20140763 Ver 1_Application_20140723

I- ,
STATE OP NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PAT McCRORY
GOVERNOR
C
July 23, 2014
US Army Corps of Engineer's
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Mr. Dave Bailey
3331 Heritage Trade Dr., Ste. 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Attention: Mr. Dave Bailey and Mr. Dave Wanucha
c
-9
zsTO,p�1'QG
ANOTHONY J. IVA
SECRETARY
NC Division of Water Resources
Winston -Salem Regional Office
Attn: Mr. Dave Wanucha
585 Waughtown St.
Winston - Salem, NC 27107
20 1 4 0 7 8 3
Subject: Notification for the replacement of Bridge #82 over Prong of Haw Creek on SR 2135
(Jim Minor'Road) in Alamance County. WBS # 17BP.7.R.71
Dear Mr. Bailey and Mr. Wanucha,
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is scheduled to replace Bridge #82 with a new bridge
at the same location. I have included the Attachments G & L with a project description and a set of the
project plans. A stormwater management plan is also attached. Please review this project for compliance
by your Division.
We plan to begin construction as soon as possible. If further information is required, please contact' Jerry
Parker at (336) 256 -2063. Your early review and consideration will be appreciated.
Kd. Mills, P.E.
ivision Engineer, Division 7
Enclosures
cc: Tim Powers, NCDOT
Barry Harrington, Roadside Environmental Field Operations Engineer, NCDOT
Jeremy Warren, NCDOT
Chuck Edwards, District 1 Engineer, NCDOT
File Copy
P. O. Box 14996, GREENSBORO, NC 27415 -4996
PRONE (336) 334 -3192 FAx [phone]
MW

HCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory John E, Skvarla, III
Governor Secretary
Attachment L: Low Impact Bridge Replacement Process
Low Impact Bridge Project No.: B -NIA County Alamance
Bridge No. 82 over Prong of Haw Creek WBS Element Number 171313.7.11.71
This project is subject to the Low Impact Bridge Process as agreed to on October 6,
2009. This project meets the documentation requirements and approval procedures
under NEPA, as defined by FHWA, for Low Impact Bridge Replacements. This project
meets the standards of NCDOT's Minimum Criteria Rules.
Date: July 23, 2014
Applicant Name: NCDOT
Applicant Address: 1584 Yanceyville Street
Greensboro, NC 27415
Primary Contact for Project: Jerry A. Parker
Phone No.: 336- 256 -2063
Is this an after -the -fact application: Yes X No
River Basin: Cape Fear River Basin (Jordan Lake Watershed)
Stream Classification:-16-20-(I): WS -V: NSW
Regulatory Authorization Options for this Activity
Federal: USACE Nationwide General Permit 3 — Maintenance
State: General Water Quality Certification #3883 and /or Buffer Authorization
Local: None
l
Project Description — The project consists of replacing Bridge #82 over Prong of Haw Creek
on SR 2135 (Jim Minor Road) and improving roadway approaches. The existing 66'L X 25' W
three span bridge with steel plank deck on I -beams and timber caps on timber piles, posts and
sills with concrete footings is structurally deficient and will be replaced with a new, single span
100' L X 33'W, box beam bridge at the same location. An off -site detour will be utilized during
construction. The project involves no wetland impacts (there are no wetlands on the project site)
and 39 linear feet of permanent stream impacts associated with bank stabilization under the
new bridge span, It should be noted that the stream impacts are limited to rip rap placement on
the right and left banks only and not within the thalweg of the channel. There are no deck drains
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
Location: 512 N Salisbury St., Raleigh, North Carolina
Phone: 919 - 707 -87841 FAX: 919 - 733 -1290
Internet: http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /webAovq
An Equal Opportunity tAirirmalive Action Employer
No e hCarolina
;atura!!U
U

on the bridge; instead, stormwater runoff will be captured and discharged into an energy
dissipator in a non -buffer area at non - erosive velocities or will utilize existing roadside ditches
which discharge prior to entering the buffer at non - erosive velocities. Proposed Riparian Buffer
impacts include 3,340 square feet in Zone 1 and 1,834 square feet in Zone 2 to accommodate
the wider span bridge and the necessary fill slopes. A review was conducted for the presence of
threatened and endangered species; there are no listed species within Alamance County that
have federal status. The Bald Eagle is protected in every county in North Carolina under the
Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act; however, no suitable feeding /water source is located within
one mile of the project study area to support Bald Eagle habitat.
Signature J/Y
Print Na e: i t /1c
Title: 'J 1V )5 �� 4T.Vd

Attachment G: Low/Minimal Impact
Bridge Project Data Sheet
I
ITIP NO
17BP.7.R.71
2
VBS Element No.
None
3
1 county
Alamance
4
!Bridge Number
000082
5
1 Description
Bridge No. 82 over Prong of Haw Creek on SR 2135 (S. Jim Minor Road)
6
lqasln _­
lClassification
Stream ISIN
aype
1 Size
Cape Fear
7
SA - C NSW; SB - WS-V;
8
16-20-(4)
9
Perennial
10
SA 3-5 ft. wide, 2-3 ft. banks; SI3 10-15 ft. wide, 6-8 ft. banks
I I
x st ng Structure '! Size
!Suff. Rating
Steel Plank Deck on I-Beams
Three Span Bridge: 1 @ 16'4". 1 @ 34VIJ@ I E----
12
13
13.5
14
Proposed Structure Jyet--
!Size
Single Span 39" Box Beam
15
I (M 1 00'wl 4' Deep Caps
16
Stream us
!NCDW`Q Impacts (LF)
39 ft. permanent
17
39 ft. permanent
18
!USACE Impacts (AC)
Wetlands
1CAMA Impacts JSF)
0
19
0
20
0
21
NC DWQ Buffers Impacts (SF)
5174 sq. ft.
22
Buffer AppI caton Required (YIN)
Yes
23
State Stormwater Permit Required (YIN)
No
24
i Habitat
T&E SpCdes Present
i
$10 Conclusion
None
25
None
26
NIA
27
!Type
Moratorium �Dates
None
28
None
N
�Spe ies Present
Trout Waters -P - . . - - - -
Irout Condftionsff�k)--
1VRC Reviewer
No
30
No
. - - -- - I ----- --
31
312
NIA
33
CAMAJAE s
No
34
Essential Fish! Habitat
None
35
Nay.10pening
No
36
USCG Permit
No
37
Historic Properties
Survey Required
38
Archaeological' Resources
No
39
Triballands
No
40
4(f)iResources
Dependent Upon Survey Results
41
6(Q (LWCF] I Resources
NO
42
Wild andl Scenic River
No
43
Federal ILands
No
441
TVAIArea
No
45
FEMAJBuyout
N/A
46
FEMA1 Flood Study
Yes (MOA Coordination)
47
USTs�Haz Mats
No
48
! Relocatees
None
49
Location �LA
LONG
36.02625
50
79.331469
51
Project Comments
Cape Fear River Basin drains to Jordan Lake, so Jordan Lake Watershed buffer
rules apply.
Completed by,:­----
Date:_
'7- V
gineer
Date:
Divi!fion'Environrn- ental
Officer

C���►�

'a�4 .E�LSL'}'9.�aTA�-1iRS�F{tf �•; ..:'� r �'�-, 't.l.„.. ., is •,.,, 'y(i.. - .�� �, � - F<`��4.=
• '.^Y�G:O'n �,r _ 444 < !,/r/�T' t " -.
NJ
'N+0. , }F, - .'• "`k •' {A' r�`.'YF /' yR ;`� ','.i , r / '± ' .J" -••'�,
I It
[r -{ <i. =' t' » "� / +' j id'`'s t +:• t : 'r \1
" .!. �r a 'r,< `'� ` ~.^\.`• '.h= r �+ t/ l _ I -_ ,i .. ,.: = f FJ:
•� <`f �j Study Area
for" "'� •rrf,. `,. • ,.,� 7 A ',r.- .. «_.. `,a• -` s..«^ a "'r> - %",• M
•x 3r , }, ` c,� • . y any,, rrf q "+ G "A ! r.^
- r'o :, 5 . �.s•r:, • zfi' - �`- =' •;`i -.ti.c 4 .r^'± `' l ' >,..,,.. ��� , ` i . - 1 ; "`'.J` : '�..; _a`.F' ;
J{��'+�. a &5 'trs ' *•`, ,_._. - - •_>i- �'s:t.'��r'`" ' �;:�.:C•o.,� '.v• j a •=�t,, _' :iJ3 ^.- .,r,,�; i ';�..; ``-' � I _ ^ - ,= '�;.;^_ :,ts
I "qhf• <y,. -,�. ° "+ `..r. •.-. ,k it a,� r,' _ '?_~ ��Aw _ •�'1 _ ''tY
u��.. • sFg{,',��,
1 °: `'"J �;: 'T. - -, •..,n ^u "` 4 y:�l,R �","n: - ---- ^- Y'' gn /_<
\, ; +G r E ..,� !•+ `f F:':...,r,,ff.,_y " s#"
x..3'4'- .,., ,} rr! ,T,r,::.'' ✓y � :4'_ ..�``'"``,.;.:;4 �r ._ ..,� -
'w4 :,f`I " `` • •+tyiR;'..`- `'�•' -L�'{.f '?•''�' t '„ ~_ +f - `' - - `r`v - "- ''r• :'�....'�.�' --- '.ry : i _ .c
•'sy = - : J t\ � 4 S'. }�; _,.`' k,_.._' •'�''• � y. r
;.t r;'/.r.I^ v'„�,. .`tom,,,,; ,'t"S•"'_(,\ �,i, ,,;�. - F ,,�.�•"f�; `tali + _ 1' 3h 3
`_�'k„�F �{, i'v','. J1F': �g• ' _ +'/ k'`i.
'4�" -r ✓4 -_ ja+Y'r«- "'- f /.._.~ `:�+.fi. .,'`5_`�` - lip, •£� <�< {L ,Y
/yam
.�� _,.� }•-, � �' � ;"c, a ```.' - - s i `,r""'. - '�..,.- ` ': "�..,, �':i = - fi � `•:, -: Via.,:+ b
2-3 Ile'
w. . "`\ . '•L., - „•i _ ; .,r.� :or.. - - , .`, "`�
V.
'q.�>
<« J lJtil:
Y
�.
y `F.,"*,.�•„on i,+?� :'J_' ^: ;� - .t ,`,�Jr"'�_'' moo;,` _ f'i'_`.J •tip` > -`" 'l.TifF12r Y\ _ ,_ ^t __ • r .
?„'' ,,f, '- °'.? -,i -' _' i:- ^` i. I..'t . F . ` g,. +Sf,�.`'ie `• ^,'F'+r, •++y4:.. - -, rr. <. 5
46 r,Tf, •:� ?•..,,11 „3''4ti$t`�P!F ✓'� ^' - •'r ` „'? ".:� ",!`" 'at"Ys,. >',�' - - '. r -y'^. f *:: ... �.ai
_ :.` y _ 2,.., i v,;T'.:: -.__•_ _ .Y` °J- 3k�e4• _ _ .' `...rr'�,r" _ - i, , a f �
;' „' ^�,�i. - - , "i r _- "r`€ -t S t . ';� �,� y, ,, �. '� .. fwf�rt;Y ��y' ` =.,Nf ^ � - - I.,. ` � . 1' � r4x "• " J,; `
__ - � ... _" . /j., - 't l +'�Y:j,��.N.��r'4•�.+•g•�. � ...�r - -_ r,I '_� _ '__ I!�`'' ,jJ/
4 +_.. .,% /� tf. ,`eo.'»'1rk �• .. /! - -_ �. ..'Sa - ..- - ... �3J1Frv,;,+•, :� ,�`... -. - ,,-
-4$ --
,
N SITE LOCATION
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Project No. 17BP- 7 -R -71 FIGURE
Feet Bridge No. 82 on SR 2135
1 inch = 2,000 feet (dim Minor Road)
Alamance County, NC
Source: Bing Maps Aerial, Microsoft, copyng& 2011

