20140871 Ver 1_Application_20140811

Kimley>Morn
August 8, 2014
Ms. Christy Wicker
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Mr. Chad Coburn
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
RE: Nationwide Permit 14 Application - Covil Farm Road Bicycle Lane Project
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Wicker and Mr. Coburn
On behalf of our client, New Hanover County, Kimley-Horn is submitting the attached pre -construction
notification application (PCN) for authorization under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 for the above
referenced project. New Hanover County is proposing to construct bicycle lanes along Covil Farm
Road (SR 1940) from Military Cutoff Road (SR 1409) to Old Fort Road (SR 1941). Covil Farm Road
is currently a two-lane shoulder section with a pavement width of 22 feet between Military Cutoff
Road to Vistamar Drive, and 20 feet from Vistamar Drive to Old Fort Road (Figure 1). Covil Farm
Road will be resurfaced symmetrically to accommodate 4 foot paved shoulders on both sides of the
road. Covil Farm Road will need to be widened in the vicinity of the jurisdictional wetlands located on
the east end of the project corridor to facilitate the bicycle land construction, but the majority of the
project corridor will consist solely of pavement resurfacing.
Widening of Covil Farm Road will require the extension of existing culverts beneath the road
connection wetlands W1 and W2, and also the culverts connecting W2 and W3 (Figure 3). The
extension of these culverts and the associated NCDOT-required fill slopes will result in the
unavoidable permanent impact to 0.046 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. The County determined that
the use of headwalls in lieu of fill slopes in order to minimize wetland impacts in this area was not
feasible to do significant cost increases and installation constraints, but impact areas have still been
minimized to the greatest extent practical throughout the project corridor. Additionally, permanent
impacts to 28 LF of jurisdictional streams S1 and S2 will result from the culvert installation.
To assist in your review of this nationwide permit application, the following information has been
included as part of this submittal:
• Pre -Construction Notification Form
• Signed Agent
Authorization Form
• Figure 1 -
Vicinity Map
• Figure 2
— USGS Topographic Map
• Figure 3
— 2010 Aerial Photograph and Jurisdictional Features Map
• Figure 4
— NRCS Soil Survey Map

Kimley >> Horn Page 2
• Figure 5 — FEMA Flood Hazard Zone Map
• Stream Data Forms
• Wetland Data Forms
• Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
• NCDWR Application Fee of $240
If there is any additional information you would like to assist in the processing of this NWP application
package, please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-417-1781 or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Jason Hartshorn
Environmental Analyst
Enclosures
Cc: Jeff Moore, Kimley-Horn
Karyn Crichton, New Hanover County

of WArF9q
�. pG Office Use Only:
o '®
r 2 Q j Q g Corps action ID no.
o 7 1 DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form –Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre -Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1 d.
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
1e.
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 ® 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 1h
below.
® Yes
❑ No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Covil Farm Bike Lane
2b.
County:
New Hanover
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Wilmington
2d.
Subdivision name:
n/a
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
n/a
�^
3.
Owner Information
UU
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
New Hanover County
AUG, 1 1 2014
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
n/a
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Kan Crichton
ry
�� ��
%_w—MW &wch
3d.
Street address:
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
3e.
City, state, zip:
Wilmington, NC 28403
3f.
Telephone no.:
910-798-7085
3g.
Fax no.:
910-798-7053
3h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 11
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)
n/a
4d
Street address
n/a
4e
City, state, zip
n/a
4f
Telephone no
n/a
4g
Fax no
n/a
4h
Email address
n/a
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a
Name
Jason Hartshorn
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
919-678-4155
5f
Fax no
919-677-2050
5g
Email address
Jason Hartshorn@Kimley-Horn com
Page 2 of 11
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 transportation right-of-way with permanent
easements for pipe extensions)
1 b Site coordinates (in decimal degrees)
Latitude 34 259200 Longitude - 77 821300
(DD DDDDDD) (-DD DDDDDD)
1 c Property size
7 35 acres
2 Surface Waters
2a Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc ) to
Howe Creek
proposed project
2b Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water
SA, ORW
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 proposed bike lane runs alongside Covil Farm Road, between Military Cutoff Road and Old Fort Road The length of
the proposed bike lane will be approximately 3,770 feet (0 7 miles) Cowl Farm Road is a two-lane road, connecting
several small residential neighborhoods interspersed with tracts of forested'land
3b List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property
0 11 acres
3c List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property
66 linear feet
3d Explain the purpose of the proposed project
Widen Cowl Farm Road (SR 1940) from Military Cutoff Road (SR 1409) to Old Fort Road (SR 1941) to accommodate
bicycle lanes The addition of bike lanes on Cowl Farm Road will combine with the Middle Sound Greenway project to
provide safer pedestrian connectivity between the Gary Shell Cross -City Trail, Ogden Elementary School, and Bayshore
Estates
3e Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used
The proposed project will widen Cowl Farm Road within the existing right-of-way Fill slopes along Cowl Farm Road will
need to be extended, and existing culverts will need to be lengthened to facilitate the construction of the bike lanes
Throughout the rest of the corridor, the existing roadway facility is wide enough to allow the construction of bike lanes by
resurfacing the existing road Typical roadway construction equipment will be utilized including cranes, track hoes, back
hoes, graders, dump trucks, bulldozers, pavement marking equipment and paving equipment
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 El Unknown
Comments A preliminary jurisdictional determination was
issued by the USACE on February 14, 2014
(SAW 2014-00309)
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 and
Associates, IncOther
Name (if known) Jason Hartshorn
4d If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination was issued on February 14, 2014 (SAW 2014-00309) and documentation has
been attached
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

