20140394 Ver 1_401 Application_20140414

CMn Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc.
April 16, 2014
Mr David Bailey
U S Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive
Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Ms Karen Higgins
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Nationwide Permit 12 Application
Haw River Parallel Interceptor Project
Burlington, Alamance County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Higgins.
2 0 1 4 0 3 9 4
■
P 0 Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636 -3068
On behalf of our client, the City of Burlington, Kimley -Horn is submitting the
attached pre - construction notification application (PCN) for authorization under
Nationwide Permit (N)AT) 12 for the above referenced project. The Haw River
project area is located northwest of US Highway 70 Bypass and west of the Haw
River We have also included a request for a preliminary jurisdictional
determination for the site with supporting documentation A delineation of
jurisdictional areas was conducted by Kimley -Horn staff on February 20 and
March 11, 2014, and documentation is attached Three jurisdictional wetlands
were identified within the project area as well as two perennial streams, one
intermittent stream, and one ephemeral stream (Unnamed Tributaries to the Haw
River)
The proposed project will replace the existing 42" gravity sewer line with a new
42" gravity sewer line mostly within the boundary of the existing utility
easement, however in some areas an additional 10' outside of the existing
maintained corridor will be needed to facilitate the sewer line replacement.
Additionally, a 15" gravity sewer line will also be replaced with a 16" sewer
within the same alignment feeding into the 42" gravity sewer. Construction
access to the project areas will be through currently existing maintenance
corridors. This project was initially proposed in 2009, and the project was
carried through to permit application, however it was then shelved and
construction was never started In 2014, the project was picked back up, but the
scope of the project was revised from the now expired 2009 permit approval
However, mitigation was requested and paid for by the City of Burlington to the
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Project (NC EEP) in 2009, but since construction
was never initiated, the mitigation credits were never redeemed The City
■
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

proposes to utilize those previously accepted credits as compensatory mitigation
for wetland impacts resulting from the current project Buffer impacts were not
proposed as part of the 2009 application so buffer mitigation was never
requested Therefore, the City proposes to purchase 8,250 square feet of buffer
mitigation credits from the NC EEP In -lieu fee payment program (ILF). The
letter of acceptance from NC EEP has been attached
Impacts to jurisdictional features have been nummized to the extent practical,
with the stream crossings being located as close to the original alignment as
possible The existing utility corridors are maintained by the City of Burlington;
therefore the majority of impacts will be temporary in nature
The following attachments are included in this submittal:
• PCN Application Form
• Agent Authorization
• Figures
• Figure 1 — Vicinity Map
• Figure 2 — USGS Topographic Map
• Figure 3 — 2010 Aerial Photograph and Jurisdictional Features
• Figure 4 — NRCS Soil Survey Map
• Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Request
• USACE Wetland Determination Form
• NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms
• USACE Stream Quality Forms
• 2009 NC EEP Payment Acceptance for Wetland Mitigation Credits
• NC EEP In -Lieu Fee Payment Letter of Acceptance for Buffer
Mitigation Credits
• Plan Sheets/Permit Drawings
• NCDWR 401 Application Fee of $240
If there is any additional information you need to assist in the processing of this
NWP and jurisdictional determination application package, please do not hesitate
to contact either myself at (919) 677 -2121 or Jason Hartshorn at (919) 678 -4155
Sincerely,
KIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC
Z�41er
Chad Evenhouse, PWS
Enclosures
Cc. Jeff Wing, P E., Kimley -Horn
Bob Patterson, P.E., City of Burlington

O�O� W ATF9oG
o <
Office Use Only
Corps action ID no
DWQ project no
Form Version 1 3 Dec 10 2008
Page I of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Notification PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1a
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number 12 or General Permit (GP) number
1c
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1d
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply)
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ® Riparian Buffer Authorization
le
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit
❑ Yes N No
1f
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program
❑ Yes
® No
1g
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties If yes, answer 1 h
below
❑ Yes
® No
1h
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a
Name of project
Haw River Parallel Interceptor Project
2b
County
Alamance
2c
Nearest municipality / town
Burlington
2d
Subdivision name
n/a
2e
NCDOT only, T I P or state
project no
n/a
3.
Owner Information
3a
Name(s) on Recorded Deed
City of Burlington
3b
Deed Book and Page No
n/a
3c
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable)
Harold Owen, City Manager
3d
Street address
425 S Lexington Ave
3e
City, state, zip
Burlington, NC 27215
3f
Telephone no
336 - 222 -5022
3g
Fax no
n/a
3h
Email address
howen @ci burlington nc us
Page I of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a
Applicant is
® Agent ❑ Other, specify
4b
Name
n/a
4c
Business name
(if applicable)
4d
Street address
4e
City, state, zip
4f
Telephone no
4g
Fax no
4h
Email address
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a
Name
Chad Evenhouse, PWS
5b
Business name
(if applicable)
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc
5c
Street address
3001 Weston Parkway
5d
City, state, zip
Cary, NC 27513
5e
Telephone no
919 - 677 -2121
5f
Fax no
919 - 677 -2050
5g
Email address
Chad Evenhouse @Kimley -Horn com
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a
Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID)
n/a -- linear sewer easement
lb
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees)
Latitude 36 099749 Longitude -79 379538
(DD DDDDDD) ( -DD DDDDDD)
1c
Property size
6 8 (Study Area) acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc ) to
Haw River
proposed project
2b
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water
WS -V, NSW
2c
River basin
Cape Fear
3.
Project Description
3a
Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application
The site is currently a maintained sewer easement along a mostly forested tract adjacent to the Haw River Land use
near the site is mostly residential, with historic industrial activities (quarry, land fill) in the vicinity of the project
3b
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property
0 81 ac
3c
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property
402 If
3d
Explain the purpose of the proposed project
The project will replace an aging and failure -prone sewer line with a new sewer line that will serve the City of Burlington
for many years into the future, and will also protect downstream water quality by preventing sewer overflows and
discharges into the Haw River
3e
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used
The project will replace existing 15" and 42" gravity sewer lines with new 15 and 42" gravity sewer lines mostly within the
boundary of the existing utility easement The project will stay within the existing utility easement where possible, though
site constraints require some widening of the existing utility easement Backhoes, excavators, dump trucks, bulldozers,
cranes, and other utility construction equipment will be utilized by the proposed project
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past
®Yes El No ❑ Unknown
Comments A modified corridor was studied in 2009 fora
similar project, however construction was never initiated
Previous approval is SAW- 2009 -00643
4b If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
® Preliminary ❑ Final
of determination was made?
4c If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company Kimley -Horn & Assoc
Name (if known) Todd Tugwell
Other
4d If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation
May 5, 2009 (USACE)
5. Project History
5a Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions
A similar, but different project was permitted in 2009 by the City of Burlington, however construction was never initiated
and the permit expired The project scope then changed, and given regulatory changes since 2009, a new study corridor
was established and the current project is proceeding independently of the expired 2009 permit
6. Future Project Plans
6a Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b If yes, explain
n/a
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C Proposed Impacts Inventory
1 Impacts Summary
la Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply)
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ® Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2 Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
2f
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 — Impact 6
Open cut, backfill to
Palustnne
❑ Yes
® Corps
0 325
El ® T
existing grade
® No
El DWQ
W1 — Impact 6
Conversion to
Palustnne
® Yes
® Corps
0 199
® P El
herbaceous wetland
El No
E] DWQ
W2 — Impact 7
Open cut, backfill to
Palustnne
❑ Yes
® Corps
0 0003
[I P ® T
existing grade
® No
El DWQ
W2 — Impact 7
Conversion to
Palustnne
® Yes
® Corps
0 003
® P El
herbaceous wetland
[I No
El DWQ
W3 — Impact 8
Open cut, backfill to
Palustrme
El Yes
® Corps
0 002
El ® T
existing grade
® No
El DWQ
W3 — Impact 8
Conversion to
Palustnne
® Yes
® Corps
0 024
® P El
herbaceous wetland
El No
El DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
0 553
2h Comments 0 3273 acres of temporary impacts to herbaceous wetlands resulting from replacement of the sewer line, and
0 226 acres of permanent impacts resulting from conversion of existing forested wetlands to herbaceous wetlands due to
sewer line construction
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 — Impact 1
Open cut, backfill to
Unnamed
Tributary to Haw
® PER
® Corps
12
39
❑ P ® T
existing grade
River
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S1 — Impact 2
Open cut, backfill to
Unnamed
Tributary to Haw
® PER
® Corps
12
18
[]POT
existing grade
River
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 — Impact 3
Open cut, backfill to
Unnamed
Tributary to Haw
® PER
® Corps
5
25
❑ P ® T
existing grade
River
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 — Impact 4
Open cut, backfill to
Unnamed
Tributary to Haw
❑ PER
® Corps
3
37
❑ P ® T
existing grade
River
® INT
❑ DWQ
S4 — Impact 5
Open cut, backfill to
Unnamed
Tributary to Haw
❑ PER
® Corps
3
36
❑ P ® T
existing grade
River
® INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
155
31 Comments All stream impacts will be temporary in nature resulting from the replacement of the existing sewer line in
place No permanent impacts will result from the proposed project
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U S then individually list all open water impacts below
4a
Open water
impact number
— Permanent
(P) or
Temporary T
4b
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c
Type of impact
4d
Waterbody type
4e
Area of impact (acres)
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
n/a
4g Comments No open water impacts will result from the proposed construction
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then com lete the chart below
5a
Pond ID
number
5b
Proposed use or purpose of
pond
5c
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
R Total
5g Comments No ponds or lakes will be constructed as part of the proposed project
5h Is a dam high hazard permit required
❑ Yes No If yes, permit ID no
51 Expected pond surface area (acres)
n/a
5j Size of pond watershed (acres)
n/a
5k Method of construction
n/a
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If protect will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below if yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ® Other Jordan Lake
6a.
Water Supply
Project is in which protected basing
Water Shed
Catawba Randleman
El Catawba
6b
6c
6d
6e
6f
6g
Buffer impact
number —
Reason for
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P)
impact
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
or Temporary
required?
T
Underground
❑ Yes
131 ❑ P ®T
Utility
Unnamed Tributary
® No
1,131 37
791 39
Replacement
Underground
❑ Yes
B2 ❑ P ® T
Utility
Unnamed Tributary
® No
7,58416
2,30924
Replacement
Underground
® Yes
B2 ® P ❑ T
Utility
Unnamed Tributary
❑ No
1,44953
2,35978
Replacement
Underground
❑ Yes
B3 ❑ P ®T
Utility
Unnamed Tributary
® No
1,65390
1,13815
Replacement
Underground
® Yes
B3 ®P ❑ T
Utility
Unnamed Tributary
❑ No
81400
54877
Replacement
Underground
❑ Yes
B4 ❑ P ®T
Utility
Unnamed Tributary
® No
2,77048
60706
Replacement
Underground
® Yes
B4 ® P ❑ T
Utility
Unnamed Tributary
❑ No
48619
64175
Replacement
Underground
❑ Yes
B5 ❑ P ®T
Utility
Unnamed Tributary
® No
- --
3,33474
Replacement
Underground
❑ Yes
B5 ® P ❑ T
Utility
Unnamed Tributary
® No
- --
1,80005
Replacement
Underground
❑ Yes
B6 ❑ P ®T
Utility
Unnamed Tributary
® No
1,22753
2,90592
Replacement
Underground
❑ Yes
B6 ® P [IT
Utility
Unnamed Tributary
® No
- --
11677
Replacement
6h Total buffer impacts
17,117 16
16,553 62
61 Comments Existing utility access corridors will be used to limit buffer impacts wherever possible Unavoidable impacts to
buffer zones along the Haw River located outside of the existing parallel maintenance corridor will result from the proposed
construction
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
The project will be constructed within the existing maintained utility easement where feasible Existing access roads will be
used that will not need improvements to be utilized by the construction equipment
1 b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques
All construction activities, staging areas, and material storage will be kept within the existing maintained utility easement and
in uplands where feasible. Existing access corridors will be used by all equipment throughout the project Erosion and
sediment control measures will be utilized throughout the construction process to protect surface water resources in the
project vicinity. All disturbed areas will be returned to pre - construction contours once construction is complete
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
® Yes ❑ No
impacts to Waters of the U S. or Waters of the State?
2b If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply)
❑ DWQ ® Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
®Payment to in -lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a Name of Mitigation Bank n/a
3b Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c Comments
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached
® Yes
4b Stream mitigation requested
n/a linear feet
4c If using stream mitigation, stream temperature
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only)
8,250 square feet
4e Riparian wetland mitigation requested
0 226 acres (already secured and paid for — see attached
documentation)
4f Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested
n/a acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested
n/a acres
4h Comments Payment was submitted with the original permit application in 2009, and was accepted by NCEEP and is still
on the books with NCEEP Since the project was never constructed, the mitigation credit has never been redeemed and will
satisfy the mitigation requirements for this application Receipt of payment provided by NCEEP is attached Since the 2009
permit application, the project scope has changed and buffer impacts requiring mitigation will result A new request has been
sent to NCEEP and the letter of acceptance from NCEEP for buffer mitigation credits has been attached
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
n/a
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
® Yes ❑ No
buffer mitigation?
6b If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation Calculate the
amount of mitigation required
6c
6d
6e
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Clearing for parallel utility
Zone 1
line replacement and
2,74972
3 (2 for Catawba)
8,24916
easement construction
Zone 2
n/a
0
1 1 5
0
6f Total buffer mitigation required:
8,24916
6g If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e g , payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund)
Buffer mitigation for unavoidable impacts to existing forested areas within Zone 1 of the Haw River has been requested
from NCEEP The letter of acceptance has been attached for 8,250 square feet of riparian buffer mitigation from NCEEP
6h Comments Per NCDWQ Clarification Memo 2011 -001 (dated February 3, 2011), impacts outside of the existing
maintenance corridor due to replacement of existing non - electric utility lines within Zone 1 will require mitigation, but
impacts to Zone 2 are considered allowable and do not require mitigation
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
la
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
® Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
lb
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why
Comments A specific plan is not provided However, no new stormwater outlets are
❑ Yes ® No
proposed as part of the enclosed plans The project will not concentrate or
discharge flow within the protected riparian buffers
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
<1 %
2b
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why The proposed construction will not be
increasing impervious surface area within the project No new stormwater structures
will result from construction
2d
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan
n/a
® Certified Local Government
2e
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Burlington
® Phase II
® NSW
3b
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply)
® Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply)
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
® Other Diffuse Flow
4b
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
® Yes ❑ No
5b Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
® Yes ❑ No
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
® Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
lb If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter )
Comments n/a
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 213 0200)?
2b Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s) n/a
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b If you answered 'yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description
The project will not result in any additional development The project will protect downstream water quality by preventing
future sewage discharges into the Haw River
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non - discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility
The project will not generate wastewater, but will carry existing wastewater flows to the City of Burlington wastewater
treatment plant
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
El Raleigh
5c If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted
❑ Asheville
5d What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A review of federal and state databases revealed that there are no threatened or endangered species currently listed by
the U S Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) for Alamance County In addition, a review of the N C Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) database (revised January 2014) shows no record (historic /present) of threatened or endangered
species within the vicinity of the proposed project
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
A review of the EFH Mapper found on the NMFS website was used to determine the absence of essential fish habitat near
either project study area
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e g , National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A review of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS service records shows that there will be no
impacts to historic or archaeological resources along the proposed corridors Based on information from the HPOWEB
GIS service, there is one National Register of Historic Places (NR) property approximately 3000' south of the project
corridor, and two NR study list (SL) properties located approximately 2,200' and 3,300' southeast of the project corridor
Given the nature of the project, and the location within an existing maintained utility easement, it is anticipated that the
proposed project will have no effect on any NR or SL property
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a Will this project occur in a FEMA - designated 100 -year floodplain?
® Yes ❑ No
8b If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements The project will result in the replacement and installation of new
gravity sanitary sewer line, therefore we do not anticipate that this project will create any rise in the 100 -year floodplain
8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FIRM Panel 8885 (Effective September 6, 2006)
4/16/2014
Chad Evenhouse
Applicant/Agent's Signature
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Name: !A AP-0 i✓ f�i 0 W try
Address: 4z s- S. L rk ) ,p C-,TuN Atr • IJ Uaul'i("To 1 Ni C, ZqZ 1 S
Phone: 336 ZZL-
E -Mail howl P aG- bLAC�%�t 1.()n.ne..LAS
Project Name/Description: Haw River Parallel Interceptor Project
Date: 0 +1 o S CIt) 14,
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Field Office: Raleigh
Re: Wetland Related Consulting and Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
1 hereby designate and authorize Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. to act in my /our behalf as my /our
agent solely for the purpose of processing Jurisdictional Determinations, Section 404 permits /Section
401 Water Quality Certifications applications, and Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed Riparian
Buffer Determinations, and to furnish upon request supplemental information in support of applications,
etc. from this day forward until successful completion of the permitting process or revocation by the
owner.
In addition, I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified
herein, do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on -site investigations and
issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and /or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
Authorized this the T-0 day of Ap(u to tk
NAGILO Owtd. CiTi IUAn1AGC -4Z Z-
Print Property Owner's Name Property Owner's Signature
Cc: Karen Higgins
NC Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650