Y
¢ .
-tc t�
`zc'sr g raYk'v
oil
MEN
"
Yk 4
2"45
}
u
IS I a
i
y'7
C �F^
E
kk
it r�
OAT
k

t1 i , :.
.. .. , >'z.' ^,tea:... :✓��. .
t
t1 i , :.
.. .. , >'z.' ^,tea:... :✓��. .

A(Vect Tracking No. (Internal Use)
13 -07 -0013
t HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
I, N NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT OR AFFECTED FORM
r - � w.
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
x.. is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
County:
Alamance
WBS No.:
17BP.7.R.71
Document
Type:
Fed. Aid No:
Funding:
® State ❑ Federal
Federal
® Yes ❑ No
Permit
Perinit(s):
7ype(s):
Project Description:
Replace Bridge No.
82 over Haw Creek on SR 2135 (S. Jim Minor Rd). Project length is approximately
0. 126 miles. The existing
right -of -way is assumed to be 60 feet and the proposed right -of -way at this time
is 100 feet. There will be an off -site detour route of 5.7 miles.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
❑ There are no National Register- listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of
potential effects.
® There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
❑ There are no properties within the project's area of potential effects.
❑ There are properties over fifty years old within the area of potential effects, but they do not
meet the criteria for listing on the National Register.
® 'There are no historic properties present or affected by this project. (Attach any notes or
documents as needed.)
Date of field visit: 8/2/13
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, HPOweb GIS mapping, historic designations roster, and indexes was
conducted on 7/15/13. Based on this review, there are no SL, DE, LL or SS properties within the Area of
Potential Effects (APE), however there is one National Register- Listed property, the Kerr- Patton House
(AM0333). Alamance County property and tax records were reviewed which revealed no other properties
besides the NR property within or near the APE over the age of filly years old. The APE is within the
vicinity of Swepsonville near the Hawfields community in Alamance County, and consists of un- cleared
wooded areas and farmland with sparsely placed residences along the roadways or as part of farms. The
project engineer has also mentioned the possibility of acquired additional right -of -way and proposing
work on the road alignment. It will be necessary to assess potential effects from project activities on the
historic property; therefore, a survey was required for this project.
A field survey was conducted on August 2, 2013. During the field survey Bridge No. 82 was documented
Histo,,c.L chdecho•e and Lm,dscapes NO IIISTORIC 1'ROYBR %1135 PRL'SC:,VT OR AFFE TFDfa m %o, ,Elinor 7, onspo mhon Projects, as Q«nhlied in dre 2007
Prog, ononatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 4

Kerr- Pditon House (AM0333), Alanahnce County, facing ndi•theast.'
Bridge No. 82, S. An Minor Road, Alamance County, facing east.
Estimated to have been built possibly between 1809 and 1 -820 by Exum Elliott, the Kerr - Patton House is a
fine example of a Federal farmhouse with Green Revival and post- bellum Victorian additions. The house
retains a number of outbuildings, including an outhouse, salt house, and a well. Owned by Samuel Kerr
(1787- 1852), the property once belonged to a 330 -acre farm. After Kerr's death the house passed through
several owners with the most significant once being Samuel Woods Patton, a farmer who owned a
gristmill near the site. The site where the mill formerly had been located was investigated during the field
survey but the only remnants appeared to be a log house that may have been associated with the grist mill.
Possible former mill site
Operated by Samuel Woods
Patton, located on Haw Creek,
southwest of Bridge No. 82
//tstw tc Architechu a and Landscapes NO MSTOM PROPERT /ES PRESENT OR AFFECTED Jorin for A4inor Transpmtruion A ojects as Qtml vied in the 2007
Prop annnatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 4

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION .
®Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ®Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
Ilistoric Arcltitecna a and Landscapes NO HISTORIC: PROPERTIES PRESENT OR AFFECTI?D jw m jm Aliuor Transportation Pi ojects as Q alijied m the 2007
Programmatic Agreement
Page 3 of 4
12

FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes — NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT OF AFFECTED
NCDOT Ardhilectubl Historian
0
Date
R
I
i
llisioric Architeeha•e acid Landscapes NO IIISI'ORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT OR AFFECTED ja m for• Alinor T � arsportahon Projects as Qualified in the 2017
Programmatic Agreement.
Page 4 of 4

;�}
g ��
'�
� 1R� �
e s r 'm.,� -'�,. ilk' ma" i % �i^Ck ,s✓,rs - �,,
, <
AR
f
x
F 1
4 � e
t
Z

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: NCDOT Project No. 17BO- 7 -R -71. Two streams are located
within the study area. SA and SB (UTs to Haw Creek) are perrenial streams. SB is impounded by a low dam/weir located outside of the
study area. SA (UT to Haw Creek) is an stream that orginates as overflow from the impounded stream SB and cross - connects it (SB) to Haw
Creek.
State: NC County/parish/borough: Alamance City: Mebane
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.026° N, Long. 79.315° E.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Haw Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Haw River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Haw River HUC 03030003
® Check if map /diagram of review area and /or potential jurisdictional areas is /are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Ar_e o "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): r
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non - wetland waters: 675 linear feet: 3 to 20 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non- regulated waters /wetlands (check if applicable) :3
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).

❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and /or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent ":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non - navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year -round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year -round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. 'Characteristics of non -TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 8.0 square miles
Drainage area: 8.0 square miles
Average annual rainfall: 44.2 inches
Average annual snowfall: 5.2 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 2 -5 rt miles from TNW.
Project waters are 4 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 2 -5 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are �4 (or less). aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
`Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.

Identify flow route to TNW5: Tributary SA and SB flow directly into Haw Creek. Haw Creek drains into the Haw River
aprox. 3 miles southwest of the project area. SA and SB are connected and both flow directly into Haw Creek. SA cross -
connects SB to Haw Creek.
Tributary stream order, if known: Tributary SA and SB are 3`d order streams.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
❑ Artificial (man- made). Explain:
® Manipulated (man- altered). Explain: A low dam/wier has impounded SA creating a slack water
channel, but no obvious pond. There is an at grade gravel road crossing of SB . --
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: SA - 3 -4 ft SB - 10 -15 feet
Average depth: SA- 0.5 -1 ft SB 2 -3 feet
Average side slopes: Vertical (1:1 or less).
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands ❑ Concrete
❑ Cobbles ® Gravel ❑ Muck
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type /% cover:
® Other. Explain: rip rap.
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: SB has near vertical banks, but due to the
low dam the banks are stable. SA banks are low and stable.
Presence of run/riffle /pool complexes. Explain: SB is impounded and consists of a slack water pool. SA contains riffles
and runs below the at -grade crossing of a gravel road. .
Tributary geometry: Relatively st ar g th
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 1 -2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal ow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 20 (or20 gr a re eta re et
Describe flow regime: Tributary SA and SB are perrenial streams. .
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics:, SA is a perrenial stream with riffle and run sequences. SB is
impounded by a low dam as a slack water pool.
Subsurface flow: Unk ownown. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
❑ shelving
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
❑ sediment deposition
❑
❑ water staining
❑
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
❑ physical markings /characteristics
❑ tidal gauges
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ survey to available datum;
❑ physical markings;
❑ vegetation lines /changes in vegetation types.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Water is cloudy. Water was cloudy. Streams have a forested riparian buffer except at the road crossing. No
oily film or odors were observed.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Riparian corrodor is not continous. It is broken by Jim Minor
Raod and a meadow.
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
® Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish /spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Benthic macroinvertabrates and snails were observed on both streams.
Tracks from deer and racoons were noted along stream banks and surrounding trees had eveidence of beavers.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non -TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non -TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick -stL
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non -TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity(Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Vegetation type /percent cover. Explain:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings: _
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and /or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non -RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D: .
2. Significant nexus findings for non -RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non -RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
ED of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year -round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: SA and SB are perennial streams. They scored 25 and 38.5, respectively, on the NCDWQ stream
identification form. .
❑ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 675 linear feet 5- 20width (ft).
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non -RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year- round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1 -6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA- STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) :"
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
i
F.. NON - JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non - wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
❑ Lakes /ponds: acres.
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non - wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
❑ Lakes /ponds: acres.
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 24,000 Mebane Quad.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Web Soil Survey Accesses 11/2013.
❑ 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): Bing Aerial 2011.
or ® Other (Name & Date): Site photographs 11/19/2013.
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable /supporting case law:
❑ Applicable /supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

r USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) 1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -
fei7t9
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
u 2. Evaluator's name: `QN` • . 1. Applicant's name: %cwor -T')" 1
3. Date of evaluation: ' ` 14N 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: LAI, 6. River basin:
a i.D - 8. Stream order: {
7. Approximate drainage area: +. 4 fix•
9. Length of reach evaluated: 114U k 10. County:- AA
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): INS. bz.• 6 Longitude (ex. = 77.556611): —
Method location determined (circle): tz& P Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS `Other G1S Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat y
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters ✓Nutrient Sensitive Waters ✓Water Supply Watershed (I -N) tv
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES< If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE� 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE
21. Estimated watershed land use: Q% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 0.% Agricultural
Olo Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: =` —� 'v� 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): C
24. Channel slope down cetiter of stream: Elat (0 to 2 %) '; <entle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight !�casional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the gcoregion. 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 tinder 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.
Evaluator's Signature TD 'a) '71- °`" Date 1 1 IM / L3
This channel evaluation form is intended to be u'Wd only as a guide to assist landowners and envi onmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
:u These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
t�
` iti Ii�S
�j.v�cp
�4�' t
Est
i OR.RC=10N MNT'
Coastal
Piediwout
uuitaih;";
t."II R �C "T ,�t14'ftC`
-
l
Presence of flow.! per�tzot pools in�streani
U - 5,
0-4
} " or - S
�
tuoiriowor "satwati6n =0, ,tron `tlov►' =nWa � p&WP i
Ediderice of past human alteration
(e�:tz isive alte.i ion = 0;=no alte'ad'entrimta)
t.
' Ripafian zone
(no buMr = * cr nt.. u� E,us, widetbuffer = mkxydi�V:' )
(i -"6
' 0 .4
`
Evlfence of ntuiriti# or chemical duschArges
0 ;
1 0 -'4°
(cxyin,i<'e
Gioundwaten di§charge
0-3!-
U" - ' ^-
:b(74
(iw di,cb b. O s rip irk ,seems +, � tlar�da. eti .,' inax points
- _
f'
Pr'emee'of adjacent fl©odplairt
1
'
tii) lain' =' l�' ritcitt�iV� Ilw;d ri =friar oils )
�{ '
7
Eiitr±;irrhnient
'0
� e
914-:.
-`d ;eWwhed = ,' fieuziit flow roes. in'W .:-
Presenc•a ofadjacentwetlands
(no,_�t'etl %mils = 0, l99f' a6acent's<•etlund9 max poirfil _
y
_ C hunt i�Anudsity
_
i aKeusitia i hai7rizIticyrt _ 0; natural mean_ fifer max- pkiihisl
__-
!�
10
.��,
�.
�.
e. tea�ivied _�ii�nr_litilelcrr.nos�liment =`max=
—. _.
_
-
cii� °ersity,(If ckahnelbedlubslrate-
0- 4
-
0 -'S'
omo eg news
'C%ldence tf 'channel' incision or.wiildnW' g
p g�
0
S
1�
-pL iritr;
de 1 y noidd =-U: stable &banks - - mw,:
s
l:=
.
Presence of major bank failures
.
sverc 61-o lion i- 0. fin enninn„ ^table MAY- may:. oinitsl
_
14
_ Root depth and+diensity on banks
© - -3,.
0.
3
3r
!no risible roots= O;tdanserruots.thro hour =imax' t�irit:l
S
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber , prdduction
� _ �
4
0-4
0
1
:,isubstaritiaJYini ac____t �tl: no e'--idance =.rnex
— —
1b
Presence ofriffle- pooL',ripple -pool completes,,
-{
° rj
.
Y 1
,�i� 1 5
0_ 6
0�
itm, rifftesiri s_nr p4c!ls -A-w(- H'de�r,loped-oii x pointj
_)
�
-
_
Habutat complex
'
�n�) e 'bats
a
—�:
0 6
fF
e - a
-(tttle o r np hab#ai-t f let vwi4'
=_
v coverage ovr eeambedCano
(no •shadiii. v` �ibrt
jg
Substrate'embeddedness
='0, '
laf�lx,
U' =4
pP' 4'
_ -
��
(Le &ply embedde-i loo a s�4uctute ma�j
_
��
)o
1 1preseae6 of stream invertebrates (se?.p4vg 4),
ono evidence s G: common, numerous types = Max tuts _
_
:-
21-"I
21
_
Pmence' of amphimalm ,
=. O;.comrrtor�,.numerorrs types � ^ m`ax ;into
0 -4
• 0 _. y
0 -;4.
0
Q
I
t lrO e:��idence
Presen& of fish
Ino evidence =:U; coin:ni)n „iiumereiis t ipes•= max,pointO
tl 4
_ ”
o 4
°0 -- 4
-
b
3
,
EN•idence of wildlife use j
p ..h ,
_
";�
4no.svidenec - : ,abtuiilmit tsyicltri.e = MAX 'Poll rtds�
-- ---
"l'uhrts� Pa�*, ;lc
Coral (�.,:
v
:1U
- -
e •'
ki-1 Y N
-
_ � TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first Pale)
:u These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
t�
` iti Ii�S
�j.v�cp
�4�' t
Est

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 �%-
Date: i1 t I
Pro)ectlSite: - �3o
Latitude: 36.3t b
Evaluator: _ lAaCANS
rt
County:
Longitude: _ j�_ 3 ( to
Total Points: i
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other (�e,��,�e_, � L
Stream is atleastintermittent
t �
Ephemeral Intermitte I
e.g. Quad Name:
if 2:19 or rennial z 30•
2
1 3
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = t
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
1 3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
M.
2
3
4. Particle size o. stream substrate
0
0
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1 '
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
24. Amphibians
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0 !
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal = S
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3 "�
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris: _ _
0
M.
1
1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or plies
0
0
1
1 jAL��d
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
.off= 0';';::)
Yes = 3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = I )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
62V
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
T
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
CT>
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
er =
•pare -inial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.,
,,.
Sketch: J'
(- �cfCet<
Ali"

USACE AID#
DWQ #M
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET y _
Provide the following information for the stream reacb under assessment: 4�
1. Applicant's name: tj C. T 2. Evaluator's name: t¢✓y C+ f�j
3. Date of evaluation: I n I Ll 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream:_ is C 6. River basin: Ork4 0 Q.;. k.a /v,
7. Approximate drainage area: R.
`a.. 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): q (o� d a �p Longitude (ex. - 77.556611): =
Method location determined (circle): �opo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS' Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note n y roads Aand landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):T
1f® AA A._v -A n- A'ilOUlAA t��-�lf V* CCA/ --, ,Iz 1 "� "�'l VAZAX - 'R-&
14. Proposed channel work (if any). J favi q
15. Recent weather conditions: - i�DL.S� bf� 9.
16. Site conditions at time of visit: FNON -4 - ,N Az
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
JTrout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters r" ater Supply Watershed y (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 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: 30 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
-46 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 10 ' 1'S �•} 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): le "PO',
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) �entle (2 to 4 %) Moderate (4 to 10 %) _,_Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight !iccasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. if a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Evaluator's Signature - Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change- version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919 - 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
q
_ 1- . Crustal r :Pledaaont" Miauafa'in ° -? .
Presence of now % peii enCpeall�kt Streajo,
ino flout• 6r sattuatiou = O': sting flow lr-661 M )- j
-- Evidenceot "paethurnanalteratlnn ' l
_� xt= rcRive nit i:riihn = M no altertdr >ri - s)-- �} ---' --
'`; RiparAn zonz j .0 = -t; 0
(no buffer = 0; cbmigUo4S, -ividz buffer niax p6fi,6 .
EvSiI d tncle.of °nutri—eut or cbemtea' ldbchntbe c
• 1 ' -t d -*e = x L ns
GroundWater disc-bane � - � � � 41
0 - 3 � 0' - =�I,
(n) dtschar'ee„ (t;' pt ingsi4t'�J��5.,1VZt1F111VS. etc. _�na�c
Pre- euee of adjacent flondplaid
- 0`_ 4 Ov "' U:= , 0: �titemiv e tlood lin` =maw ott
`
x Entrencliineut; floodpla names 0, : 3
A+ "e lleatrenched = O , frti�qunnl fkii�diLg - ulax _ irds
i Prce e6ce of adjacent wood
_ (nc! , ed;n - 0 :, lamer adj�rerif wetlmts = mar:_
' .9 Charnelsiaue ity - _ . p_.5 0 =4,. '0'� -4 1k
�xtctt.ise'�hanneliza km = 0: natural incander = max paints.' _ _:. .._ _ _ ` �•
I0 # �Sedimeat.input -., . U _ g. 0� -:4 , P ,^
c�tertsittc3�e�t;.cm� itie tai �3orse<lirc,ent =�ma�� mitts __ -,_ -- - _ _=-
1 & diversto of'ch'annel fmd'aubArate.� ` J.� ;; f_` . _b '0 =5--
�ne� hrxnn�e:tuus� -,_'a• lirge..div:ersejs' ";�s= uu<.��cdr�is ., ..— - - -
},� - Fil-id ttce of channel incision er-A ng,
►_ - ble.bedbfuik9!'�` inaX ciimts
da 1 iacfse<i: -- 0; stn. �: -
�, , Pt ence:of matur -laarik failures s y
13 .severe er43ion = 0; t16 crbsic�n. stable HAS--= m2 f oihtsl 0 :. U
Root riepth amid „den' ifiy,on basks
.1:3 t: }sible root§ -- �:�densu,tonrs,thtxiu ti t = tna : oitrts 0 _ ".3 a 0-5
Impact-by agriculture, livestock,,ortimbete,producton .'' p. -5 ,. 0. -4 6-,5
_ -- (&nbitwniia! invest %.no,cyidence = mak points) — - -• -- _--
presence oi: riffle- pooGrijiple -pool complexeK .0-3 , q 5 ti ,
� to 'po ,
°4 :tiabitat complex -
1ixttle or no fie d
habitat= 0.,enti'variail habitats --Wax;pcunts) -
�'ano coverage over str'eamled
_
(fill shadiit vczetatibn = U= 'continuous Car�opy
9t b-strate wnbeddedness ti
o _ 14A
- Idi�ep wmbedde =.U.U;.ly sp�.
Preseneeof streaminvertebr'ases ('9ee page 4} .. +
(no eridehc - 0, common, numc]vus�:vpes , - ttta i Poin�,
I'. Pretence of amphibians Q-4 _` '0 -4 - - 4
C (no evidence = 0,'cnm�moni uum�~t °ows t} per �= inat .Dints)
°.
_T Presence of fib :.. - -.,' ... .
r+- (nU evidraCe 0 corrinm
Evi�nee of wildlife use
Ott =._,;6 0: -�.�• _ I •O� -.S_,
(ilo'L1jdence � O,�abunuant er�idetice,� mfr.
v. - ..- -.,- -- .('otal Fuittu+pnW�,i$ •ltn °� l� 100
' TOT�U WORE (alsi o after onr- firstapas)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
W
,1e.
rj ot..07
j fc W
P i
J-&D
Io
i,
1
MPOt3,
-- - C�pRA�!` Rl�'I"IC. -- - -- ., N
NCt?R T1,oNP()I?. ,
, R� N B
,,�- -
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
W
,1e.
rj ot..07
j fc W
P i
J-&D
Io
i,
1
MPOt3,