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
n/a
6. Future Project Plans
6a Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b If yes, explain
n/a
Page 4 of 11
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
Site 1 W3/W4
Temporary
® Yes
® Corps
El ® T
Construction
Palustnne
El No
El DWQ
0 010
Access
Site 1 W3/W4
Fill Slope
Palustnne
® Yes
® Corps
0 011
® P El
Construction
El No
❑ DWQ
Site 2 W1/W2
Temporary
® Yes
® Corps
❑ P ®T
Construction
Palustrine
El No
DWQ
0 027
Access
Site 2 W1/W2
Fill Slope
Palustnne
® Yes
® Corps
0035
® P El
Construction
El No
El DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
083 acres
2h Comments Unavoidable impacts to the two wetland systems located along Covil Farm Road will result from the necessary
fill slopes and pipe extensions that will be installed on the existing culverts crossing beneath Covd Farm Road Temporary
wetland impacts are solely to facilitate construction access and pipe placement, and all temporary impacts will be returned to
existing grade after 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)
Site 1
Culvert Extension
Stream S1 (UT to
® PER
® Corps
8
12
® P [:1T
Howe Creek)
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
Site 2
Culvert Extension
Stream S2 (UT to
❑ PER
® Corps
6
16
® P El
Howe Creek)
® INT
❑ DWQ
3h Total stream and tributary impacts
28
31 Comments Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional streams will result from the installation of culvert extensions to carry
streams S1 and S2 beneath Covd Farm Road The existing pipes will be extended to facilitate the widening of Covd Farm
Road
Page 5 of 11
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
4b
4c
4d
4e
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number —
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary
01 ❑P❑T
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P❑T
04 ❑ PEI T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g Comments No open water impacts will result from the proposed project
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below
5a
5b
5c
5d
5e
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g Comments No ponds or lakes will be constructed as part of the proposed construction
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
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below If an 'im acts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Other
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b
6c
6d
6e
6f
6g
Buffer impact
number—
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary
impact
required?
B1 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
6h Total buffer impacts
61 Comments No protected riparian buffers are present in the project corridor
Page 6 of 11
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
Impacts resulting from the proposed project were minimized to the greatest extent practical Headwalls were attempted in this
location, but due to grade and construction limitations, construction of headwalls to minimize impacts was cost prohibitive
Since headwalls were not feasible, fill slopes were kept as tight as possible to the existing toe of slope, and the widening will
occur along the existing roadway corridor to minimize overall impacts to the systems in the project area
1 b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques
Impacts to stream and wetland features will be minimized wherever possible throughout the construction process by avoiding
stream and wetland features as practical Construction equipment and material staging areas will be located in uplands where
feasible, and silt fencing will be used throughout the corridor to protect downstream water quality throughout construction
Best Management Practices (BMP) and measures will be used to reduce stormwater impacts to receiving waters and
minimize runoff from the construction areas
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S or Waters of the State
2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
2b If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply)
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
projects
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ 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 n/a
Quantity n/a
3c Comments n/a
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
linear feet
4c If using stream mitigation, stream temperature
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only)
square feet
4e Riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4f Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested
acres
4h Comments
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 7 of 11
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)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
15
6f Total buffer mitigation required:
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)
n/a
6h Comments n/a
Page 8of11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a 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
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments n/a
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project'?
51%
2b Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why
This project is a linear transportation project and does not require a stormwater management plan However, the project will
treat the stormwater runoff by minimizing built -upon surfaces, diverting stormwater away from surface waters as much as
possible and employing other best management practices to minimize water quality impacts The roadway will remain a
shoulder section to allow runoff to sheet flow and infiltrate into the vegetated shoulders along the road to provide stormwater
treatment to the maximum extent practicable All drainage swales have 31 side slopes to maximize treatment while
minimizing impacts to existing features and properties
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?
Wilmington
❑ Phase II
3b Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply)
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other
3c Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No
attached9
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
❑ Session Law 2006-246
(check all that apply)
® Other NCDOT State
Stormwater
4b Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached'?
❑ Yes ® No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements
® Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

