because of potential impacts to historic
properties, homes and businesses, and the Yadkin River. The R-2240 document recommended
widening US 421 to a multi-lane facility from east of Maple Springs to east of NC 268.
Purpose of Project
The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce congestion and travel time and improve
safety for traffic using the US 421 corridor in the vicinity of Wilkesboro. In addition, the project
would extend the freeway type facility that is currently in place or under construction leading
into Wilkesboro.
Information concerning traffic volumes along US 421 was gathered from projections
prepared for TIP Project R-2240 and TIP Project R-616 (NC 18-268 Wilkesboro Bypass).
Estimates prepared for Project R-2240 show that in the year 2030, portions of existing.US 421
will be at or above capacity. Traffic projections prepared for project R7616 estimate that
volumes in 2025 will range from 45,000 to 49,000 along US 421 with the NC 268 Bypass in
place. Without the NC 268 Bypass, traffic volumes are expected to range from 45,000 to 65,000.
These traffic projections are only valid along existing US 421 in the area of SR 1323 to the US
421 Business/Bypass split. Traffic estimates for this project are expected to be available in June
or July.
I

Although accident data has not been received for this project, some,conclusion about
accident experience can be made from comparing statewide averages. Statewide averages for US
routes reflect accident rates three and one-half times higher along five lane sections than along
four lane divided facilities with full access control. Therefore, it would be expected that the
proposed bypass would improve the accident experience for traffic using US 421.
Schedule
The project schedule for TIP Project U-3468 is:
Right of Way (begin):Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2006
Construction (begin): FFY 2008
intermediate Schedules*:
Citizens Informational Workshop: January 2002
Roadway Design scheduled to complete Preliminary Design: May 2002
Document Schedule*:
Environmental Assessment(EA): April 2003
Finding of No Significant Impact(FONSI): June 2004
*These schedules do not reflect any changes that may occur in scheduling the 2002-2008
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Existing Transportation Facilities
Roadway Characteristics
US 421 has two different typical sections within the project study area. West of NC 16 to
SR 1323, US 421 is a two-lane facility. The roadway then expands to five lanes within the
business district. East of the US 421 Business/Bypass split, US 421 returns to two lanes. The
posted speed limit within the study area is 45-55 mph. US 421 is classified as a principal urban
arterial.
Full control of access for existing US 421 in the project area begins east of SR 1322
(Winkler Mill Road). West of SR 1322,there is no control of access.
Traffic Operations
Signalized intersections exist within the project limits at the following locations: NC 16,
Addison Avenue, US 421 Business, SR 1323 (Dancy Road), and SR 1322.
Area TIP Projects
R-2240B
TIP Project R-2240B proposes to widen existing US 421 to a multi-lane facility in the
area of this project. The proposed improvements involve constructing additional lanes south of
the existing roadway. West of NC 16, existing US 421 will be widened for two eastbound lanes
and a 46-foot grass median south of the existing roadway. East of NC 16, this four-lane divided

section will transition to a five-lane section to tie into the existing five-lane facility located
between SR 1323 and the US 421 Bypass/US 421 Business intersection. From the US 421
Bypass/US 421 Business intersection to east of NC 268, a four-lane typical section is proposed.
This project was let to construction in September 2000.
R-616
TIP Project R-616 is programmed as the NC 268 Bypass (Wilkesboro and North
Wilkesboro Bypass) from NC 18-268 to US 421. The project proposes to construct two lanes on
multi-lane right of way. Right of way is scheduled to begin on this project in fiscal year 2005,
and construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2008.
R-2120
TIP Project R-2120 proposes to widen US 421 from I-77 to west of the Yadkin River.
The proposed improvements involve constructing a four-lane divided facility with part on new
location. This project has been let to construction.
Proposed Improvements
The feasibility study recommended the following typical section for the new roadway: 4
12-foot travel lanes with 4-foot inside paved shoulders and 10-foot outside paved shoulders (12-
foot total shoulder width), separated by a 60-foot median. DOT staff recommends using a 46-
foot median for the proposed roadway to match the median width of US 421 following
completion of Project R-2240. Full control of access is recommended for the new facility. The
proposed design speed is 60 mph.
The feasibility study proposed four interchanges as part of this project. Roadway Design
has made preliminary recommendations for each of the interchanges. The recommendations are
as follows:
• US 421 &NC 16/SR 1143 —Partial cloverleaf interchange with ramps and loops in the
northeast and southeast quadrants.
• Existing US 421 & Proposed Bypass—Flyover style interchange. Eastbound traffic can exit
by ramp onto US 421 Business or continue along the proposed bypass.
• US 421 &NC 268 Bypass (R-616)—Standard diamond interchange.
• US 421 Bypass & SR 1327—Trumpet style interchange.
These recommendations will be examined further following receipt of traffic volumes and
topographic information.
Roadway Design commented that modifications to the bridges over the Yadkin River
may be needed to accommodate the proposed design.
Environmental Factors
Local land use along US 421 varies. US 421 is surrounded by dense commercial and
business development between SR 1323 (Dancy Road) and the US 421 Business/Bypass split.
Outside of this area is a mix of residential and business interests.