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 iS A)
Date:.
Absent
U (
Project/Site: 61ir' IVv L
Latitude: , O a.CV
Evaluator: ,
County; gn.
Longitude: -��
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream Is at least intermittent 3 -
if 2 19 or erennial if 230* ® `J
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name: NL2 3vr1,2
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =_L1__)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 `Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
C3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thatweg
0
1
0.5
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
C °�
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1 '
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
es = 3
r 2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headc uts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
11
10. Natural valley
0
0.5 1
1
f
11. Second or greater corder channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
artimal ancnes are not rated; see giscussions in manual
R Hvriminav (Suhtntal = 9 ..1 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2 ,
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.•57
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 1
0.5
115 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
C Rininav (Subtotal = I a. l
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
C3
2
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 rk =
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See
p. 35 of manual.
Notes: s wLA -
Sketch:
�lri'W\ 4X�G 'y
t_
/I r3qk?k
( ''603A
6 03A
L.

Project Tracking No.:
13 -07 -0013
a NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM?'
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Io
' 7
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: Str• 000082
WBS No: 17BP.7.R.71
F.A. No: NA
Federal Permit Required?
County: Alamance
Document: Minimum Criteria Sheet
Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: Unknown at this time
Project Description:
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 82 on SR 2135 (S. Jim Minor Road) over Little Haw
Creek in Alamance County. The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project is defined
as an approximate 470 foot (143.26 m) long corridor running roughly 235 feet (71.63 m) east and
235 feet west along S. Jim Minor Road from center of Bridge No. 82. The corridor is approximately
200 feet (60.96 m) wide extending 100 feet (30.48 m) on either side of the road from its present center.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
Bridge No. 82 is located east of the Haw River, south of I -40, and north of Saxapahaw in the eastern-
central portion of Alamance County, North Carolina. The project area is plotted in the southern half of
the Mebane USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).
A map review and site file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on July 23,
2013. No previously recorded archaeological sites have been identified within the APE or within a mile
radius of bridge. In addition, no existing National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), Locally
Designated (LD), Determined Eligible (DE), State Study Listed (SL), or Surveyed Site (SS) properties are
within or adjacent to the archaeological APE according to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office online data base (HPOWEB 2013). However, the Kerr -Patton House and property (AM 0333), a
NRHP resource, is approximately 350 feet (ca. 107 m) northeast of the project area (Figures 2 and 3).
Before it was recommended eligible for the NRHP, the original property once extended into the APE
according to historic deeds, but no archaeological resources associated with this property should be
affected by the proposed bridge replacement. Topographic maps, USDA soil survey maps, aerial
photographs (NC One Map), historic maps (North Carolina maps website), and Google Street View
application were examined for information on environmental and cultural variables that may have
contributed to prehistoric or historic settlement within the project limits and to assess the level of ground
disturbance.
Bridge No. 82 and S. Jim Minor Road cross Little Haw Creek roughly east to west. The Little Haw Creek
flows'southwest and is a tributary to Haw Creek, which drains into the Haw River. These waterways are
part of the Cape Fear drainage basin. The APE is situated along a floodplain and hillside slopes to the
east and west (see Figure 2). The surrounding area is mostly forested, but an open meadow or pasture is
in the northeast quadrant just past the fence line. Ground disturbance appears to consist of utilities and
past improvements alongside the road based upon observation, but severe soil erosion is reported as well.
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 1007 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of8

Project Tracking No.:
13 -07 =0013
The review of the USDA soil survey map suggests that the APE consists of four soil types (see Figure 3).
The floodplain is composed of Local alluvial land (Lc) and Chewacla fine sandy loam (Cd). Local
alluvial lands are found north of S. Jim Minor Road and are described as poorly drained layers of sand,
silt, and clay on nearly level landforms. They are subject to frequent flooding with a seasonal high water
table at 0 to 12 in (ca. 0 to 30 cm) below the surface. South of S. Jim Minor Road is Chewacla fine sandy
loam. This series is somewhat poorly drained with a slope of less than 2 percent. It also has a high water
table that is comparable to the Local alluvial land. It also floods occasionally once every three years.
Due to persistent wetness and flooding, these two soil series are not suited for significant settlement
activities. The eastern hillside is composed of Georgeville silty clay loam (GbE3) or silt loam (GaD2).
This series is well drained but slope and erosion varies between the varieties. The silty clay loam is
moderately steep with a slope of 15 to 25 percent. It is severely eroded with the original surface layer
removed along with much of the underlying material. The neighboring silt loam has a slightly less slope
at 10 to 15 percent. It is only moderately eroded with a very thin surface layer mixed with subsoil from
tillage. The hillside to the west is made up of Moderately gullied land (Mf). This series consists of a mix
of well drained Georgeville and Herndon material, which is mostly silt. Slope ranges from 6 to 25
percent. The series is moderate to heavily disturbed with a quarter to three quarters of the area gullied.
Landforms with a slope of 15 percent or more are not generally tested since they rarely yield significant
archaeological sites. This covers most of the hillsides within the APE. In addition, soil erosion has likely
disturbed or destroyed the integrity of any potential sites or deposits that might be situated on slope less
than 15 percent. As a result, it is unlikely a subsurface investigation will provide positive results for
archaeological sites and is not recommended.
The site file review identified only a few archaeological investigations in the nearby area. These
investigations have yielded negative results for archaeological sites within a mile of the bridge. Sites
found over a mile away are typically situated along ridges. and ridge tops on fairly level Georgeville silt
loam or Helena sandy loam that have minimal soil erosion. Very few sites have been located along
floodplains or stream terraces. This suggests that any nearby unidentified sites would be situated outside
of the project limits. However, more work is needed throughout the area before any firm conclusions can
be drawn on site predictability based upon known sites, but the current project will not provide the data
needed as the soils are either poorly drained, disturbed, or strongly sloping within the APE.
Finally; a historic map review was carried out. Most maps prior to the 20th century provide few details
illustrating just major routes and settlements. One of the major routes that comes near the project area is
the Great (Indian) Trading Path, which runs through the Kerr -Patton NRHP property. Remains of this
route are still visible today (see Figure 2 and 3). Portions of this trail would later become the old
Hillsborough - Salisbury Road (SR 2133; Turner Road) and the Melville and Mt. Willing Road (S. Jim
Minor Road). An approximately location for the roads in relation of the project area can first be
identified on Stafford and Harris' 1879 map of Alamance County (Figure 4). A later map by William
Spoon (published in 1893) clearly shows the roads outside of the project limits as well as the Kerr -Patton
House (referred to as S.W. Patten) (Figure 5). This map also depicts Patton's Mill to the south near the
confluence of Haw Creek with Little Haw Creek. The mill first appears in the historic record in 1886 in a
deed of the sale for the property to Samuel Woods Patton. By 1901, the road layout remains much the
same according to the Soil Survey for the county (Figure 6). Although this map still shows the mill, it
strangely does not plot the Kerr -Patton house. As a result of the map review, it is unlikely any former
significant structures or features will be encountered. The historic road trace and Patton's Mill will not be
impacted by the proposed replacement the bridge as they fall outside of the APE (see Figures 2 and 3).
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSUR VEY REQUIRED " form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 1007 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 8