5b Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
® Yes ❑ No
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la 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)?
1 c 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 26 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
This project will not cause future development or impacts The purpose of implementing the bike lanes is to serve existing
communities
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
No wastewater will be generated from the proposed project
Page 10 of 11
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?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Raleigh ❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Suitable habitat for listed species is not present within the study area. The project corridor is located within a residential
area and roadside edges are frequently maintained up to the heavily forested edges along the wetland boundaries. The
forest communities are primarily bottomland hardwood swamp systems with thick understory. The wetland and stream
systems within the project area have low flow with low water depths, and would not support any of the aquatic species
listed for New Hanover County. Additionally, a review of NCNHP records, updated April 2014, indicates that no known
element occurrences within a 1 mile radius of the project study area. Due to the lack of suitable habitat and the lack of
known occurrences, it has been determined that the proposed project will have no effect on any federally listed species.
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?
EFH data downloaded from the NMFS website were used to identify Essential Fish Habitat within 1 mile of the project
study area. Nursing areas for coastal migratory pelagics, potential shrimp and spiny lobster habitat, and shellfish growing area
are present within Howe Creek. However, the proposed bike lanes are not expected to impact these aquatic resources due to
the minimal impact associated with the project.
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 HPOWEB Mapping Application from NC Department of Cultural Resources website (records reviewed August
2014) was used to determine the absence of impact to historic or archeological resources. No National Register or Study
List properties are located within 1.0 mile of the project area.
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: Although a small section on the eastern end of the study area is
located at the extreme upstream end of the 100 -year floodplain of Howe Creek, the only impacts to the aquatic system
will be a pipe extension and no impacts to the 100 -year floodplain is anticipated.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA DFIRM, 3720315800J, effective April 3, 2006.
Jason Hartshorn
j,i
f�/y
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
ate
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is
provided.)
Page 1 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10. 2008 Version

Letter of Authorization
Ms. Karyn Crichton, with New Hanover County authorizes Kenley -Horn and
Associates, Inc. to act as our limited agent to coordinate with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and North Carolina Division of Water Quality for the
preparation and submittal of jurisdictional determinations and 404/401 permits
applications associated with the Covil Farm Road Bicycle Lanes project and EB -
5543 Middle Sound Greenway project located in New Hanover County, North
Carolina. Authorization will terminate on either final agency action or upon
written notification from either parties involved.
Company Name: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Contact Name: Jeff Moore, P.E.
Client Address: 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, NC 28403
Client Phone #:
910-798-7085
Client Fax #:
910-798-7053
Client Email:
KCrichtonPR-nhcgov.com
(Signature of Client)
Date

FIGURES

��
� c.q
at
R ±
s CU M »
ƒ04
��/%
§�>�
>COc
8
" ° Z
/ R §
a
±
»
&
g 2 c
Ott
m
4
U-
0
0
J
C)
0
g
�
§
cr
$
°
&
f
4ri
0
�n Im
U
�
�
./
6
CL
cu
±
C ƒ
§ U
0
�
�0
*
�
�tv
G
)k
c
f
,:
k 0
o
^
_
k
ca
® $
: _
2 § \
21 k0
to
z
§
' r.
A