The natural terrain of the area is rolling hills. The project is located within a protected
watershed with classification WS IV. City representatives also noted that the City's water supply
intake is within 300 feet of the Yadkin River bridge on US 421. Several streams are located
within the project area and stream crossings will be required as a result of the proposed project.
They include: Tucker Hole Creek, Millers Creek, and an unnamed tributary (UT) of the Yadkin
River. Tucker Hole Creek is classified as a Trout Stream.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) stated that an archaeological survey
would be needed. It appears that the project study area is outside of the area of potential effect
that was surveyed for TIP Project R-2240.
Cost Estimates
The cost estimate for TIP Project U-3468 is:
TIP Cost Estimate Current Cost Estimate
Construction: $50,800,000 $55,800,000
*Right of Way: $11,700,000 $11,700,000
Total Cost: $62,500,000 $67,500,000
*TIP. Right of Way Cost
Comments/Questions
The proposed interchange sited at the eastern end of the project will result in several
crossings of Tucker Hole Creek. It was recommended that staff examine other options for this
interchange.
Location and Surveys staff commented on the installation of 10-inch and 6-inch gas lines
along US 421. The lines begin west of the intersection with SR 1322 and continue along the
north side of US 421 until they reach SR 1323 (Dancy Road). Both lines turn north at SR 1323
and follow this road to its intersection with Congo Road. The 10-inch line is a high=pressure
transmission line.
Tyson Food has a wood shavings operation located southwest of US 421 at the Yadkin
River. This facility is currently accessed by a private drive connecting to US 421 at the
intersection of SR 1322.
There was some discussion about extending the project approximately 0.75 miles west of
NC 16 (near the Ridgecrest subdivision). City utilities now extend to this area.
City representatives commented that the historical site impeding the southern bypass
options has been altered. A fire destroyed the building and the cemetery has been relocated. The
City Manager asked if another corridor might now be considered.
Cc: Scoping Participants

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION •CI-1 '7
PROJECT DEVELOPMEN'r AND
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS V
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
US 421 Wilkesboro Corridor StAy&
NC 11:5-21513/Llb 421 Business Comdor
Improvements
-S
Wilkesboro
bi
Wilkes County
1.
TIP Projects U-3468&R-0616 ITJ
V fe A
Z-
4
J
2s .
-
s
0*
Y.,
-*u
A--
ir
Y
LEGEND
ALTERNATIVES LEGEND • Wetlands(NWT)
ILI TIP Project U-3468 Alternatives
County Soil Survirh
k 5r, Al<-, lemative Study Corridor(Northern Option 1) HydriC Soils(VAlkes
Trout Steams
Altemalive Study Corridor(Northern Option 2)
'T
Streams
Alternative Study Corridor(Southern Option)
High Quality Water Zone
TIP Project R-0616 Alternatives
Water Supply Watershed
Alternative Study Conridor I
Water Supply Watershed-Critical Area
R
0 200 11000
vv I i Alternative Study Corridor 2 National-Register Listed properties
Wilkesboro
Quad 1000 Altarnaltive Study
Corridor 3
(Improve Basting Facilities) Natural Heritage Occurrence Sites

1
1oD�
�,�
��
�,�
��Q b��
o� �'
��o � x
� ���
� ,
� �
�° �
�����