Project Tracking No.:
13 -07 -0013
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
The defined archaeological APE for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 82 is located along the Little
Haw Creek floodplain and neighboring hillsides. It is unlikely intact and significant archaeological
deposits will be present within the APE. This is due to severe soil erosion and slope of 15 percent or
more along the hillsides and poorly drained and wet soils within the floodplain. Also, the historic maps
suggest that no former historic structures or features are within the APE. As long as impacts to the
subsurface occur within the defined APE, no further archaeological work is recommended for the
replacement of Bridge No. 82 in Alamance County. If construction should affect subsurface areas beyond
the defined APE, further archaeological consultation will be necessary.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEYREQUIRED
ei _
C. Damon Jones
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST II
® Photos El Correspondence
Other: Images from historic maps
7/24/13
Date
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of8

N
00
F
<
5.
Bridge 82 i �, ` �� ; { ^J,r'I,
k'�RTyt �� y1P' f� ' .1`��� [G�� /- ����`�� j�� r f (� IJIM ' INOR -RD J� 7\
V"
C� i9l DK
X
rn I V i
110 LJV
ff
�j/
1 ✓J, ^` /1�t1
X
'A r 600
(LaCL
Y"
­UC
Map Location USGS Map Figure 1
NC DOT Bridge 82 Rlit C4
GUILFORD ALA ANCE 0 ORANGE over Prong of Haw Creek N
South Jim Minor Road, Mebane, NC
Alamance County
Mebane Quadrangle
RANDOLPH CHATHAM USGS Topography, 2013
June 9, 2014
EE 1 inch = 2,000 feet Of Tit

Project Tracking No.:
13 -07 -0013
Figure 3. Aerial photograph of the APE showing development, soils, and historic features within and
near the project area.
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Quaked in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
6of8

Project Tracking No.:
F13-07-0013
Figure 4. The 1879 Stafford and Harris map of Alamance County showing the approximate location of
the project area.
mnmm:-
F Clendenin
Ja. Payton
Project Aria
V.
PwrrM*& MILL v,
Figure 5. The 1893 William Spoon map of Alamance County showing the location of the project area.
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEY REQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
7 of 8

/Project Ar
i
Cc
fi
a
,C s,
L
N
a
d
N
�I
Project Tracking No.:
13 -07 -0013
Al
r e e
• 4
• sy
t
� z S h
s�
1�
Figure 6. The 1901 Soil Survey map for Alamance County showing the location of the project area.
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
8 of8

►i
Lips
� Y

Project Tracking No.:
13 -07 -0013
V ,
• • • � a �� f %,',tee
Wg
N� Woo
Miles
�'.r' JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ� J� �
Alamanoe County Meters S
Figure 1. Topographic Setting of the Project Area, Mebane (1969; revised 1994), NC, USGS 7.5'
Topographic Quadrangle.
"No ARCHAEOLOG YSUR VEY REQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Quaked in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
4 of 8

Project Tracking No.:
13 -07 -0013
Figure 2. Aerial photograph of the APE showing development, landforms, and historic features within
and near the project area.
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSURYEYREQU/RED "Jorm for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 1007 Programmatic Agreement.
5 of8

ARCADIS
Infrastructure, environment, buildings
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Subject:
Request for a Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the United States within the
project study area — NCDOT W.B.S. No. 17BP.7.R.71, Bridge No. 82 over a UT to
Haw Creek on SR 2135 (Jim Minor Road), Alamance County, NC.
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
ARCADIS has performed a stream and wetland delineation in the vicinity Bridge No.
82 over and unnamed tributary (UT) to Haw Creek on SR 2135 (Jim Minor Road),
Alamance County, NC for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
( NCDOT). This letter serves as the formal request for a Jurisdictional Determination.
The study area extends from the bridge approximately 500 feet in each direction
along the centerline of the road and approximately 200 feet up and down stream of
the bridge. The study area consists primarily of undeveloped woodland and meadow,
with some residential development at the western edge. NCDOT is proposing to
replace the existing bridge at this location.
Additional information pertaining to the proposed project is provided in the attached
Request for Jurisdictional Determination Information Package. As previously stated,
we would like to formally request a Jurisdictional Determination site visit for wetlands
located with the project area at your earliest convenience.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me either by phone or by
email. Thank you.
Sincerely,
ARCADIS G &M of North Carolina, Inc.
Martha Register
Senior Scientist
Copies:
Jerry Parker, NCDOT
Tim Jordan, HMM
File
Imagine the result
ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina
801 Corporate Center Drive
Suite 300
Raleigh
North Carolina 27607
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.arcadis - us.com
TRANSPORTATION
Date:
January 28, 2014
Contact:
Martha M. Register
Phone:
919.854.1282
Email:
[e-mail]
Our ref:
NC612002.13082
ARCADIS G &M of North Carolina, Inc.
NC Engineering License # C -1869
NC Surveying License # C -1869

park
UrAsd
J 1
go
�. 46
.. J
�. • hl)n&Sta�
. � • ;, .cam \ � • ' • '�� . '�/� I J t + t'
,' "� E • • _ - Study Area
. w. o I'�% i • • �C ' -fir,
�; •�:},1 � `� • it �� '� I �'.//� V ' . � r
//�'�' 1
SITE LOCATION
N 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Project No. 17BP- 7 -R -71 FIGURE
Feet Bridge No. 82 on SR 2135
1 inch = 2,000 feet (Jim Minor Road) 1
Alamance County, NC
Source: Bing Maps Aerial, Microsoft, copyright 2011

OMEN
0 1,000 2,000

FA
I �-.
.4
)k.
f
ma
k
*# I

i4
I`
1
I�
r ,s
�;
` � .' .�
hf
�7 +y
+r �:-,
f
�'
r
A
i
. ���'� � s
�•, � _,
? � � ,�
`` � 1 :.
� M
Y 1 1
/Y�� ?�i
�. �
._ r ..�.
� �
4 _ ��
I. � i
' � �.
� `�

U
O
C
C
°
U
N
O
N
06
m
C
O
C
N
C
(,•
O
0 )
-
V
C:
W
W
C
7p
Q
CO
m
T
Q
CJ
U
oN
N
c
d
O)
_
U
-
Q
(0
ca
°
ld
Q7
N
N
-O
L
U
p
C
LL
a)
>
O
a)
E
@
a
X
-
°
o
o
a)
U
O
0
L
Y
0
a)
a)
d
a
N
J
C
:
c
°
N
a)
d
E
0
>
O
ns
(0
N
a
L
O
�
..
Z
o
a)
>
d
C
O_
(n
C
O
y
C
E>
>
>
7
Q'
a
(V
cD
a
U)
N
'-'
7
O
c
Z
Q
m
c
�'
c
`>
N
a'
m
_0
°
Cl)
0
m
a
m
O J
CL E a
L
m
7
o
N
Q
c
a)
7
m
V)
N
00
L
>+
O_
E
N m H
C
c
o
c
.�
U
°
�
)
°
L
N
N
�
0n
N
C
m tm Z
aW
"
:;
'y
°
c
Q
o@
N
v
c
o
C
o
�=
y
O
o
o
o
o
U
z�
z
0
a)
a
a
a
Q
W
,• :; C7
c
a
c
.01_.
to
_0
T
3
a
c
c
Cl)
Q
3
0
E
m r2
o
a)
E
W
+.
=
(0
o
U)
m W
a
W
0
0
v
m
o
o >. �
m
a
a
v
o
cm
a)
c 3 <
(D
`.3
E
a
c
.�
m
o
cu
O` pf
)
E
O
t
)
d
>
m=
>
n
O
U �-
m
Q
u
a
cz
Q
o
N
0)
a
�
Z
U
�
N
O
� ��
O
as
N
Z
N
C
O
U
N
N
.—
a)
CT
CO
eo
_0
°�
U
m
ik
fn
:n
0
m
o
C
o
C
�..
m
3
a`)
a
a)
a)
m
o
N
0
p)
d
W_
�
O
D
0
�
N
00
C)
"
°'
c
"
c
L
3
s
E
C)
C
LL
>
C
°
N
rn
C O)
a)
U
N
Od
(6
Q)
Qf
0)
N
"D
O
O
C
(o
in 'C
°O
N
O
r-
d
O
N
LL
(n
Q
@
U
d
O
C
>,
d
Q
O
`
X
a)
a)
O
C
C)
Z,
m
m
E
m
•c
�
(L
W
o
r-
o
0
c
°
Cl.
a)
m
m
o
c
_
N
N
m
Q
y
a'
L
H
C
O
p..
++
C
O
d
'O
C
N
p
a
o
a
d
y
(•)
:+
+.+
a+
°
-
EL
C
d
-
o
a
•K
..
.D
m
a
C
o
C
O
N
m
LL
R
t0
E
•�
N
N
a
'`
N
Cl.
y
a+
0)
C
a+
N
a)
V
7
7
N
Q1
3
N
a
y
d
r
N
V
aN•+
O
N
w
C
C_
C
.+
t o
C
a)
m
0
U
°
0
o
W
W
N
C
d
a
N'D
E
E
E
N
0
O1
0.
F-
H
a)
E
_
m
E
a
c
y
c
m
a
o
c
m
U
a)
c
p
O
C
N
fA
d
0
O
O
O_
o
L)
9
ci
O
o
'C
C
J
(i
U
O
.d
!n
�'
O`
•`
C
7
•�
o
L
V
H_
�.
A
d
a+
O
a)
U
a0.
CL
L
a)
d
O
7
a)
E
m
N
a)
.y
C
N
d
p
CD
C
a
U
U
R
a
z
O
M
to
U
Q
Co
o
Q
w
N
U'
o
Q
a-
a
C7