FIGURES

W
�2
N�NGSIDE O� F,Qs /off
MAR op
5�
T
G
,NOIAN �L�P
CO
F O
F Rn
�O
O�
co e
C�� G,p� Tj�C
a �
AVALON RD
d
/1O� QP
CO
0 10 20
Miles
C � � Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc.
RUBY LN
METERy11�
Leciend
r
c�
Project Study Area
Streams
Rivers, Ponds, and Lakes
I 0 750 1,5100 I
Feet
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Haw River Interceptor Project
City of Burlington, Alamance County, NC
April 2014

A F
Of
•, i t `. +
t
::%4 r y:el
+� � • ; ,� err - � ,. �' ��•' f
• � � ice, �'''� . ; � , •� �. � ,
dip
11/0 1
As
0 57 '�•4•'
6baKni
s .ti
Legend
Project Study Area
IMIX
1 .�.
750 1,500
10 Feet
Kimley -Horn Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map
and Associates, Inc. (Burlington Quad, 1981 and Mebane Quad, 1994)
Haw River Interceptor Project
City of Burlington, Alamance County, NC
April 2014

Al-1 %L-:-
Legend
Project Study Area
Delineated Stream
Delineated Wetlands
--Vr
z

` --cam Vv
1 L
A X
L W b D
WbC2 Q
• s
EeC2
Haw River Interceptor Project Soils Table
Map Unit
Soil Unit Name
Hydric
Ba
Buncombe loamy fine sand, 0-2% slopes, occasional I flooded
No
EeD
Enon loam, 10-15 %slopes (Wynott)
No
LdD
Lloyd loam, 10-15 %slopes
No
LdD2
Lloyd loam, 10-15% slopes, eroded
No
WbE
Wilkes soils, 15-25% slopes
No
WcD
Wilkes stony soils, 10- 151/.slopes
No
WcE
Wilkes stony soils, 15 -25 %slopes
No
Wd
lWorsham sandy loam, 2 -6%
Yes
WbDtg
C �� cf\ deg ••�G _ ••`�',��. ���? ..
C d dG2 c�
p,
a �N� f �S LbC2 d'�rLbQ yLa
WbC �
Ba
9N �Lj
vn A^i
• \ Cg V ■
We D LbG2
Wb
• • )
LaD3 CD
C7 • _ _ -
�`' , WbD2
EeD '!
WcD WbD
\ WcE Mc \ LbD
a L b D2
WbD l LbD2 LbD
LbD/ •��
II f CbC
x
LbD \ •' Ba
1 IMF i } Legend
0 750 1,500 _
' I
Feet' ` s Project Study Area
im ey- orn Figure 4: NRCS Soil Survey (Alamance County, 1956)
and Associates, Inc. Haw River Interceptor Project
City of Burlington, Alamance County, NC
April 2014

ATTACHMENT A
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD):
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc, ATTN Chad Evenhouse on behalf of the City of Burlington
3001 Weston Parkway, Cary, NC 27513
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT
SITES)
State: NC County /parish /borough Alamance County City: Burlington
Center coordinates of site (lat/long In degree decimal format):
Lat. 36 099587 °N; Long. 79 379204 0W.
Universal Transverse Mercator. 17
Name of nearest waterbody. Haw River
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non - wetland waters.
402 linear feet: 3 -12 width (ft) and /or acres
Cowardin Class: Rivenne
Stream Flow- Perennial (S1 and S3), Intermittent (S4), Ephemeral (S2)
Wetlands: 0 81 acres.
Cowardin Class: Palustnne
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters.
Tidal: n/a
Non - Tidal: n/a
1