74s- �k-
,fir
40
dL A
Sr e
a

IW 1W 41
/6 ,.
.� :♦+ •fes �� u,j

V `
cU ami c .�
�,i ♦ c c c 2' 3 0
_O O_ O ♦off
111'1 .t✓.;i b ° J V cc
= C C C 3 U> ,t
N _ C O
_ m (a Z
cu
I,� 1• WN W N m
ho z
O! N N fV) J of N A v' C C _
a ° C> m">
c-
2 m c E �, N O
` s ••
CD o LL
Q 4
l o
C)
LO
•.. r s
14
-.
!.
O
o
0
E
f0
m
U
C1
W
E
C
y—
Y
O
Y
LL
•�
O
jv
r'
y
Y
Z
N
Z
O
ZJ
it
U
N
LL
CA S
J Y
J
` s ••
CD o LL
Q 4
l o
C)
LO
•.. r s
14

DATA FORMS

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
ProtectlSde Covll Farm Road Bike Lane City/County. New Hanover County Sampling Date 7/16/2013
Applicant/Owner NCDOT State NC Sampling Point W1/W2-UP
Investigator(s) J. Hartshorn (KHA), L. Vlrtaranta (KHA) Section, Township, Range Harnett
a a 6°
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Hlllslo p Local relief (concave, convex, none) None Slope (�6) 1O
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR T Let 34.2614 N Long 77.8169 W Datum NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name JO - Johnston soils NWI classification PF01/4Cd
Are'dimatic 1 hi conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes F✓ No= (if no, explain in Remarks )
Are VegetationSod or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes EENo=
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 Sod Present? Yes No✓
+nnthin a Wetland? Yes No W]
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks
W1 and W2 are part of the same wetland system that Is connected by 4 36" Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP)
culverts. The upland data collection point was taken on a steep hillslope away from wetland W1, approximately
5' west of wetland flag W1-6. NOAA/NWS recorded 0.13" of rainfall 48 hours prior to field evaluations.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators-
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Sod Cracks (B6)
Primary Indicators minimum of one is re uued check all that apply)
Surface Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (613)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen, Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (131)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat orCrust (134)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Geomorphic Position (02)
Iron Deposits (135)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Water -Stained, Leaves (139)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present'? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches) >20"
Saturation Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches) >20"
Wetland Hydrology
Present? Yes a No Fy
includes ca i Clary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, -aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
No indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point W1/W2-UP
7
3 - P
30
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet
Tree Stratum (Plot size )
% Cover
Soeaes? Status
Number of Dominant Species 8
1
Quercus mtchauxtt
15%
Y FACW
That Are CBL, FACW, or FAC (A)
Total Number of Dominant 9
2 brtodendron tultptfera 15% Y FACU
3 Ilex sp 10% Y FAC
10% Y FACW
FACU species x 4 =
2 Carptnus carohntana
10% Y FAC
Species Across All Strata (B)
4
Quercus nigra
10%
Y FAC
Percent of Dominant Species 89%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (AB)
5
5
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
6
7
3 - P
Prevalence Index worksheet
8
Total % Cover of Multiply by
50% = Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover
25% 20% of total cover 10%
FACW species x 2 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 30
)
FAC species x 3 =
1 Magnolia vtrgtntana
10% Y FACW
FACU species x 4 =
2 Carptnus carohntana
10% Y FAC
UPL species x 5 =
3
Column Totals (A) (B)
4
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
6
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7
X 2- Dominance Testis >50%
8'
<
revalence Index is -3 0
20%
= Total Cover _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover 10% 20% of total cover 4%
Herb Stratum (Plot size _
1 Atztndmarta gtgantea
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
50% of total cover 5%
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' )
1 Vitts rotund folia
2 Lontcerajapontca
3
4
5
Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must
10% Y FACW I be present, unless disturbed or problematic
10 00 = Total Cover
20% of total cover 2%
5% Y FAC
5% Y FAC
100/0 =Total Cover
50% of total cover 50/0 20% of total cover 2%
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 3 28 ft (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 ft in
height
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ? No
The upland hillslope has a moderate canopy with very light herbaceous vegetation.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2 0

SOIL Sampling Point W1/W2-UP
Profile Description
ne
or confirm the absence
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
unless otherwise noted ) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3
(inches)
Color (moist)
0r6 Color (moist) % Type' Loc
Texture Remarks
0-6"
10YR 2/1
1000/0
Sandy loam 20% U.C.S.
6-14"
10YR 3/2
100%
Sandy loam
14-20"
10YR 4/1
90% 10YR 4/4 10% C PL
Sandy clay loam
'Type C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted ) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (Fl 1) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbnc Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochnc (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Sods (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed)
Twe
Depth (inches)
Remarks
Hydnc Soil Present? Yes g No 10
There are no hydric soil indicators present. Neither saturation or the water table are present
within 20" of the surface.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 20