2
� �
CIA
¥�
—
m
/
&
a
)$
2
CL
;
�0
/
`
{
■
�
.
■
u
_
m
/
k
t
m§
M
X
c
@
4
$
/-
z
]
Cl)
/
k
2
k�
a
m
,
}§
f
k
t
\
E
)
°
w
20
m«
/
§
m
>
{ Kz
k
k
/2
k/
E
/kw
)
�m
\\
c
§
2
B
-
2/2
d
\ o ■
\
u
■
%
}
�
�
� k
0
4 G
�
)
§
2
2 k
G®
/
k
�
§
2
/
�1 \
=
5
k
& )
k
Ln
\
.� -
:�. �
k
�
A

�
z \
1\
%
&
_
a
3
§
E
/
o
>
\
/
\
<
E
z
§ /§
CL
0
0 L.
k
2Q
{
°
E
E<
/
�)■
W
%
_
a) cn
k
f§
0 k�
E
0
k
{ ®
z
;
KCL
z
/
k
/
%
\
2
e
E
�
2
2
E
§
k
�
)
)
0

LO
0
v
d
R
V
C
o
°-
E
0
a)
c
o
R
N
E
C
O
a
n. E a
R Z
o W
c
o w
y
w�
3
= Ra
E
E �a
t E�
R 0
o
CL
(D N L
N
o
= O
U
L ~
t cn
O
Z
v
R
a
E
0
a)
CL
H
R
R
v
m
0
a
c
.N
9
C
R
d
3
0
c
-
E
`li I
=
O
E
N n
R
C
d

® °\
4:' cm
22 Le}
)f {/\
= } ®kg {Q
%
\ 0 2 a ®/ $
Ĥ
U)
ƒ /Am@
± o
, e 2
2!E 2
/ \±\ / »7
E m« k w a f
[ cu
2
&
} /\\}\�
_
\ 2 \ 'ID \
> \
2
/. { \\2[/
o5
>
:
ƒ \\]7{
/ }}22
co
/ 0) $ 0 ° \
[ /
5'!
\ ƒ0
EQ)u) %
\/` ®
o 2 a =�»
; :2 a)
E2 =SrG[
_
+k\
z
0MLOEa)
c
«
f 3 8 6 G co,
i E�
=i --0
0 a c (n
m\§
}
z 2)
o� UJ
E
2) o m -\
2 ko
E7%2
/ /2�
{E<
§�
\
/000
CL
§
\\ { {$0
CD Cn �(
k
/\ \c
§ 2a
=
«
2o -i
- e
) t■
] o
e=o - EG
e W
m j 3 7\± G
/ k
( \ §\ //\
z
Q%}76
z
%eee
\ { §{
\$G
, =ot
$) _ _ § 5 0 a
=�aom_,
716aat -`
E Z ° � 7 ® /
0 C: a)
2 `
) /E2oa9a
m§»It`
g @ - e
/.9 e
o} =\ \
� . \,n
g # $f a & f
- {&§go3:w
%m\%222m
\ $ oc
-0
§m
E;f co / \k
.2 E E m ° °) /
tea§@ %$±0
f \ /}j /QZ
2 e ° 70
-
< /
5a2 e = \
Li
E
a)
0 \ ƒ m
-r- co
\ 0\E
{s
_ »Z °0
-
{\oe® ®
§
/
a =k
2c7{ =9fa
>
R�eaDc)
=m =5
..
o» �!E M 0
e22e=a&E

F—
N
Z
W ry
w
Z
Of
O
LL ww
J
m
�
W
W
Z
O
0
LU
F-
a.
LL
N
W
o
W
Z K
O —
ZO
O
N
Q
O
M
IL
W
Q
F-
J
U
Q
CO
N
W ^
�
d
Z V
co
1
O
J
N
UA
—
J
Q
_
W
�
V
V
�/ �
Z
cm)
O
M
V )
,...
O
N
N
M
U
a
U
g
<a
a�
a/
ui
W
w
}
o
X
U
Of
m
LL
D
oZ
m
o�
X
Of O
U
^
Z O
+
+
m
O C
ao
~ 0
N
co W
+
O
O
W
N
CL
Q
m
U H
X
O
[0
Cl)
O
J
Z
Q
W
F
O

529/2014
ICA ENGINEERING, INC.
R: \Hydraulics \PERMITS Environmental\ Drawings \000082_hyd_prm_wet_tsh.dgn
COINTRACT: TIP PROJECT: 17BP.7.R.71---.-'
x
� o
M--1
y m�< z O
o mrD —m m
x < X
7 Z L'I n m
C > a.__.
o a Z n 0
RTA r]ON 1}v �, ^O C < r V
m oZ H
O�
c < o b O> O
oa -n
m N �% T
N w
0 to Z m
D z u
b O
ED -
O m m ° o / 6Q
ril
W I /
Z
= n o /
A I O / O
m / D
O v iz1 11
p O y a� / � Z z
r
O m I�
m ( 0 ��
C7 o O m
p� m
I I II by � rn D O O \ —a
OD P T
0 0 0 O 1J�
v
N <
A 'O Lrl PRONG, Of- m
HAW CREEK O �
rN A
r V) r
rn m m oz �1
D< _
Z D l
o
0
p z o m y''� m n
r r
O b m I p o 1 O m
m O
Z
~ pp� A
rn z N
v O
!y p b �! O� + C
y y J
y O U1
zC o
o
Ao3 0> �3 V zt I m
0o 0
too n tiA $ g 3
x "C �i0 l 1 Z
m m I I O
m
O 1 2
ba rn `fl
C b �
10, O
zLo
' NAD R277
27
Nm W Z
m_ �hbr m�`l o n
05
� f w env ° (� 8 z
.m yp pr O< �yz myy°zo
Z 0NN`X �'� 8M TG O .w 0 4 ':7
Z `- n O0 j
�� 2 oaw�° Or�O
COI pox � n� �� p� 07�CZ
Y 3 O ; Cr1 z °� O D �� 707
O r 171 O 0 ,
Fi x y cr3 Z
�+
a
�
�
a
�y
P
i�
O

519Q014
ICA ENGINEERING, INC.
R: \Hydraulics \PERMITS Environmental \Drawings \000082 hyd prm wet pah.dan
DD
b
a
o mm z
9. G
F K
+ g0� oS $�v i z cz
2 r cid a�> ..
a� o
ppoOOODODCDOOOO
mmrn��NN�N
y� O
�
000
y nl nl
11p222
rn c� c� c�
yL r n
° `o °° � -
z as d° 4 0D\ m
n1n
����N
X10
`�
* rsgt So'q v z \
ti
�°10 c
2
2iim
47 6747
rn
�v,
rng2
rRrl
jl�*
e
m / f
rnrn
-
/
O
II II
N
If II
V7 V7
II If II
O �
II II II II
U1 N
C
Z =
Q z
O ` 7 n'Iy0'GL�(.� /
Q
��
D vl
/
p
(n In
cn
N cn (n
O n O �
I i ; Off`` / r '`
/
ap O
o
o Y' n
/
ZDm
N
N X�m
O I D Z ° / A
/
/
Am
m
m Z i g o'° z
/
9�m�z o ��m ; Oc)c>
A��IT�
�0
T
c
van
mu
m
r
V7�
\ �9
z ZO
-
C
inA
v
F.° ( ti/ m mZ
ti
` 1 0 ���$- a O
, F z, , : �Nr CryEE Z m
o Of
r
nD
1
T
co
T
G7
T
m
A
I R Oo
.. .. 1 DN
BZ
'
NEm
r\a
A
m
�<
9
Z
>
\ m
"
z \
m<
az
I
O
B1
N "
m NAD 83' SRS
<
ipso \BIZ " n co
---
---------------
--
d9 m u o
nv
5 Z I V° Tz7 m
I ~�' T
II.
<N
�A
Y I
Onz
4
'
OtAZ
yV~i
D
din
I f TD r °
T
m < z�lx I gds n �N v
I i y z
clz
v
+
I m F pew z
.X 0 �
'X
I
V
I I� s
3 >0 H I \ m
= x \ wm
r
n
:O
6
\
\ TO-00
J
mz
<
m --1 � N
it
<„
�p0 a
In
i Q
7D 03 m �
r I I`
>s 6i0
m n m x \ �\
umi
.
O
O
_
�
a m n y�
ywN�
�Z=
€t mo• w
to + + It
0 Z m II 8 i \ \\\ \\\ � , �%
T I \ `
`
T
Z
1'tl
O
`m
f
J �
SSI sEv o\
co
T m Q -
��
rn W J a
bD
P O z 3
rw`.pwv. N M V1 $
` _ - = v v
"0 ME 74
ci � �,SZ
Q� {Q oo $ M z n
I m sx A�
t^O G� y Z 1. p 3 3—
c O` w O t� , z ,>:7 (p e� lA ., z
ad
m M r
4 Z T`O ,�8►ODa AO anom= z m� mrzi
ill > 0 14 A ►r to 'SJ ,."3d �. ^
m rn G C 07 n' p' m
N°
_
1 m O V In
€ CL's
o
G7
�p,
Ln
Ull
s4 O O y , Ng $ Ha Z z�
r 11 7+ ►i C z
h0
0
o
e
d Z NF °

5292014
t: H dmulics \PERMITS Enviro
W
0
I
N
C) Ul
D
m
li 0
W
0
0
N
W
O
m
NZZ
m
rn rn
:-v
�1 • 14`00
CA
BZ
TB_
8
• z BZ 2
�b
I
O
I�
Ca
m I `0
x
Z,
16 -/-00
.1
m
v
z
v
X
T
m
D
m
70
�o
n
cn
rn
NAD 83/NSRS 2011
o\
It
t;--,
NAN
NNNA
O:F
r rA x g
np 111 p '� °� 6� xn mm '
m-4 �,+ C �. zt" 1p N >
r a
�N v OTCC�c x °o- s �b AZ p
M
M° I Q O trC7 f1
DZ� O
nz :ti
O x O ggq Zc
r y fA 11 $ y pn i Z
v G: C ga 0
x x