E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL
APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination Date(s):
THAT
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD
(check all that apply - checked items should be included in case file and,
where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
© Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant: Kimsey -Horn and Associates, Inc
❑ Data sheets prepared /submitted by or on behalf of the
appl nt/consultant.
Office concurs with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets /delineation report
u
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas.
❑ USGS NHD data
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps
© U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name ,14111WILItAm „M 24,000MO e
© USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey
Citation: Alamance County (1956)
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State /Local wetland inventory map(s).
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is
(National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
© Photographs: © Aerial (Name & Date): NC statew,de orthoirnagery Project (2010) or
❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
2

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

This preliminary JD finds that there "may be" waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later jurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
4
Z�414<� 4/16/14
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)

Estimated
Site
amount of
Class of aquatic
Latitude
Longitude
Cowardin Class
aquatic
number
resource
resource in
review area
S1
36.102403
- 79.382424
Riverine
113 linear feet
non - section 10 —
non -tidal
S2
36.102334
- 79.382751
Riverine
41 linear feet
non - section 10 —
non -tidal
S3
36.099913
- 79.379688
Riverine
53 linear feet
non - section 10 —
non -tidal
S4
36 098881
-79378205
Riverine
195 linear feet
non - section 10 —
non -tidal
W1
36.098841
- 79.377861
Palustrine
0 77 acres
non - section 10 —
wetland
W2
36.097374
- 79.375752
Palustrine
0.004 acres
non - section 10 —
wetland
W3
36.097155
- 79.375351
Palustrine
0.03 acres
non - section 10 —
wetland

WETLAND AND
STREAM DATA FORMS

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Haw River Parallel Interceptor City /County Alamance Sampling Date 11 Mar, 2014
Applicant/Owner City of Burlington State NC Sampling Point W1 -Wet
Investigator(s) Chris Tmklenberg, WPIT Section, Township, Range
Landform (hdlslope, terrace, etc ) Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none) Concave Slope ( %) `1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P Lat 36 098344 Long -79 377141 Datum NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name Buncombe loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded NWI classification None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes `( No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydnc Sod Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks
Surface hydrology was observed throughout the wetland area All three wetland indicators were observed therefore the sampling point is wetland
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that aooly) _ Surface Sod Cracks (66)
V. Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
V. High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Drainage Patterns (B10)
V. Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (B1) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (65) ✓ Geomorphic Position (132)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aquitard (133)
_ Water - Stained Leaves (69) _ Microtopographic Relief (134)
Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches) (3 „)
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches) 2„
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches) 011
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
Surface water was present within a floodplam depression as well as within the sanitary sewer easement
Although not in the vicinity of the data form location, drainage patterns were observed in a number of locations throughout the overall wetland area
Hydrology likely influenced predominately by groundwater seepage from the adjacent hill slope Construction and maintenance of the sanitary sewer
easement is also a likely contributor to hydrology by creating sod compaction in clayey soils
Additionally, over -bank flooding of the Haw River is likely a contributor of hydrology, although not as influential
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
40 = Total Cover
50% of total cover 20 20% of total cover 8
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 15' )
1 Acer rubrum 5 Y FAC
2 Liquidambar styraciflua 5 Y FAC
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
50% of total cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size 5' )
1 NA
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
10 = Total Cover
5 20% of total cover 2
= Total Cover
50% of total cover 0 20% of total cover 0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' )
1 Toxicodendron radicans 5 Y FAC
2
3
4
5
Sampling Point W1-Wet
Dominance Test worksheet.
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 8333% (A/B)
Total % Cover of
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' )
% Cover
Soecies? Status
1 Acer rubrum
15
Y FAC
2 Liquidambar styraciflua
15
Y FAC
3 Liriodendron tulipifera
10
Y FACU
4
0 x 5 =
0
5
0 (A)
0 (B)
6
7
40 = Total Cover
50% of total cover 20 20% of total cover 8
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 15' )
1 Acer rubrum 5 Y FAC
2 Liquidambar styraciflua 5 Y FAC
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
50% of total cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size 5' )
1 NA
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
10 = Total Cover
5 20% of total cover 2
= Total Cover
50% of total cover 0 20% of total cover 0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' )
1 Toxicodendron radicans 5 Y FAC
2
3
4
5
Sampling Point W1-Wet
Dominance Test worksheet.
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 8333% (A/B)
Total % Cover of
Multiply
by
OBL species
0 x 1 =
0
FACW species
0 x 2 =
0
FAC species
0 x 3 =
0
FACU species
0 x 4 =
0
UPL species
0 x 5 =
0
Column Totals
0 (A)
0 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 1
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators-
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3 0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 it (1
m) tall
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 it tall
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3 28 it in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
5 = Total Cover I Present? Yes ✓ No
50% of total cover 25 20% of total cover 1
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Generally the forested community isn't made of many diverse species
Data point taken within the forested portion of the wetland, however, the maintained sanitary sewer easement is partially representative of the overall
wetland area The tree and woody vine plots captured a portion of the maintained sanitary sewer easement
An herbaceous stratum was absent within the plot area
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0

SOIL Sampling Point w1 -wet
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators)
Depth
Matrix
_ Histosol (Al)
Redox Features
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Tvoe Loc
Texture Remarks
0 -6
10YR 3/2
95
7 5YR 4/6 5 C M
Clay loam
6 -10
10YR 5/2
80
10YR 4/6 20 C M
Clay loam
10 -15
10YR 5/2
33
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Loamy clay Mixed matrix
10YR 4/6
33
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
7 5YR 4/6
33
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
'TVPe C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains `Location PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix
Hydnc Sod Indicators
Indicators for Problematic Hydnc Sods3
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (178)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR N,
_ Iron- Manganese Masses (1712) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Sods (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed)
Type
Depth (inches)
Remarks
Hydnc Sod Present? Yes ✓ No
A depleted matrix was observed beginning at the surface A mixed matrix clay layer began at 10 inches The clay layer likely inhibits groundwater
infiltration and influences hydrology creating the depleted matrix
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Haw River Parallel Interceptor City /County Alamance Sampling Date 11 Mar, 2014
Applicant/Owner City of Burlington State NC Sampling Point W1 -Up
Investigator(s) Chns Tmklenberg, WPIT Section, Township, Range
Landform (hdlslope, terrace, etc ) Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none) Concave Slope ( %) 2 -3%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P Lat 36 098323 Long -79 377215 Datum NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name Buncombe loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded NWI classification None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No
Are Vegetation Sod , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks
The sampling point was taken near the toe of a gentle slope All three wetland criteria were absent therefore the sampled area is upland
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
_ High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (610)
_ Saturation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (616)
_ Water Marks (61) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (62) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (83) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water - Stained Leaves (69)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (613)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (135)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches)
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
Wetland hydrology indicators were not observed
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' )
1 Quercus alba
2 Fagus grandifolia
3 Ulmus amencana
q Quercus rubra
5 Liquidambar styraciflua
g Linodendron tulipifera
7
Sampling Point
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
0
x 1 =
10
Y
FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
2
(A)
10
Y
FACU
FAC species
0
x 3=
0
2 Ulmus amencana
10 Y FACW
Total Number of Dominant
0
x 4=
10
Y
FACW
Species Across All Strata
5
(B)
5
N
FACU
Column Totals
0
(A)
0 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
5
N
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
40%
(q/g)
5
N
FACU
Prevalence Index worksheet.
Total °/ Cover of
Multiply by
5
6
7
8
9
Herb Stratum (Plot size
1 NA
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
25 = Total Cover
50% of total cover 125 20% of total cover 5
5' )
50% of total cover 0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' )
1 Lonicera japonica
2
3
4
5
50% of total cover 1
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate
A hydrophytic vegetative community is not present
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators-
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3 0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 ft (1
m) tall
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
= Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
20% of total cover 0
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation ✓
2 = Total Cover Present? Yes No
20% of total cover 04
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0
45 =Total Cover
°
50% of total cover 225
20% of total cover 9
OBL species
0
x 1 =
0
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 15' )
FACW species
0
x 2 =
0
1 Fagus grandifolia
15 Y FACU
FAC species
0
x 3=
0
2 Ulmus amencana
10 Y FACW
FACU species
0
x 4=
0
3
UPL species
0
x 5=
0
4
Column Totals
0
(A)
0 (B)
5
6
7
8
9
Herb Stratum (Plot size
1 NA
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
25 = Total Cover
50% of total cover 125 20% of total cover 5
5' )
50% of total cover 0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' )
1 Lonicera japonica
2
3
4
5
50% of total cover 1
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate
A hydrophytic vegetative community is not present
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators-
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3 0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 ft (1
m) tall
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
= Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
20% of total cover 0
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation ✓
2 = Total Cover Present? Yes No
20% of total cover 04
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0

SOIL Sampling Point w1 -up
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvoe Loc Texture Remarks
0 -6 10YR 3/3 100 Clay loam
6 -14 10YR 5/6 100 Clay loam
'Tvoe C= Concentration. D= DeDletion. RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains ZLocation PL =Pore Lininq, M =Matrix
Hydnc Sod Indicators-
Indicators for Problematic Hydnc Soils'
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed)
Type
Depth (inches)
Hydnc
Soil Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks
Indicators of hydnc soils are not present
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Haw River Parallel Interceptor City /County Alamance
Applicant/Owner City of Burlington State NC
Investigator(s) Chris Tmklenberg, WPIT Section, Township, Range
Landform (hdlslope, terrace, etc ) Toe of slope Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P Lat 36 097118 Long -79 375315
Sampling Date 11 Mar, 2014
_ Sampling Point W2/W3 -Wet
Slope ( %) 0
Datum NAD83
Sod Map Unit Name Buncombe loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded NWI classification None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation ✓ , Sod , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No
Are Vegetation . Sod , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area
Hydnc Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetlands Yes ✓ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks
Although a hydrophytic vegetative community is not present within the sampled area, it is very likely that without disturbance from the regularly
maintained sewer easement, a wetland community would establish Additionally hydnc soils were observed and strong indicators of wetland hydrology
are present therefore this area is wetland
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
✓ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
✓ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (610)
✓ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (61)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (64)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (65)
V Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ Shallow Agwtard (D3)
_ Water - Stained Leaves (69)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (613)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches) (2 °)
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches) 2"
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches) 0"
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
Seepage from the toe of slope along with the maintained sewer easement/sod compaction of clayey soils account for the observed hydrology at this
location
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point. W2fW3-Wet
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Vegetation within this area has been significantly disturbed /cut Fescue was observed on sod surfaces that appeared to be tilled and elevated from
the surrounding surface water it is highly probably that a hydrophytic community would persist if left undisturbed
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet
Tree Stratum (Plot size
30' ) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 0 (A)
2
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata 0 (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 0% (A/B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet
7
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of Multiply by
50% of total cover 0 20% of total cover 0
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size
15' )
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1
FAC species 0 x 3= 0
2
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
3
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4
Column Totals 0 (A) 0 (B)
5
Prevalence Index = B/A = 0
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators-
7
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3 0'
= Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover 0 20% of total cover 0
—
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size
5' )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Festuca sp
5 Y
_
2
'Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must
3
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
4
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata.
5
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
6
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7
height
8
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9
than 3 in DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 ft (1
10
m) tall
11
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
5 = Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
50% of total cover 25 20% of total cover 1
30'
Woody vine -All woody canes greater than 3 28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size
)
hei ht
1
2
3
4
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation ✓
= Total Cover
Present? Yes No
50% of total cover 0 20% of total cover _0
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Vegetation within this area has been significantly disturbed /cut Fescue was observed on sod surfaces that appeared to be tilled and elevated from
the surrounding surface water it is highly probably that a hydrophytic community would persist if left undisturbed
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0