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site Covil Farm Road Bicycle Lanes City/County. New Hanover County
Applicant/Owner New Hanover County State NC
Investigator(s) 1. Hartshorn (KHA), L. Virtaranta (KHA) Semon, Township, Range Harnett
Landform (hlllsiope, terrace, etc) Topographic Crenulation Local relief (concave, convex, none) Concave
LRR T
Sampling Date 7/16/2013
Sampling Point WI/W2-WET
Slope (off) <1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) Lat 34.2614 N Long 77.8168 W Datum 114AD83
Sod Map Unit Name JO - Johnston soils NWI classification PF01/4Cd
Are chmatic I h drolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes m No= (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation Sod [= or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
YesEE No=
Are Vegetation So ll 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 Presents Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Sod Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks
Wetlands W1 and W2 are the same wetland system but are separated by Covil Farm Road and
connected by four 36" CMP culverts (see Figure 3). NOAA/NWS recorded 0.13" of rainfall 48
hours prior to field evaluations.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators.
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply)
Surface Water (Al) Aquatic Fauna (613)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
High Water Table (A2) Mart Deposits (615) (LRR U)
Drainage Patterns (610)
Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Moss Trim Lines (616)
Water Marks (81) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment, Deposits (82) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
Saturation Visible on Aenal'Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Iron Deposits (65) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Water -Stained Leaves (69) It
Sphagnum moss (138) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches) 811
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches) 6"
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Z No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well aerial photos previous inspections), if available
Remarks
Saturation was present near the surface, but soils were not fully saturated until 6" below the
surface and the water table was observed at a depth of 8". W1/W2 are bordered by steep
topographic breaks to the east and west, and the roadside fill slope to south of W2 and north of
W1. The upper 8" of the soil profile contained high organic content, which was likely holding
water in the upper 6" despite a lower water table due to observation In mid-July.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Sampling PointW1/W2-WET
Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
Tree cover within W1 and W2 consists primarily of swamp chestnut oak in the canopy, muscle
wood in the understory, and wetland ferns in the herbaceous layer. Vines were present
throughout the wetlands.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2 0
30'
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Sp 8
1
Quercus mrchauxtt
30eaes
/o
Y
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata 9 (B)
2 Quercus virgineana 15% Y FACU
3 Taxodtum dtstrchum 15% Y OBL
4
Percent of Dominant Species $9%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (AB)
5
6
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of Multiply by
8
60%
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50°x6 of total cover
30% 20% of total cover
12%
FACW species x2=
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 30'
)
FAC species x3=_
1
Carpinus carolrntana
20%
Y
FAC
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals (A) (B)
2 Quercus virginiana 5% N FACU
3 Ilex opaca 5% N FAC
4
Persea borbonra
5%
N
FACW
Prevalence Index = B✓A =
5
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
6
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7
X 2- Dominance Testis >50%
8
3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
35%
= Total Cover_
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover
17.5% 20% of total cover
7%
Herb Stratum (Plot size 30' )
'Indicators,of hydnc sod and wetland hydrology must
1
Antndinana gigantea
10%
Y
FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
2
Osmunda,ctnnamomea
10%
Y
FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata
Tree —Woody plants, excluding canes, 3 m (7 6 cm) or
3 _ Saururus cernuus 10% Y OBL
Woodwardra areolata 0 OBL
4
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height
6
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
8
Herb —All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
9
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
10
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
11
height
12
35%
= Total Cover
50°x6 of total cover
17.5% 20% of total cover
7%
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' )
1
Smilax rotund folia
5%
Y
FAC
2
Vitrs rotundzfolra
5%
Y
FAC
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
3
4
5
10% =Total Cover
50% of total cover
5% 20% of total cover
2%
Present? Yes No
Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
Tree cover within W1 and W2 consists primarily of swamp chestnut oak in the canopy, muscle
wood in the understory, and wetland ferns in the herbaceous layer. Vines were present
throughout the wetlands.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2 0