5,29,2014
ICA ENGINEERING, INC.
s.\N„a.,.,a�..\oceum; o.., a .....�,...•..nn.,.w..,,.�nnnnn� ti„a .. ,.,e• ..�ti a..,,
Ln
r - m
s v�o Aid �i
iL
ao
ss 3 N y�yn
y
0 F-
z z n 0
Cz
n�
o
I � I
om m
rn
rn rn
���rn,mr
wwcn000
������
-ri
° s
o _
\ v
n�
mn
yyy
����o
222
�O
�c,��5�
�
y
- zaa S•�>
o s°r g °9 z \ w
czlm"QpC'?
C
m�o2�m
"I
AF 9c\
rn
F
�
m
C
r 11 0Q cy
I
IF
II II
II II II
11 II II II
II II
�
�
O � 2
'A N
C`
Ln cb
8
IS
V, ornc� o N.
lU f. /.,
O ✓ -1 "u,
II z �
FD
cc
�!.
D
,r
O I D Z �r ,_J uo.
O r N om°; / <d m - - --
,I
y� G
Q aCa S mm; �
p-i3m
w
r — / r! o
nm - -
O -
rn .1
D
N n
OD
Iii
W
T
_
pv ��C ' J I _` '. �''�,'�� /.'': `i:. OR'N
!� „ n
`
m
--
ins
N
m
z
1
..�
';.v_",rae'ys.
i
"
�
O
N
��;1;II�,:Fn�i; ;I� ✓� ?'jf`' v,m
_
° o
15-AOO
C?
to
m
m NAD 83/NSR5 2011
00
ox rfr� _-
Al
151
r
� c
022
rZE m
Z i -
. � _
rr
MN
V�
-p
Z -
GIO
O�
"-
'- • � I' I ", °rn'L".m< "- r s
�yo
-
m*
_-
Z. � "
m zr,
C
N"'n
m
ro
I
om
xa
G
o
F"A
_+ �c Z
I
o
r' g
LFIJ
_
>p XI m
T
` 0,
Z °
r all -
o>
c<
.o t
O
OD
C
z
ca
Z �I `,`
Z a 4
Lrl II ` y It
��� o
gp
cnI�gYll '.Ir;1•I \� p inb
-
`
Z
V Z m
O
o O_
;
.
�
A x a m y \`
A �
a
N
mm
rn 0 y Cl! C F $$ $ l=7 O � N r
o3�
z
a�,"
OT� 8 am
Az Z O °° H n O a w Z r m
mp Z =f n "0 n
>m z � m ro o "= Ila
>
O7d� m p -- CL
z a
L"
Ln
n r > z
:pj
LA
N d Cl N ;A O
0
"
z

54292014
ICA ENGINEERING, INC.
V1
> U1
D
m
li
w
0
O
IV
W
O
f
C
m
N�Z
Z
m <
M m
N^
C 0
jO m
n 0 m
m� Zm
� N
1 m v
mp
70 �
D
3Z
>m
DZ
N
1 �Y
a'g
�• i
• ..
= X ------- - - - - -� ------------------
- - - -- - -- -- -
Q
---- - - - - --
-
16400
C
m
v
Z
v
X
n
D
m
D
m
n
N
m
NAD 83/NSRS 2011
i
•f.
1
Lp
'
Lp
CA
a'g
�• i
• ..
= X ------- - - - - -� ------------------
- - - -- - -- -- -
Q
---- - - - - --
-
16400
C
m
v
Z
v
X
n
D
m
D
m
n
N
m
NAD 83/NSRS 2011
i
•f.

5292014
ICA ENGINEERING, INC.
R: \Hydraulics \PERMITS Environmental \Drawings \000082_hyd_prm_buffer tsh.dgn
COINTRA CT: TIP PROJECT: 17BP.7.,R,71--.,O
CrnD
z
M - O ,
0 7 r- D m rn
e M r p x.
nn
10 Vg v
O >___.
o Z f1 O {N _
RTAT�ON C Z r
�3Y �, ^O =
rn 0Z N�70
M V
o 14
D
b
co II n
m N � -n
O O v, Z m
y z t
r O a
r� , --
Do
O
> z Z
C y
0
G� p O �Yj
r
C)
< .T1 lA / /
� rn r` m / D
O 5
rn v C7 0 ✓ /
n n �a o
m
u n x C O O
�O N
O O O ^ O
ra o p —a m x OG �=1
a o v /n /, �� PRONG OF HAW A
CREEK � A
r r a
to
n s Z C)
<_
o ^Z^ D
fn �
O III 0 r 12, ~ O rn
�m v rn O \ L
M Z Vf O
y b O
X
�
o �t�4
V A
30o �0
10 3._ �
z a -n p A ° 9 Z
2c D II
_ Z A
M m rn O
I
a o C-,
b
b a rn
c b m
r�
0
� � o
NAD 83/NSRt 2011
_
col 'M y y z
m3= M z C f7
a
n^� a ° � ° � %t Z � i;T'C j 8gw qcz a 'z� C� � r7 g'8 x� 'N ro •yy y � I I O 7Wv � � �O O ro v ro tr n -ai i 'x C zJ
7O � n z z Sp J
v
~1:4 O y �N Noo % O y O .4 0
HN
cu
3 AE L-4 z O
0 O O /O z fill
E
�

9/2014
\ ENGINEERING, INC.
Hydraulics\ PERMITS_Environ manta I \Drawings \000082_hyd _prm_buffer_psh.dgn
rI-+
. I --f-
<
- -
I
iI
i
I
I
m
� s co�� J- J- $ ? b m � m •
c n
0
Z z n i
+ - n
N oOD oo f�� = m.
c r�r =AO D o
i
0
rm m°O n r \ n
sa T
s ++ �" ° D
y a •^q f tn /
Ma Z
'f
I (71
2
O z``
(n
C7 Ul m + ~ + s / y4C� /1
D O
- -- / v
CD
O ^
A O r[ F
W
O m m �� •� c
m A > M -
N XXm
O D Z °o / / —0,
I
om O
m7v £a / % .� oz >? �, o; c
— m Z i ! ° o< i K oOZ
^C� rn
000 a�= m 13�
'au. C. N OC
<oLm * �U 00
\ O
09
OD v / Av 0^'�
Z / A0
/!
�1` 6'1'x/ -. f ^.:iT �i:• -: ;:.- s m
� H
1S- Z
II z / FFO .. /1S, to _
in BZ 1 r✓ \ z o
0
D
A
Ln
Ln
[Jt
1
Z
om
"
c�
Ip�
m
D D
.n ar
++
2
O)
m
m
y o 0
E
rL
<
A
c
z
T�
Z
0
I
on,
rn
���rnrn m j,'
222
�
;,
n
r
rl
Op> my Oy L1D �C C
" mN OT Om
y
m -a -4
X 30
O`
0
C
C)
G) G) ci rn�
o
G7
m
A
N
0 Z" —
�g m �0 0 A
N m
C
�2
>
�rn�rn�2
T
v >
p r
x=
J
iA
��nc�rn 2c�
�QZO� ��rn
W
�ODm n
=
r
'
r-
!' G m
Z
z�m
�
wcn0
0
N
p
$oz
II
II II II II II II II II II
C�
g �'
II
ba
r
n
\ )
m N
o
N
0)
CnU1WO`NOCNi1`
wSo�g$w o
0
V%
D T
z
�m
A
t
--
m I
t!
I
�
J
N (n
P O
Q
p X
a
W `G
°o
O�
N
J
�
OD
1
O
D
mDl
1
(A SE 0
r�s
17
mr
II
p
TO fJ
s
i2 1
'
rI-+
. I --f-
<
- -
I
iI
i
I
I
m
� s co�� J- J- $ ? b m � m •
c n
0
Z z n i
+ - n
N oOD oo f�� = m.
c r�r =AO D o
i
0
rm m°O n r \ n
sa T
s ++ �" ° D
y a •^q f tn /
Ma Z
'f
I (71
2
O z``
(n
C7 Ul m + ~ + s / y4C� /1
D O
- -- / v
CD
O ^
A O r[ F
W
O m m �� •� c
m A > M -
N XXm
O D Z °o / / —0,
I
om O
m7v £a / % .� oz >? �, o; c
— m Z i ! ° o< i K oOZ
^C� rn
000 a�= m 13�
'au. C. N OC
<oLm * �U 00
\ O
09
OD v / Av 0^'�
Z / A0
/!
�1` 6'1'x/ -. f ^.:iT �i:• -: ;:.- s m
� H
1S- Z
II z / FFO .. /1S, to _
in BZ 1 r✓ \ z o
0
D
\ m
v
� 15-AOO m
0
m
m NAD BY S 2RS 011
r �z9
z
IA
y� T
uo
1
Z
om
"
c�
Ip�
m
D D
.n ar
++
2
O)
m
m
y o 0
E
rL
<
A
c
z
T�
Z
0
I
mO
�a
�
;,
n
r
Op> my Oy L1D �C C
" mN OT Om
y
m -a -4
X 30
O`
�0
z �� box z
ti
0 �
�
83
a
A
N
0 Z" —
�g m �0 0 A
N m
C
Z r o
CA m
>
<tg
>$
T
v >
p r
x=
J
iA
m
W
�ODm n
=
r
'
r-
!' G m
Z
I
�
wcn0
0
N
p
$oz
ZzY
D Z 2
g �'
Z P
ba
r
\ )
m N
Ul
V%
D T
z
�m
A
--
m I
t!
I
P O
Q
p X
a
W `G
°o
O�
N
\ m
v
� 15-AOO m
0
m
m NAD BY S 2RS 011
r �z9
z
IA
y� T
uo
1
om
c�
Ip�
(n
O
D D
.n ar
++
2
O)
m
m
y o 0
E
rL
O
A
m
T�
Z
0
I
mO
�a
�
;,
n
r
clI
z
IA
ZokO°
om
Ip�
`-•
0
W_
3
08
8m
�r
xn
lo
D r op oa rn
'om om mm m> z�s Z
T�
Z
0
I
A
�a
;,
o9 z
ni Gay n; o� _z °
Op> my Oy L1D �C C
" mN OT Om
y
O`
�0
z �� box z
ti
83
a
N
0 Z" —
�g m �0 0 A
N m
b
ODd� " C! x v
A
x=
J
iA
e�
2
=
M
IE
'
r-
�
Z
I
�
>
i
0
N
p
$oz
ZzY
T
g �'
ba
bo;
v+ m
=
z
IA
N N
/ \ TI
D D
° o o m
�jj:E m AOm D A A %"
om
Ip�
`-•
0
W_
3
08
8m
�r
xn
lo
D r op oa rn
'om om mm m> z�s Z
T�
Z
0
Y o M y z o
&. 8 - n z
x V
A
�a
;,
o9 z
ni Gay n; o� _z °
Op> my Oy L1D �C C
" mN OT Om
y
�0
z �� box z
ti
83
a
N
0 Z" —
�g m �0 0 A
N m
ODd� " C! x v
A
x=
J
iA
e�
2
=
v+ m
=
z
IA
°_a
sa
om
Ip�
`-•
0
W_
3
08
8m
�r
xn
lo
z
pZ
T�
Z
0
Y o M y z o
&. 8 - n z
x V
A
�a
;,
r. IV
�0
z �� box z
ti
83
a
ODd� " C! x v
A
x=
e�
2
=
'
r-
Z
I
$oz
ZzY
g �'
bo;