SOIL Sampling Point W21W3-Wet
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0 -10 10YR 4/2 80
7 5 YR 4/6 20 C M
Clay loam
10 -12 10YR 3/4 33
Loamy clay Mixed matrix
10YR 4/2 33
7 5YR 4/6 33
'Type C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains
2Location PL =Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydnc Sod Indicators
Indicators for Problematic Hydnc Solis'
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed)
Type
Depth (inches)
Hydnc Sod Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks
A depleted matrix was observed beginning at the surface A mixed matrix clay layer began at 10 inches and bedrock was observed at 12 inches The
impervious bedrock layer likely inhibits ground water infiltration and influences hydrology creating the depleted matrix
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Haw River Parallel Interceptor City /County Alamance Sampling Date 11 Mar, 2014
Applicant/Owner City of Burlington State NC Sampling Point W2 /W3 -Up
Investigator(s) Chris Tmklenberg, WPIT Section, Township, Range
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ) Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none) None Slope ( %) 2 -3%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P Lat 36 097516 Long -79 375711 Datum NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name Buncombe loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded NWI classification None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks
The sampling point was taken within the floodplain are of the Haw River Although a hydrophytic vegetation community is present, indicators of hydnc
soil and wetland hydrology are absent, therefore the sampled area is upland
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
_ High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (810)
_ Saturation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (616)
_ Water Marks (61) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (63) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (65)
✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ Shallow Aqutard (D3)
_ Water - Stained Leaves (69)
_ Microtopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches)
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
Wetland hydrology indicators were not observed
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' )
1 Acer rubrum
2 Platanus occidentalis
3 Celtis laevigata
q Liquidambar styraciflua
5
6
7
Absolute
Dominant Indicatoi
% Cover
Species?
Status
10
Y
FAC
10
Y
FACW
10
Y
FACW
10
Y
FACW
40 = Total Cover
50% of total cover 20 20% of total cover 8
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 15' )
1 Liquidambar styraciflua 10 Y FAC
2 Acer rubrum 10 Y FAC
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
50% of total cover 10
Herb Stratum (Plot size 5' )
1 Festuca sp
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
20 = Total Cover
20% of total cover 4
90 Y
90 = Total Cover
50% of total cover 45 20% of total cover 18
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' )
1 Toxicodendron radicans 5 Y FAC
2
3
4
5
5 = Total Cover
50% of total cover 25 20% of total cover 1
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
A hydrophytic vegetative community is present
Sampling Point W21W3 -Up
Dominance Test worksheet-
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
7
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata
7
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
100%
(A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet
Total % Cover of
Multiply by
OBL species 0
x 1 =
0
FACW species 0
x 2 =
0
FAC species 0
x 3 =
0
FACU species 0
x 4 =
0
UPL species 0
x 5 =
0
Column Totals 0
(A)
0
(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 0
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators-
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3 0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 It (1
m) tall
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ✓ No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0

SOIL Sampling Point W2M3 -Up
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators )
Depth
Matrix
_ Dark Surface (S7)
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Tvoe Loc Texture Remarks
0 -5
10YR 3/3
100
Loam-
5-12
7 5YR 4/6
100
Clay loam
12 -15
5YR 4/6
100
Clay loam
15 -17
I
10YR 5/6
100
FS Loam
'Type C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM=
Hydnc Soil Indicators
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed)
Type
Depth (inches)
Remarks
Indicators of hydric sods are not present
educed Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL =Pore Lining, M =Matrx
Indicators for Problematic Hydnc Sods'
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Soils (F19)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (177)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Piedmont Floodplam Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic
Hydnc Sod Present? Yes No ✓
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date 2/20/2014
Project/Site Haw River Interceptor
Stream S1
Latitude 36 102393
J Hartshorn (KHA),
Evaluator
County Alamance
Longitude -79382829
R Sullivan (KHA)
0
1
Total Points: 39
Stream Determination (S!LgLg.2Qe
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermitten erennia
e g Quad Name Burlington
if ? 19 or perennial if z 30
3
.3 °
A Geomorphology Subtotal= 22 5
Absent
Weak °°
'Moderate
'.Strong-
,Score3.
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3.° e
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
.3 °
3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple -pool
sequence
0
1
2
3
—
°3 °
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
3°
5 Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
2°
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
2
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
- m0.5,.
8 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
° .0..
9 Grade control
0
0 5
1
1 5
°1'
10 Natural valley
0
0 5
1
1.5
,15° r
11 Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
° 3 .'J
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B Hydrology Subtotal = 85
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
-3-c-_'
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
.° 311.
14 Leaf litter
1 5
1
05
0
.l:.-
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1 5
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
1
1 5
$�° ° 0
17 Sod -based evidence of high water tables
No = 0
Yes = 3
.'-3
C Biology Subtotal =
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
-3_,­
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
.° 311.
20 Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
iv e 1 °a-
21 Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22 Fish
0
05
1
1 5
$�° ° 0
23 Crayfish
0
1 05
1
15
0'
24 Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1 5
",0:51ra ,6.
25 Algae
0
0.5
1
1 5
- m0.5,.
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75, OBL = 1 5, Other
= 0
--0 4
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
Stream S1 Is a large perennial channel in a topographic valley S1 has very rocky
substrate with occasional boulders in the stream's bed S1 has strong in- channel
structures The bank full width is approximately 25' The channel appears strongly
established Burlington experienced approximately 0 19" of rain within 48 hours
prior to the field site visit

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date 2/20/2014
Project/Site Haw River Interceptor
Stream S2
Latitude 36 102327
Evaluator Hartshorn (KHA) ,
County Alamance
Longitude -79382764
R Sullivan (KHA)
0
1
Total Points: 165
St Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemer Intermittent Perennial
e g Quad Name Burlington
if a 19 or perennial if 2 30
3
A Geomorphology Subtotal= 85
Absent
* °Weak°
; Mode°rate_..
;Strong
_A °Score °
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
° '3' °
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-
ool se uence
0
1
2
3
° 1
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5 Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
1°
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
0°
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
° ° 10
8 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
0 5
1
1 5
'e 1 °
10 Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1 5
0.,5.-'
11 Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
, 0 °
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
1e °_ °° °
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
"0
14 Leaf litter
15
1
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
05
1
15
-0,
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
1
1 5
°'%'o °
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
° 3'.-°
C. Biology Subtotal =
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
14 _
�`
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
°_2°
20 Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22 Fish
0
05
1
15
°0
23 Crayfish
0
05
1
15
W.
24 Amphibians
0
05
1
15
a, 0 0
25 Algae
0
05
1
15
°0'�°
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75, OBL = 1 5, Other = 0
0.°
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes Stream S2 is a small channel that begins at an 8" terra -cotta pipe
that flows under an easement The stream appears to be a geomorphic feature,
but there is no flow present even with a recent rainfall event

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date 2/20/2014
Project/Site Haw River Interceptor
Stream S3
Latitude 36 099918
Evaluator J Hartshorn (KHA),
County Alamance
Longitude -79379674
R Sullivan (KHA)
0
1
Total Points: 31 5
Stream Determination ( e)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermitte Perennial
Quad Name Burlington
if ? 19 or perennial if z 30
3
leg
A Geomorphology Subtotal= 17
° Absim '
e Weak,°
`Moderate
`° Strong
o.ScoFem °
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
°3'4 °e
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
2,
3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple -pool
sequence
0
0.5
1
—
°°
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
0 :1 °
5 Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
t*
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
2
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
0.5 0°
8 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0_
9 Grade control
0
0 5
1
1 5
1
10 Natural valley
0
0 5
1
1 5
°1
11 Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B Hydroloqy Subtotal =
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
°'2' °~ ° a
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
" °3.® e
14 Leaf litter
1 5
1
05
0
"1
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1 5
0.5
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1 5
a "0.5'°
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
°3 ',
C Biology Subtotal = 75
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
" °3.® e
20 Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22 Fish
0
05
1
1 5
°0' .
23 Crayfish
0
05
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
0
05
1
1 5
25 Algae
0
0.5
1
1 5
0.5 0°
26 Wetland plants In streambed
FACW = 0 75, OBL
= 1 5, Other
= 0
°_ 0� °-s =�
.perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes Stream S3 Is a rocky perennial channel that lies within a topographic
crenulation A good baseflow was present during the site visit with the stream
banks being deeply excised The banks are approximately 5' deep and 12' wide
There were no benthos observed though a recent rainfall had occurred prior to the
site visit A few mollusks were observed in the stream

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date 2/20/2014
Project/Site Haw River Interceptor
Stream S4
Latitude 36 098931
Evaluator J Hartshorn (KHA),
R Sullivan (KHA)
County Alamance
Longitude- -7937817
Total Points: 22
Stream Determin tlon (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemera ntermitten erenniai
e g Quad Name Burlington
if ? 19 or perennial if z 30
0
1
A Geomorphology Subtotal= 9
Absent F
. Weak `
Moderate.
-St_ ong `e
-Score
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2e' °
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
1
3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple -pool
sequence
0
1
-
2
3
1
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1 °°
5 Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
°0
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
0'-
8 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
1 °• °°
9 Grade control
0
0 5
1
1 5
1'
10 Natural valley
0
1 0 5
1
1 5
1° °
11 Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0 °
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B Hydrology Subtotal =
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
.1 °
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
8° ° 2
14 Leaf litter
1 5
1
05
0
OS
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1 5
0.5
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1 5
0.5,° '
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table9
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C Biology Subtotal =
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
21 -
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
8° ° 2
20 Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
OS
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
O;- L°
22 Fish
0
05
1
15
0
23 Crayfish
0
1 05
1 1
1 1 5
24 Amphibians
0
05
1
1 5
0
25 Algae
0
05
1
1 5
0 0°
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75, OBL = 1 5, Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes- Stream S4 is a weak intermittent channel that lies within a topographic
crenulation Heavy iron oxidation bacteria is present in the stream S4 begins at
a 12" CMP protrucing from a hillside S4 may drain a quarry/landfill The system Is
heavily degraded due to large amounts of trash and debris Stream S4 flows over
the easement near a large manhole pad and splits into S4A and S413 before
flowing into the Haw River