SOIL Sampling Point WI/W2-WET
Profile, Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators ►
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
unless othenMse noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis'
(inches)
Color (moist)
% Color (moist) % Type' Loc
Texture Remarks
0-8"
10YR 2/1
100%
Mucky loam
8-20"
10YR 4/1
90% 10YR 4/4 10% C M
Sandy loam
20-24"
10YR 5/1
100%
Sandy clay
_'Type C=_Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL=Pore Lining M=Matrix
Hy-dric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless othenMse noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis'
Histosoi (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
z
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Sods (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1538)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
✓
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (178) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochnc (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophyhc vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbnc Surface (1`13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochnc (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vencc (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150 B)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Sods (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed)
Type
Depth (inches)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes IZI Nog
Remarks
The soil is saturated at 6", and the water table was present at 8" below the surface. Soils were
mucky in the upper 8".
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site Covil Farm Road Bike Lane City/County New Hanover County Sampling Date 7/16/2013
AppiicantlOwner NCDOT State NC Sampling Point W3/W4-UP
Investigator(s) 3. Hartshorn (KHA), L. Virtaranta (KHA) Section, Township, Range Harnett
Landform (hdlslope, terrace, etc) Hlllslope Local relief (concave, convex, none) None
LRR T 34 2607 N 77 8188 W
Slope (%) 6%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) Lat Long Datum NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name Mu - Muryllle fine sand NWI classification PF01Cd
Are climatic / h !!7
nditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes I✓ No= (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation d P:� 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 ✓ ✓
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks
W3 and W4 are part of the same wetland system that Is seperated by Covll Farm Road and
connected via multiple 36" Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) culverts. NOAA/NWS recorded 0.13" of
rainfall 48 hours prior to the field evaluations.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators-
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Sod Cracks (36)
Primary Indicators minimum of one is re u"ed check all that apply)
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Sparsely Vegetated'Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (815) (LRR U)
Drainage. Patterns (810)
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Moss Trim Lines (3116)
Water Marks (B1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (84)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present'? YesNo
✓ Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches) >20"
Saturation Present? Yes No
includes a d'la fringe)
>20"
Wetland Hydrology
Present? Yes No D
Describe"Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
There are no indicators of wetland hydrology present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point W3/W4-UP
Tree Stratum (Plot size )
1 briodendron tuliprfera
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Soecies? Sys
20% Y FACU
Dominance Test worksheet.
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A)
2 Ilex sp 150/0 Y FAC
3 Quercus ntg7a
10%
Y FAC
Total Number of Dominant 8
Species Across All Strata (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species 88%
5
That Are OBL, FACW, w FAC (A/B)
6
7 Prevalence Index worksheet
8 Total % Cover of Multiply by
45% =Total Cover OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover 22.5% 20% of total cover 9% FACW species x 2 =
Saplino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 30' ) FAC species x 3 =
1 Magnolia virginiana 10% Y FACW FACU species x 4 =
2 Carptnus carohntana 10% Y FAC UPL species x 5 =
3
Column Totals (A) (B)
4 Prevalence Index = B/A =
5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
6 _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7 X 2 -Dominance Testis >50%
8 _ 3 - Prevalence Index is :53 0'
20% = Total Cover _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover 10% 20% of total cover 4%
Herb Stratum (Plot size 30'
1 Arundinaria gtgantea 100/0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Y FACW be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata
10% =Total Cover
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 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
Herb —AII 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
height
50% of total cover 5% 20% of total cover 2%
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' )
1 Vrtis rotund folia 5% Y FACW
2 Lonicerajaponica 5% Y FAC
3
4
5 Hydrophytic
10% =Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover 5% 20% of total cover 2% Present? Yes ? NoEl
Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
The upland conists of a moderate canopy and very little herbaceous vegetation.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0