5292014
ICA ENGINEERING, INC.
MY
W
V)
n
/X� �i�i�i�`
D
�
W
r
xx�
/� x,� }T
)<
m
o
O
w
n x
O
T
Yky
x
,
6Z
O
D
N
W
O
rn
N�Z
�Z�
rn < G7
J
rn rn
::E0
/
X < ;�
T �
1 �� cx x
Z
// u>' > x�� /
v� XX x
X < ,
0
50 i
0
/ m
x I I
w ca
mom N N
D D
D r
vr m zo O
0 — D z
m �OD r r 0 � o r r w r
D
y z T
D Oca OA o m r rn �1
wr" ZD ZD Z
C� Cl3 p— m mZ
C1� 1)D
zv
°n D 'A m m
QD cn(� mn n�C WC
to 1 OT OT
cn -1 N to N ; m .: T
O C)1'4 N vm m
G�0 m 'O p
Z N m Z
m
m
N
T
T
rn
D
rn
i
NAD 83/N5RS 2011 '
� f
/X� �i�i�i�`
' <y xy� <ux
<
W
xx�
/� x,� }T
)<
ti
o
n x
T
Yky
x
,
6Z
2 0 o
D
Ul)
-
G�
5,
'600
=Z <0
08
III
I
rn 11
I O O
M
I
-n � cn
O
O
CIO I
—� i
L
n o n
<
O
z i I I
m CA
o
C
i I I
m
X
z ,
x I I
w ca
mom N N
D D
D r
vr m zo O
0 — D z
m �OD r r 0 � o r r w r
D
y z T
D Oca OA o m r rn �1
wr" ZD ZD Z
C� Cl3 p— m mZ
C1� 1)D
zv
°n D 'A m m
QD cn(� mn n�C WC
to 1 OT OT
cn -1 N to N ; m .: T
O C)1'4 N vm m
G�0 m 'O p
Z N m Z
m
m
N
T
T
rn
D
rn
i
NAD 83/N5RS 2011 '
� f

9/1014
ENGINEERING, INC.
Hydraulic \PERMITS Environmental \Drawings \000082_hyd_p m_buffer Psh.dgn
IA
Vl I
Ln Ul
LA
cl
b \
O
O
O
O b
g r co�i J% x m n<'
c s rim
�= DD ; IV` \ y H (1 r
°°
v 9 ovy +w n _OO Z .. Z C:
D os m.
n� °
gggww�o
~
°rn rn
mrnmvrn,vrn,vrn,
���rnrn('n
o ; x
gg� 000 °� n
��
�o c
2iirnoz
m�
�� O
rn n
S 1; 7. f
~ Bay
A
2
mrnoim
m
A� \ _ y
__
Q�ornti�l''f'
II II
II II II
II II II II
II II
2 I z S
/
N
I
O
c\cnOOCn
c,,,g�jOOpNOU,p
'o NcnN
O
O
O
Lil
CA
cp
cn
ti
ti
r ;�
CD A
- --
o y
o
O m rn / � .� =V -- C
/
,
, m
/
O D
I ° - - O
O (A �n-a -----
r` ei � , / - z
m(�
z o O Z 3
A43�
vu i o r
O
IF
-
in
O n� -
> � f
o
O� Fs .� -.- n f1��
Pp
�
W
�
C
V In
RIN
m
X
G�
,✓/ ,- . ..�
.i
Or ZOu
/S'
Z
nz
.1C1
m
'nom
/
-
of �D
"
-
1
�v'
_ m
i �/ Om
\
r
m
m
in00 L% �gEFJt.- ZTI
1, 4 F 1_ H_ m
tnElm
7C<
m
q a?
- -e_ --- m
m>I�
II
1
- -_ 1S'b0 m
—
"J" 1
O
N
Ic
o+y
�mz `B1 { '(;'A / -- o __' m NAD 83Y/ S 2011
�? n 11 Q7
z
mo
°O
F9
or�z
mrxl
��
C, noj
c»
� yvt
'4rn
m+
T
rL
=m
•�N
n
Ln
y�
1
A<
f av z
-
ec' _ '- --_ I O �
I O
2d m
X 70 ` ___' G7 z
3D
m
z h g
0 � �' � o� T
+0�°
W n
Gl 9 2
m rn
N til I I I N-
0
RAN: _
I
�
°
-o
D
Z r wv
mm
n
-� -
W N to c
0 m P'I ���' rl` 2
Z
I
v
Z r
r - I
G1 O
ca
0,0 SW
A x C;1 I I_ I I' 1; 1
m I
m y ,,1i 81
tnO
-
TZ
M
> 1
UA
1
Q
X
N \
L_J
°m �_
H m �
ba
`
z g2n
to
b t'' C S 3 - --z 8 z c'
'c4' '� rA b to "s ooS M o= n Z
> > > > y�7y 0 z Q -� q p�
0 o r O O C�7 0 IP � - z
Om _m Om > Op p m I Z
O
mZ mZ v 0 x � x Y 7 g 8'b aCj7
n; % °;
NE
-
-
--
C oVO n
09
M0.1 011 -V �4 C1 r°ii "0
_ !y
Z'^ O (1N N b V 8 0 O i Znw \ Li4 O
N z _o n O j 0 z c
Goo O � '2,' "� '" .C' � � �'3 9 z d' o %. z c
ILw
Nr
m
w' N J m > %^. V1 N(y�� y^ u gg ZrA
fn d 4I H T phi

529/2014
ICA ENGINEERING, INC.
U,
D
m
ii
CA
O
S
O
IV
LA
O
W
O
0
rn
Z
�z�
rn <
M 0
� D
y r r
r 0 r
0
�
w pD
O� wrn D -
Dr z_ 0m
Om
o 3
n3 �D �,
OD m� ONn
GlN OZ ON
—0 m Z
Z a m
m
N J
I '+
Q ,
I
' 1
Lp
Ul
O '
,,
ST /X'r
y
$ x xx
-- -
--- ---- - - -- -- -- - - -- -= _
----- ---- --- -----
' - —
= - --
_ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _____ _ ___ ______ - - - -_ �� /yX-
,- - - - - -" _ -- - - -- - -- ------------
rn
o 0
Ln
♦ ' �; i 1 / / , C V1
CA
IM
-- ----- ----- --- --- - -- -
}
-- -- m m
fTl
- -- -------- -
W
N N
I
D
r r
o m
N V'
W 0> O> ill
ao m Z Z Z
p3 NZ mz
mn C OWC
1 Om m
N z z
0
Z
m
W
T
T
rn
3
D
rn
sum— -1 - amm-
NAD 83/NSRS 2011
� f

) )
_
\
z9
\
9
E
m
)
\
\
Cl)
o
}}
\
�
\
0
ƒ
k
4
�/
�
%E
\
°
a
0
z
� /2{
£
/�{
2%
- -5
E`
Q
m
$ m
\ K
�
�mI[
2/
/�(
»
■
a
§3
a�
_.ef
j�
c
/[}
�
2
q
M.
�
k
/
\
/ \ \}
�
>
/ \ \)
i
®
j
\ \ //\
}Jmt
=tee
�
$
27 \2%
\ 2
_
2
2 §
2 \ / \\
sem =_.
\) \
��\
$[Q \¢
om]])
\2
®£
cn C)
2
5ȤE
\%0 \\�
=z :2
o#
®oe > =)
�
MW>>
�?\�\
;u j
) �
�
/�(
■
a
j�
c
�
�
k
/
\
/ \ \}
�
>
/ \ \)
i
®
j
\ \ //\
}Jmt
=tee
�
27 \2%
_
2
2 \ / \\
sem =_.
��\
\2
®£
2
5ȤE