USACE AID# _ DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET r :-
r )
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name. City of Burlington 2. Evaluator's name 3. Hartshorn (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation 02/20/2014
5. Name of stream Haw River Interceptor - Stream S1
7. Approximate dramage area 260.9 acres
9. Length of reach evaluated 100 feet
11. Site coordinates (if known)
Latitude (ex 34 872312)
prefer in decimal degrees
36.102393
4. Time of evaluation
6. River basin Cape
10:00 am
Fear
8. Stream order Second Order
10. County. Alamance
12. Subdivision name (if any)
Longitude (ex -77 556611)
n/a
- 79.382829
Method location determined (circle) �I?S❑✓ Topo Sheet ✓�rtho (Aenal) Photo /GIS [Dther GIS[:]Jther
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
The reach is approximately 110' south of the southern dead end of Riverside Drive and flows east into the Haw River.
14. Proposed channel work (if any) n/a
15. Recent weather conditions Temperature between 34 and 74 degrees Farenheit with 0.19" of rain within previous 48 hours.
16. Site conditions at time of visit Clear, temperature in the high 60's Farenheit.
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known Section 10 f ]Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
IITrout Waters 0outstanding Resource Waters JY L Nutrient Sensitive Waters nWater Supply Watershed IV (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point9 YES If yes, estimate the water surface area 4.9 acres
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map9 YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surveys NO
21. Estimated watershed land use 50 % Residential 20 % Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
30 % Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other (
22. Bankfull width 25'
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
5.5'
24. Channel slope down center of stream ,Flat (0 to 2 %) ,DGentle (2 to 4 %) OModerate (4 to 10 %) JISteep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity Straight 00ccasional bends 01'requent meander Very sinuous 1213raided 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): 49 Comments:
_Stream S1 is a large perennial channel in a topographic valley. S1 has very rocky substrate with occasional boulders in the
stream's bed. S1 has strong in- channel structures. The bank full width is approximately 25'. The channel appears strongly
_established. Burlington experienced approximately 0.19" of rain within 48 hours prior to the field site visit.
Evaluator's Signature 1faac&iz Date 02/20/2014
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

Haw River Interceptor - Stream S1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
°° ° ° °
*'ECOREGION °$OINK
- RANGE °
CHARACTERISTICS. • ° ..
°
Coastal° °Piedmont
° •
#ain,3°
° SCORE°
-
•1Vlouri
,•
1'. °e
Presence.of flow? persistent pool's in4ream
�.0 '*5'-'
°0' -4
°
e °0 ° -5 °
3
no flow or satu °ration; 0 °stron •flow'= max° oirits
•
-2.
°° Evidence of past human alteration ° ° °
° -
° °
0 6
—`5° °
° ° °
° 0° °5 ° °
2
nalterafion = max° omts
° extensive,alieration� 0 a
° °
°�
a
Riparian4one, °
no buffer' = °0 °contt uous wide buffer = max oirits '
°
°
•
° Evidence•of.nutrient of chemical discharges •
° e °
0 _ Se °
`
°`
,0 °- 4 °% %
3
, °
,extensive discliar es =•0 eno° dikhar °es =max'points
°_
.0-4,
a °
rd
° 5 °.e,.
° 8 Groundwater discharge . °° ° °o • ° °
°
°riff `.
• °
=3°..
°
°0 =4e
°
.'O-'4
0
no dischai° e_= 0 .s s' ;see s wetlands' ,etc =omax oirits
°0
o °Presence of adjacent flood "plain °
°•Q
° 6.
o ° e ° °°
°no
`°4e°
0 '4
,flood laim = °0; extensive flood _lam ° = -max, omts
d
• °
.
• •. Entrenchment / floodplain access**... ° °
° ° °5 °°
°0
°
d­4
° ° .
= °2
1
7
° m
° dee 1 entrenched _ ='0 3fre uent_floodme °= max oirits
—
°
° s <0.
rod, ;
• g�
°Presence of adjacent wetlands°
b° ° ° ° .. °
°e•`ad °omts
0 -
°
0. 4°
° Oro °2. °
1
no °wetlands`° 0. 1'ar acent wetlands = maz•
e°
°
Chii nehsinuoslo °
°omts
= 5 ° °e°
0 °°
0 ° = °3m
2
eztensive_channehz*ation ='0 natural °meander.= maz
...6 °
°0 �4
° "
°
° ° °a = ° Sedimentinput° e °
. e
510 °0
a a
o ° °
3
•�_° , °
a extensive d osition= 0 • little or no§ediment'=max
points),'
• ° °
° g
t: °.
i l °�
Size & diversi of,channel b8edk §ulistrate
° ° ° ° tY s ° °= ° ° °°
°fi_ne,homo°
° *fie ° °
;0a_ 4 °
b ° -
8 -.,'0,,— 5a° 9
3
°
m°
°
enous°- 0 far °e diverse•sizes °rriax °° omts _'
, °NAL
a J .° 4 ��a
°
_• b
Via•
'12
Eviderice`of.channel`iacisiori oemidening; , °°
°5
y. -
. °
0° °dee 1 `ineised " max lJoints °
.oe °
442
°Presence;of major fink failures
° . ° ° °
°stalil_'e,
°0— °5 ° =a °a�
p ° -5 °•
°Oa�S "
2
iiks. =,max° omts
(severe, 0, °no erosion,
°° m
°�
, A•a
-:'Root depth and ed'ensity on banks° °° ° ° °
° . a °
° a ` °`
°0 °0 3 ®`
°o �
QO° -4
°4 0 ° -5
0
2
°
no vistb_ le'roots = '0••dense,`roots throughout, = °rnax omts
°° _
°°° ® A °e
°
°� Impact 6y, ha eulture,� Gvestoil ; or.timber, produciion
° ° °° °
m
®e. °0a 5.
�_
°4a
m> °
2
,8 °
substantial im act, 0 0 no evidence max° oints _
P ° e m
°0 °�
5 a
g .0' - °5
°,Presence,of riftl`a ;pool /r`ipple- pooi8coinpl"exes. e ° °�.
° e a .
° `° m °
° 0 ° 3.°
e .
4;Oae 5:
8 °° m
= 6 a
4
{
°
no nffl'' les or oafs = °0• well- deYelo ed° =•maz° otnts�
�° �° °:
4 •:-
»0°
Habitat `complexy
o
0
4
or'o•hibia= 0, li[tle, fe ueht; ned ha6as max
g
18 °
vanopy coerage ovstamboo
°
°5 ° °
o5
0*,'--
°°f
° —
4
e eta= " conhnuousc$no maz° oirits no shadin
.°
B ° �
e e e
°;Substratm-, ss °
41
o
°
0 4
3
°19
=
de° i medded m°
a4®
'°20 °
o s °Presence gf° stream, inverietirates (see opage 4) °8 ° a
e
, 0 0 4' �� ege
m V'
0 °g5 .
Q� p._ 5 °
.
° : ° ° &, o °
no evidences O,acommon, numer_o_us° es =.max omts
a
®
_.
°,
°`Presence of�amphibians° ° , 0, `.. . ; .4 -.
° ° °. °•°
• • ��°
°° •A ° =4
M ° °,0�. °4 °°
d
0` 4�° °tea
° no evidence =.0� comrnori° numerous° ° es a °max, °binis ;: a
t
r. °°
°° ° °,� e
° °
`
°� ° �� :v ° ; ; ° • - ° °� P °resencevof _fi "- .e` . °V a ° °a a ; a
° ° ° ° ° ac.
s ..tee
r. °.0 °= e4 ° °
, ° °
° ®0 �a
°
$�4��� ®°
0
8
My di =`0 common numerous; es =`max; oints
®°
°4
, °0
d °
a
- e
a `° ° °� °Evidence,of wildlife use , ° a e Q •�
° ° ° °°
v0 `�°
° °°
' °° °
0°
3
23 °ea
° °� a P
°�,= 0 _� no_ >evtde_nc_e a.0;°abundantevidence o max° omfs e a °
__
— °b
• °° 8 °, °
°
abs
��b� Oi •5�
° �e °. [
0 ,5
�._R � °91°a°
, . B ° °.e 6m d & p °w. °�B °88°"e d5,ee° �• ° P °9e °�
>
°
o�'&`g�°
a s�Z
°"Cp O°9° O
B :p °® '
m
1�'Oe�_m°0
.tC
�^�g°
m0g8re
,°�alsa��e°`Hfl
i;IZ X.
r • �
®°
6"�ID°
'AA g S VVI .e fM ,u. °
e )a055%!�
ent� �mt •
4 Q
+e
Y
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# _ DWQ # _ Site # (indicate on attached map
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET :-
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name City of Burlington 2. Evaluator's name 3. Hartshorn (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation 02/20/2014 4. Time of evaluation 10:30 am
5. Name of stream Haw River Interceptor - Stream S2
7. Approximate drainage area
9. Length of reach evaluated
5.5 acres
100 feet
11. Site coordinates (if known)
Latitude (ex 34 872312)
prefer in decimal degrees
36.102327
6. River basin Cape Fear
8. Stream order First Order
10. County Alamance
12. Subdivision name (if any) n/a
Longitude (ex -77 556611)
- 79.382764
Method location determined (circle) ✓ hPSO✓ I opo Sheet rtho (Aenal) Photo /GiSather GISE13ther
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
The reach Is approximately 300' south of the southern dead end of Riverside Drive and flows east Into stream S1.
14. Proposed channel work (if any) n/a
15. Recent weather conditions Temperature between 34 and 74 degrees Farenheit with 0.19" of rain within previous 48 hours.
16. Site conditions at time of visit Clear, temperature in the high 60's Farenheit.
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known ,Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
nTrout Waters 0outstanding Resource Waters !y L Nutrient Sensitive Waters ✓[Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use % Residential % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
80 % Forested 20 % Cleared / Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width 3'
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank) 2'
24. Channel slope down center of stream 017lat (0 to 2 %) ElGentle (2 to 4 %) OModerate (4 to 10 %) DSteep (>I 0%)
25. Channel sinuosity Straight 210ccasional bends ,frequent meander OVery sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e g, the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality
24
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Stream S2 is a small channel that begins at an 8" terra -cotta pipe that flows under an easement. The stream is a geomorphic_
feature, but there is no flow present even with a recent rainfall event.
Evaluator's Signature ja/ ",&,i, AaW,), i,m3 7i, Date 02/20/2014
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

Haw River Interceptor - Stream S2
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
•.
v r:°,r ° , .<, ...
r° e. +
T
G I1d°PIiiedPmU
ECoab
•°
..
.
.
° #° :
.:. FI
° °.` C-
A C ERIS C
R°
S-C o E
°°p
:
s�
,., ° ,
m °. ,a° r .., p
�° • � stal on� t
• 1Vlouri fai
`g
le
° a Presence,•of, flow / persistent pools in -stream° ° - .
.�
noNflow or saturation➢ 0; strop flow`= max° omts °
.b • ,�
° •
° ° °�
•
_ B'2 °
° ° . %Evidence of past human alteration ° ° ° • `° ° °
°. °
• a
° 0 °e 6 °
° 0 °Sa
0 5
°
extensive.alieration`= 0- no, °alteration = inax° omts
e
— •
==
°
°Riparian °zone °
•no
°"
°
buffer =`0, °conk uous, wide buffer =max oirits '
y
°
4'
° ^ ".Evideence °bfonutrient dr chemical discharges
r .B w
.� 0 _ 5, �°
°° a °0-4, °
°•
= 4.0 °
0
`,
•, ° °e °
°
' extensive•dischar ees =.0;- no• dischar 'es =max points),
ee
s
; °e,0
e
e
See`
°� . e ° • °'� : °Groundiwater discharge
0
°e
° °: (flo discha °r°
°
°'
"V
`6,
,° • ° Efesence of adjacent fl'oodplain, e ° °�° °
° °,0 = °4
°° °0 •,°
° °`0 °— 2 4 O
1
'
°
, °
lain° °0, extensive °flood °max,
4 �°
n`4
nofflood = lain'= omts
• 'Etntr°enchmerit /, fl'oodplain access a
=0
°
° , %
`1 °o `orris
=e5 �,°q°
°
0 - 4
0,� 2
:a'
m
° dee "entrenched ='0'fre dent floodni° max
,
,8'
Presence of adjacent °wetlands':
a • ti
`
- ;6;�
° 0. =e4°
° 2°
0
° ,, ee. °
°" °ho�wetland°s ='0 e.tad°acen`t °omts °
me�pe0 ®.�°
`b
p
. °.0 m g•
°
lar °wetlands = max° a
a_ °�_
.'
: Charinelrsinuosity . ° °a
e. a s g
't °meanders
°0 4,°
channeh'F'.
'0, natural max,° oinis -.
A
e ':Sediment °input° , °p.d° °; °; a ®° , °
°•emsp ,p,° B°:
° o . s 4 , : : "
:. e,a 0°,
2
°.10s° b
, .°
ti ° 4 a
° * �5g,
e °OQ —=.:
4
'
' °• • eob 0.- ile or•n° iment °max, ots extensiva d
.`° B •
° ° a° - • �_
Size & °' diversity °of chabfie]Hed substrate
°0°
• ° -e5''°
1
a;
°1 ;B•
°_ a
a� fine, °homo " -enous ~ �0
°a "e diverse>
m,4
°0
61
>
,lar s zes - max° omts
$.9s9B� °.w a' o
ix
®+
•e :Eviderice,;o�ehannel incision Ormidening; e , °
°4~ °• a •�. r
b °° ° :a °'
O;ApS°y
`'°
° ° ^•° 0 -e4• °°
2
- (de 1-,`m_ cise& O'`stdble °bed &- banks = °max " °om_ts
°
majoir`bank,failures ° °,� _: a,
p +8.� °�' *
°b
B
°�
a
„13
"°
°dPresence.of ,a , • °
.,. e , B
°;ero °soon,
s ;0;� S.
3
GO
= o
F� se- ere�erds-ion " 0 no stalil'eebanks = omts
.5. •t
°max° 8
e—B
`8
s°Os�
s
ve ed Ro rda p ts dd°iy ! : n ankb s � oe . �
,® a • °_
° �0° ' - 3° gv °�•��.�
,
°
4fi_ ; s
°0a
S e° .,�g. ° r
;e
2
.
s6ioor e• ;roebisthrou out =max om rio ui� _
_ r r
`
,, �0 ®. .
.
•.�° :^°e••
°
Impactrby agriculture,, livestock.or" °timber production ° 5
I - 4 • u e ` °° . °
• % "�` °�
0 q5'
'`4' °° ° °° " °� °
4n °a
sg ^'` °�e,�"
.. 95
1
,��
of
„ ..
•ate. .� subst_anti_aljft act', , .no evidence =,max` omts P
,.
? '�®
,`0'�
r+' .
B B, �0.= �°
°-. a
�°
°`
�° , sP° rbesenee` oftrifile= pdol%ripple- pool'complezes, ° °w a
,� � TY
{i•e °8 ,. .
r —5'=
,°:,• ^ °°8 4B e
16+•`
;j nomffl'es /h. lesioc 400ls+= A,•well-develo ed`= °max`
°m0
•�
B
'
-° -
' _8
�g�
..
.1`
. °; es • : ;,a�,° B Hal]itat complezity.d, ,, �•e ° a:•r • °
. a° °4`
bee8� ®`e
:9 �a
.. 0'"6;�
,,QO. • . 46;
°0. =6
,�:.•
�,8;�
6:
2
�°
°7,q�...p
°
- a, $ e .
little °or, no`babitat = U •fr'e °uent; vaned,_habitats_ = max ° oirits
4
B° °e� =• y;a rxa:
•,, °< ° �; °: r°
:.e:0; �°
; r °:,� r
-s,- B ,S B
Canopy! coverage over streambed:8e ° °� °
�, ° Y� °•- b ° ; °B ° 8 ° °Po .
.. s° :B e*°^,4°,
°�
B k
°
,e °- ° °. •
-�,:. 0, °5 - '9
se r`OW@ . ,�a.w
�., --0 -5 °%R
2
• _ .. •
no_s °hadin �`v °e °etatiori�_ =0'`continubus = "max Dints` e
OO�c
1 e "t°° :
_�
�°. � °"
®�
canopy. e
°q
°4 e.v n•
a
° _-
a,, •
•.
8 R•
° • . ° �. ;Sutistrate;embeddedness ' d °•° ` e . ; B ° .�;�
. °.
° •• ° ` °8 •
p , $ ;�*°
l
p °.4 ^ '
^ tis ►
X1.9 .,
¢� , .. � ; ` ,
1° &96dded -!A, loo'se"stcuctuce =.max
•c 1° -
, t -�
V
�°
.rt,•<g
°a$ dee
.a,��', ,� e,Be�
. ,,,
• :
_
°of stream iriiverfetifates�(see page,4)e °e
v8°
°$
�4.
°O
• ®_ . ,
°PresencC ,
° ��°` a x. ° -u"e ° , e , •, . J °,
_ no•evid_ence, a�Q;;= common, °numerous° ° es mazy oints
k °
°
f
' •` :• °_ -i
•
°; •
9 ,, °- °r ,� °; OPresence'of amphibians° ° :. °e;
` °
B° _"
°'0.8
• d °,;
°0 = 4
°�
, ,:. �� a ;tee
: d0e 4°
0
®° _ 84 !
m no•evidence °--,;0•Tcommori °,numerous, ° °es < °maxd oints -
4a#m <'�'°
%° , • _ °e •, , °
. °"
Ya
�R ° �° ti ; _e • ° • `
224
°, �.a =�_8a; ";.$Presence, offish,d : °:�, °� � °e e =V -
.m�t a,� ,,. ° °� t • °,ee .. °
.-
°
0:4,� �e
• °°
B0e 4g °<�.aee
; ��y
s. aOd;4•
0
ie,
. , _
tr- ma +rio,evld°ence. =_Q a.common•numerguse us.— °maxim points)"
r, a
•° �.a
°_,B•t , .
e; 4 , °
°
`'�•
_� °— w- e° • ,J
°9. EvidenceO. ildlife use' • ° ° .• e.; r
-e qa ,°- e'iie a
L..�e
m °•�
°O: 5
G= �+
°40°-
0
°Ba23
88 .P
euideriee. a0; abundant evidence° J-1
°0,8 ?,- •9
ar B.` : o_
B 8,• a
° °a
*� _. ,e4� • °
�Ji�?_, °,e'
_ _' �0!�l 1°i
y
6 • °+f; LrOYOY
d/IJ,B
e�
y�
°E °a bdp`
e
+B i a ° ti m8�a , t2I °•�°
mB r .4
�.
pi a
•
� � �n gV®r °° lid + vj °o ,�� ,�
_ �
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;,a,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET .
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name City of Burlington 2. Evaluator's name 3. Hartshorn (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation 02/20/2014
5. Name of stream Haw River Interceptor - Stream S3
7. Approximate drainage area
9. Length of reach evaluated
85.8 acres
100 feet
11. Site coordinates (if known)
Latitude (ex 34 872312)
prefer in decimal degrees
36.099918
4. Time of evaluation 11:00 am
6. River basin Cape Fear
8. Stream order First Order
10. County Alamance
12. Subdivision name (if any)
Longitude (ex -77 556611)
n/a
- 79.379674
Method location determined (circle) �PS❑✓ Topo Shee ✓> rtho (Aenal) Photo /GISather GISather
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
The reach is located approximately 740' east of the dead end of Regent Park Lane and flows east into the Haw River.
14. Proposed channel work (if any) n/a
15. Recent weather conditions Temperature between 34 and 74 degrees Farenheit with 0.19" of rain within previous 48 hours.
16. Site conditions at time of visit Clear, temperature in the high 60's Farenheit.
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
nTrout Waters 130utstanding Resource Waters 91 Nutrient Sensitive Waters ,[Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point9 NO If yes, estimate the water surface area
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use 25 % Residential % Commercial 25 % Industrial % Agricultural
50 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width 12' 23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)- 5'
24. Channel slope down center of stream , ✓[Flat (0 to 2 %) _oGentle (2 to 4 %) E[Moderate (4 to 10 %) DSteep (> 10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity Straight F1710ccasional bends Frequent meander OVery sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e g, the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality
Total Score (from reverse): 40 Comments:
Stream S3 is a rocky perennial channel that lies within a topographic crenulation. A good baseflow was present during the site_
visit with the stream banks being deeply excised. The banks are approximately 5' deep and 12' wide. There were no benthos_
observed though a recent rainfall had occurred prior to the site visit. A few mollusks were observed in the stream.
Evaluator's Signature �0151C 7'1, i evroi Date 02/20/2014
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

Haw River Interceptor - Stream S3
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
#
°• ° ° °°
a ECO_REGION POINT'
- - -
RANGE °
SCORE.
e
, .. C,HARCTERISTIC ° .
a °Coastal ° °°
-Piedmont
'°
1Vlouritain
•
°°
oPresence•of flow/ persistent pools in stream°
o °s
o °— a
o— s
3
1
°
ho flow or saturation ° = 0, °sti•on °flow = max
=
e
points)°
Evidence of past• human alteration.*
°6° °
0
0
0-5
2
2°
extensive alienation = 0; no °alterafion =max omts
° °
-5
3
° parian.zone
°0;
.0 -6° °
0• -4 °
0 =5 •°
3
no buffer°= conti uous, wide buffer =max, oirits
°
Evidence,of,nutrient or chemical discharges
a °
:(extensive dischar es = 0 °no dischar = max points)-
isc°es
°Groundwater dharge
° °.
°s;
0- ,3°°.:
°0 =4e
no dischar e = 0, °s riii see s, wetlands; etc = °max omts
°
° ° Presence of adjacent floodola ri ° o
;
°, °
•flood 'lam ° ='0; flood lam•=
no extensive max omts
_
° Entrenchment % floodplaih access °
'0�dee 1 entrenched =e wentfloodm° =max oints
-
�
°6 -4
°
e °
°81
Presence of adjace— ffVWetfands ° °'
- .e. °o` �.: ° °,° °vi
°e•ad
0 =6°
`
' °0, =4r
°m °2 ��
1
' it
., a
no °wetlands = 0 1'ar scent wetl °ands = niax< oints
a
°0
°�
.9
° ° ° °
Channel.sinuosiy °
°°eo
5; °
< 0 "a8 4
�
0 =3°
2
och = e mts
xte ensive ann m max
0 °1;��
, , e ° °.° Sediment'input °e °° ° . ° ° ° ° °° o ° ` ° ° 8 °
0
0 °a e4 °
' 0 �- 4
2
®e
extensive deposition=, 0 tittle or no °sediment° =`max omts
° °a •
° °
°
`�
°•1 °l��
° Size ° &,4iversiiy`of channel lie&iubstrite ° ° ° ° ° °
�° ° ° r ° *tti°' °
°
,�
0 =,4
0,- 5 °°
3
�°
fne,homo "erious -0 lar e dwerse.sizes °= °max," oints° °° °°
•;'ANA.°
°
°
Evidence °ofch
_-annhincision or widenng
'5
0 4
1
dee 1 °incise_. 0;5stablebed &bnks = mix,-' oints °
•0 -
-%
°13�`
Preserice,of major bank failures ° `. ° ` ° ° �°
° ° ° °e °
°stable
8
0 -5°
1 °
a °0 ° =5. e
°
° =0,=. 5 %A
1
'
5
severe °erosion;= °0; °no erosion, bariks = max° omts
_ ° m
°v
"�
° °o `Root degtli and°de6iity on banks °
°
"
° ' `
°5
2
no visible roots ='0 'dense.root°s throughout=. max oirits
�° • °
8
A °
�`
°' 15 °
° Impact I y, agriculture , - ivestock ; °okimbei production
° °
40 °`
' °Oe Se " °ems`°
P
° -4"
°B ° 0 =;5` �°
2
e
° •
° °
substantialdh act, 6 no °evidence°.'max oin°ts °.50 °
° B=
.0
°• A ®q
>
polh Presence df,iitfte °pool /iipplbz comAp l�ez8�es° �
o°,° = 3°°
� 6
4
nt
' oints
no rafles /ri les of o n well:deveo ed-
°
t ° emax°
:
°.Habitit °complexity o °° ° ° °o ' ° g ° ° °
°.0' ^
°o b
oe'$0
e °°
2
d
,17�
°��.
° qe m °° m °
�4 little, <orano }ia6itat °= 0;_fre uent ° =amax. ° omts °°
67, ° °eb.
se
eel°
=6.g°
: e ••
aOP�06m
Ae@
�,°orom', °ae
°� •
emm.°
g18�°
°vaned,hat%itats
er °e ^J 1t.. A°1 P 0. �°&pg �° °
o �,� °,� °Canopy,;cov�°erage ov °er°streambed o ' �^� i o °,e°
°�. p
°°
° ^o° 8
�8 °0 °5 o
� 8 °/. e•'9 °e �°
°°
,m°
4
�a
`° no "shadm .ve etation qd,0' continuous cano ° =_ max omts
-.
0
"gym
'�"e
° °°
�1'9P
a�;o . • °d" •`Sabstrateembeddedness, ° °o wee° a9,..%
pp. ': • .• °b ° ,. ° °� °
o�. °
mdee
tia• rr b'`t
IL °�'ATA *e;
° °8 a° P.a�B,:e
° ° ®.0� 4
0
s 9
°, r rte, b
A= 1° embedded, =,0, loose ° °sfructu °re' =.inaz �° °
P° ° -w° ®.°
° °.
9 °
°`
o�
° o ePresence bf stream,in'ver °,feb' °rates (see page 4)
_ ` °�°' ®`
4° `
°- °�
0 °` Sc e
-8 0�8 5
0
m20�
° 4( fio °ev_id°ence = O,:com non, numerous es =.maxpoints
° °
^
I/'
oa °$ms
��' �° .° • °° ° r !seAkiotamphiiiians -, °° °a s ° o
° . °
°_ {�`
° °•0 -4 °
.P °° °
-0 °
..
A =4- °
0
�°
4,° °
no evidence =A common° numerous. °° es a -inax, °oints °b°
°•
ea -, ° °
.0
., -4
9 °° ° o
$ %A , °
mienei 6f fish.= ` ° m • °° ago< °� °° °
- 4' ° °`
`me 0$� m °
-:.0 9 -� 4 "
0
►-�
$
', ° °� ®e no °evidence = 0 ,common .numerous° e_ s_ = °max 1 oints
a ° `
o°
°4
• ° �d
_ °"
°m
a e°°°
2
`.�
g ° • •° i leda l"i' f e
Ed
in ee tof u se
�.
°omis
v0 -°6
°
m .p3
1
°� °
nt °vdence° =m°
n = bn ax e °
°°
_ °�� `
a ,
°
® . dw�
n°a°o° • � 8�& � f• 'B°6 °B ed�vr '. i
a . °A°
o$ q'§.. E m . P S ~° P° °�,'° �B . ° � 8°
-otalt
° a
.� a °. �• ^°
°
Qt de' °°
P
' ° "l�bUa
� m�Ple�
p�°7
°� ®Qi• °�t�� �. �
m�. °� °'" °. °9 �a�•e
§(°�0'° .°
, °
et?t .�,
�.e r .,s ®
' 3°!' °m° °°iee 1.af i 1 9
9°°851 �e .r° ,. �^ °°a°
°ti'
_r. /. °..�° eCJ°
y•°�°
i'�°§. °���
d°g° yH
-
e,.= Ceti ®,° r a
°��ee °�' ' a ^ °A °° ° �`;'•a' m`( °orst;of�ag
40
° . ae ` B ,°�(als
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams

F SACE AID# DWQ # Site # __ (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET , •-
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name City of Burlington 2. Evaluator's name 3. Hartshorn (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation 02/20/2014 4. Time of evaluation 1:00 pm
5. Name of stream Haw River Interceptor - Stream S4
7. Approximate drainage area
9. Length of reach evaluated
18.9 acres
100 feet
11. Site coordinates (if known)
Latitude (ex 34 872312)
prefer in decimal degrees
36.098931
6. River basin Cape Fear
8. Stream order First Order
10. County Alamance
12. Subdivision name (if any) n/a
Longitude (ex —77 556611)
- 79.37817
Method location determined (circle) E PSOfopo Sheet rtho (Aerial) Photo /GISE3)ther GISE13ther
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
The reach is located roughly 1000' north of Stone Quarry Road and flows east into the Haw River.
14. Proposed channel work (if any) n/a
15. Recent weather conditions Temperature between 34 and 74 degrees Farenheit with 0.19" of rain within previous 48 hours.
16. Site conditions at time of visit Clear, temperature in the high 60's Farenheit.
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known Election 10 Tidal Waters 13Essential Fisheries Habitat
nTrout Waters 00utstanding Resource Waters 91 Nutrient Sensitive Waters Owater Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point9 NO If yes, estimate the water surface area
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map9 NO
21. Estimated watershed land use % Residential
45 % Forested
22. Bankfull width 3'
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
_% Commercial 40 % Industrial % Agricultural
15 % Cleared / Logged % Other
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
0.5'
24. Channel slope down center of stream ✓Flat (0 to 2 %) OGentle (2 to 4 %) OModerate (4 to 10 %) DSteep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity Straight Moccasional bends 01requent meander OVery sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e g, the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality
Total Score (from reverse): 30 Comments:
Stream S4 is a weak intermittent channel that lies within a topographic crenulation. Heavy iron oxidation bacteria is present in_
the stream. S4 begins at a 12" CMP protrucing from a hillside. S4 may drain a quarry/landfill. The system is heavily degraded
due to large amounts of trash and debris. Stream S4 flows over the easement near a large manhole pad and splits into S4A
and S4B before flowing into the Haw River.
Evaluator's Signature Yaaomm, Date 02/20/2014
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

Haw River Interceptor - Stream S4
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
' These characteristics are not assessed to coastal streams.
8• ° ° °
ECOREGIONePOJNT`RANGE
°
°SCORE°
#
°
, CHARACTERISnCS • e
Coa_ stal °° °Piedmont °
Mountain °
1
Presence, of flow % persistent pools in,str,eam` ,
°strop"
e $ 0 a 5
•0 = 4
` ` °0`- 5
no flow or saturation.` 0 flow = max omts
a
°
2'
° ° ° ° Evidence of past human'alteration
0 a 6
° ° ° °
0 - °5
0
1
extensive alteration = 0• no, alteration max omts
°°
0.5
°Riparian•zone, o e
0 -6
0 -4 °a
0 ° =5
3
°
° no buffer' = °0 `conk uous, wide buffer = max o�fit s ° _ _
Evidence of nutrient or" chemical discharges °
°
0 `5-
4° ° °�
° 0,
extensive,dischar es = 0 ,rio-dischar °`es = max o nts°r_ ...
00�-
5°
°e ° `Groundwater discharge° ° °
°s
°3:: •,°;
0 -4e°
°;0 -'4
1
„�.
°
no dischar° e_-. 0• °s nn°s' see wetlands' ,eta° =max omits a
.9*.
Presence of adjacent flbodplafna ° ° °�
.° ° ° °
°no'fldod `lam°=•0
a ®O.e °4o°
'Q-. 4°
�° �0 °- 2°
2
extensive'flood lam"' =max; omts
� ° °- Entreneliment / floodplain
poui°ts
°0 -,S °
° 0 ° -.4' ° '
° ° Oo °2 `g
2
dee °1 °entrenched= `0'fre-wentiloodin` =•max _
, °
8`
° "Presenee of° adjacent °wetlands° • °e ° • , °
° _
0 '6 °
0.-4-
�0 °- °2
2
°
°
°� ° ^
°e °
'-6,- °ead acent well °ands = inax ° °omts
no °wetlands =
°
o
°
Channel,sinuosity
°extensive °meander
-0- 5° °°
0 e °4
8 °
0` -'3
e channehzation ='0, natural _ max omts _
°
1 Q
° ° ° o ° ° Sediment `inpgta , ; ° °:: ° ,
, 0 =a5° -re °
°
° 0 4 ®°
0 - 4
2
° ,extensive`de° osition= O'httle or no°sediment =°max points)-
11•,
° ° e ° Size & °diversity of>,channel °bed•substrate °.e
° °°
ye * °y,
° �a .
0, e�4°
�ff0< - 5°°°
°
1
° g
fine,hoino° erious = 0 liar a diverse =saes = °max ° omts
°NAa
Bib'
P �°
° ° B
° ^ • ° ,Evidence °of channel °incision mor,° wide_ninga
°� ° °
a° q<• *points)'.
�' d ° °
° °b
�O'° °5 8
B '
Q'-'4
°Oe =•5,
2
•'v
•12
m dee I °mcised °- 0,- stable-bed & =banks'= ma*
°
° °
°
e
Y3°°
° °� °e ,Presence.of major- bank failures e ° ° ° °°
m ° °
0.0 5
e°
e8 o
se°vere'ero°sion = °no erosion,°sta61'e banks = omts
®•
°°
�p
-°, °0, ,rriax'
°
-1.4° °
°, ° °
° ° ° ` ° 9e ° °Root depth and'derisfty`on banks° ° °° e� ,
a °0 °0 1%
°
°s0 - 4° °
0°:•5
2
a no v�s�ble To ='0 dense;toots throu hout °= °max omts
°g °
go
015
°° Impact by, agrieultufe,, livestock7,orlimber production
° °°
bo 10' a
° °
o,-4*.-
0=
1
° s °
sulistahtial,im act, =0 no eviderice -max omts , °� •
-'5° a
as ,e•
°
° �. °
�5
as °
p`
` °.16``
° "� • a 'Fre °sence.of riffle- pooUrippl'espool °complexes' ®° ° ° -
° °4
° �p a
' 3'° °°
°�
a0 p a5
°,
, .' °ee.
6
1
° -develo ed ° =;rmax omts g
no,nffle"s /n` les,oc' Dols = 0, well=
®. ;o. 0 ®°
°
e� °Ore
m
_ _ _
, O e �� ° °
° g e ° Ha. bita t,complezity e°° o o o
s a 9
4"7.ao ' .0 6s a ° ° •�
° °°°°w
�'e
6 ° °
° =
°
>. e 0 6o
0•°�
1
°
e° y e_
°, little_ or noHabitat•--0,fre uent° vaned,habitats ,max omts
,-
e- °°
° ° •
A:da
_
`
" °
.° e
°°e ° • m °
C anopyacoverage�over.streamed ° •_r `° ° °°° °
° g m
°`. ' ° '
;° o ��
8
0 m�te
o °0
,'
°
=� = a
5 °
o
3
x '°
°h8;
'
o °
` ° °
no ham °,ve etahon = ,O ,continuous -cano ° max oi&
°
; °
°
p� =:y
°i'9
°,Substrate embed'dedness a:
a• �m a° . '• ° ° ° o °° ° °
[* e;�,°
°4 0 = 4 °e
m°
;° e , q'p� 4
1
°
_B°
3
®
o °embedded =a0 loose structure' = °max a •
�°
b „®�
° �.:
�a �. i
-�20,°
s ° Presence of "stieam,invertetirate°s (seespage 4). °e °
° e°
6 m ° ° °'
°0_4,••
ova°
'0 5'
° °
4� °��0°�
0
'
°� �®
no,evidence _ 0 ;common, °numerous.- ° es =.mak Dints °
°
"� ° •: °°°' °, °
=-
m° ° °
5 m m°
_
°°va P,resence;of amphiliiaris� °°
as
a'-e*O 4:.
°y ° ° 0 -°4° °r°
; ” °4 °
0
b ae
.�
° no evidence =00° common: numerous. es' o max omts
0 °,0°
"O"
°220°
;PA ence °of-fish,. - -
�°
°
a.- q: -• ° ;
-'4' ; ;
-• ° o..
° a 0 a 4a .�..°
°
,•e„ eo -° - °°
°•�*° .Loy°
Oa 4 °�
0
"
° ; no°edidence -`0 , °common numerous�t es -°maz; Dints
•
° °
�"
°
' 8 °i
° °°
° ° •b
�- mEvidence of wildlife use° m
�, ,° °° °
0`6` '
^° ° ° e
0°= 5 ° •°
% OP =°5
0
bundant,evide_nce = °max Dints ��_
®° °
°° °��_ e�
°e
= .,.• °a'
° e ap B °� ,
°',�otal�Poi�it� Possible°
�� .8
. °110' 1�00�
�14 �; �:� + e �:;� °
°� °�
lro�8�F
°
pf ��' e
rS 9j °°g°q• gti°9°-
Z_ & E^°°°�g®f
-
*� °�•, :����� m �f•� °UATreAI; °S'CO � °�a(al's °ci °grater• �n'�'° e °,° �•��� a`�o
' These characteristics are not assessed to coastal streams.

NCEEP WETLAND MITIGATION
IN -LIEU FEE PROGRAM
PAYMENT ACCEPTANCE

r1_
PROGRAM
RECEIPT
May 28, 2009
Lanny Rhew
City of Burlington
425 South Lexington Ave.
Burlington, NC 27215
Project:
Haw River Sewer Replacement Project -Phase 1
County:
Alamance
DWQ#
none
COE#:
2009 -00643
EEP #:
ILF- 2009- 6690/IMS# 20218
Location:
Cape Fear 03030002
Amount Paid:
$29,800.00
Check Number:
46545
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) has received a check as indicated above as payment for the
compensatory mitigation requirements of the 401 Water Quality Certification/Section 404 /CAMA Permit(s) issued for the
above referenced project. This receipt serves as notification that your compensatory mitigation requirements associated with
the authorized activity as specified below have been satisfied You must also comply with all other conditions of this
certification and any other state, federal or local government permits or authorization associated with this activity including
SL 2008 -152, An Act to Promote Compensatory Mitigation by Private Mitigation Banks.
The NCEEP, by acceptance of this payment, acknowledges that the NCEEP is responsible for the compensatory mitigation
requirements associated with the project permit and agrees to provide the compensatory mitigation as specified in the permit
The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the US Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998, as indicated below
River Basin
Stream Credits
Wetland Credits
Buffer 1& 11
HUC
(linear feet)
(acres)
(Sq. Ft )
Cold
Cool
Warm
Riparian
Non-Riparian
Coastal Marsh
Cape Fear
0
0
0
0.252
0
0
0
03030002
Please note that requests for reimbursement of payments made to NCEEP are considered on a case by case basis Requests
for reimbursement must be received within 12 months of the date of this receipt Any such request must be accompanied by
letters from the permitting agencies stating that the permit and /or authorization have been rescinded and /or that NCEEP is not
responsible for providing mitigation credit. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Valerie
Mitchener at (919) 715 -1973 or Kelly Williams at (919) 716 -1921
Sincerely,
William ilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ Wetlands 1401 Unit
Andy Williams, USACE - Raleigh, Thelma Hemmingway, USACE - Wilmington
Todd Tugwell, agent
File
RatDYl.;1�5... E .. PYD" our . bL&
KM- R
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 - 715 -0476 / www.nceep net

NCEEP BUFFER MITIGATION
IN -LIEU FEE PROGRAM
LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE

'�QQ®
l0lC E
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
Harold Owen
City of Burlington
425 S Lexington Ave
Burlington, NC 27215
Project: Haw River Parallel Inteiceptor Project
Michael Ellison, Director John E Skvarla, III
Ecosystem Enhancement Program Secretary
April 16, 2014
Expiration of Acceptance: Octobei 16. 20 14
County: Aiamance
The purpose ofthrs letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is wrllntg to accept
payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced piolect as indicated in the table below Please
note that this decision does not assure that participation in the NCEEP will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as nmtigation
for project impacts It is the iesponsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be
approved You must also comply with all other state federal or local government permits regulations of author izations associated
with the proposed activity including SL 2009 -337 An Act to Promote the Use of Compensatoi y Mih«ation Banks as amended by
S L 2011 -343
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable If we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit /401 Certification /CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP Once NCEEP ieceives a copy of the permrt(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized woi k The amount of the In-
Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www nceep net
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the NCEEP, the impacts that may iegmre compensatory mitigation
are summai ized in the following table The amount of mitigation iequired and assigned to NCEEP for this impact is deter mmed by
permitting agencies and may exceed the impact amounts shown below
Impact
River CU
Basin Location
Stream (feet)
Wetlands (acres)
Buffer I
(Sq Ft )
Buffer 11
(Sq Ft )
Cold
Cool
Warm
Riparian
Non - Riparian Coastal Marsh
lordan Lake- Haw
Cape Feai 03030002
0
0
0
0
0 0
8,250 1 0
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation The mitigation will be performed
in accordance with the N C Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Progi am In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010 Thank you for your interest in the NCEEP If you have any questions of need additional
information, please contact Kelly Williams at (919) 707 -8915
Sincerely,
Jai e B Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
cc Karen Higgins, NCDWR Wetlands /401 Unit
David Barley, USACE - Raleigh
Chad Evenhouse, agent
File
1652 Mall Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
Phone [phone] Internet www ncdenr gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — Made in part by recycled paper