SOIL
Sampling Pant W3/W4-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) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks
0-6" 10YR 2/1 1000/0 Sandy loam 20% U.C.S.
6-14"
10YR 3/2
100%
Sandy loam
14-20"
10YR 4/1
90% 10YR 4/4
10% C PL Sandy clay loam
C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3
r—i
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (AS) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed)
Type
Depth (inches)
Remarks
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Sods (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (176) (MLRA 1538)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochnc (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Umbnc Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Delta Ochnc (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydnc Soil Present? Yes g No ❑✓
There are no hydric soil Indicators present. Neither saturation or the water table occur within 20"
of the surface.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
ProjecU6ite Covll Farm Road Bicycle Lanes City/County New Hanover County
Applicant/owner New Hanover County State NC
Investigator(s) I Hartshorn (KHA), L. Virtaranta (KHA) Section, Township, Range Harnett
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Topographic Crenulation Local relief (concave, convex, none) Concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR T Lat 34.2607 N Long 77.8187 W
Sod Map Unit Name Mu - Murville fine sand
Sampling Date 7/16/2013
Sampling Point W3/W4-WET
NWI classification
Slope (%) <1%
Datum NAD83
PFO1Cd
Are climatic! h drolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ®No= (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are VegetationSodRor
or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" presents Yes ® No=
Are Vegetation Sod Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers to Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Presents Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes© No y
Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks
Wetlands W3 and W4 are the same wetland system, separated by Covil Farm Road but
connected by multiple 36" CMP culverts. NOAA/NWS recorded 0.13" of rainfall 48 hours prior to
field evaluations.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Pn ary Indicators minimum of one is required, check all that apply)
Surface Water (A1) Aquatic Fauna (813)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
High Water Table (A2) Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U)
Drainage Patterns (610)
Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Moss Trim Lines (616)
Water Marks (61) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (65) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
FAC -Neutral Test (05)
Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
Sphagnum moss (138) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? YesNo Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches) 8
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches) 4"
vmcludes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes L1L NoEl
capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
Saturation was present at approximately 4" and the water table was present at 8". A steep
topographic break separates the wetlands and the uplands at W3 and W4. Trees were
buttressed and cypress knees were present throughout the wetlands. A stream flows through
one of the culverts, but the other culverts show evidence of flood flows and inundation.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point W3/W4-WET
Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
Canopy cover is primarily swamp chestnut oak and herbaceous vegetation by wetland ferns.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2 0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet.
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30
)
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species 7
1
Quercus mrchauxii
35%
Y
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A)
Total Number of Dominant
8
2 Quercus vrrgtnrana 20% Y FACU
3
Species Across All Strata (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species 88°/q
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A/B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of Multiply by
OBL species x 1 =
7
8
55% = Total Cover
50% of total cover
27.5% 20% of total cover
11%
FACW species x 2 =
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plat size 30'
j
FAC species x 3 =
1
Carptnus caroknrana
20%
Y
FAC
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x5=
Column Totals (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
2 Quercus virginiana 5% N FACU
3 Ilex opaca 5% N FAC
4 Persea borbonra 5% N FACW
5
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators.
6
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8
3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
35%
= Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover
18% 20% of total cover
7%
Herb Stratum (Plot size 30'
)
'Indicators of hydnc sod and wetland hydrology must
1
Arundinana gigantea
10%
Y
FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
2
Osmunda cinnamomea
10%
Y
FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
3 Saunrrus cernuus 10% Y OBL
Woodwardia 0 �— OBL
4
areolata
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height
5
6
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
8
Herb –All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
9
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
10
Woody vine –All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
11
height
12
35%
=Total Cover
50% of total cover
18% 20% of
total cover
7%
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size
30'
)
1
Smilax rotund joha
5%
Y
FAC
2
Vias rotundtfolta
5%
Y
FAC
3
4
5
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
10% = Total Cover
50% of total cover
5% 20% of
total cover
2%
Present? Yes No
Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
Canopy cover is primarily swamp chestnut oak and herbaceous vegetation by wetland ferns.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2 0

SOIL
Sampling Point W3/W4-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
MR' 10YR 2/1 100% Mucky loam
&20" I0YR 4.1 90% 10YR 4/4 10% C M Sandydoam
20-24" 10YR 5/1 100% Sandy clay
'Type C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL=Pore Linin M=Matnx
Hydric Soll1ndicators. (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls3.
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Organic Bodies (AS) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
✓ Muck°Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Coast Prame Redox (Al 6) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (If observed) -
Type
Depth (inches)
Remarks
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8)'(LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Sods (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (178) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochnc (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron -Manganese Masses (1712) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophyhc vegetation and
Umbnc Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Delta Ochnc (F17) (IIALRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19) (AALRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (1720) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes IZI No
Saturation occurs at 4" and the water table is present at a depth of 8". The upper 8" is a mucky
modified' loam, due to the frequent inundation within W3 and W4. The soil matrix was heavily
depleted below 8".
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 7/16/2013
Project/Site: Covil Farm Bike
Lane - S1
Latitude: 34.2615
Evaluator: Hartshorn (KHA), L.
County: New Hanover
Longitude: -77.8167
Virtaranta (KHA)
1a.
Continuity of channel bed and bank
Total Points: 41.5
1
2
3
Stream Determination
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermitt nt Perennial
Scotts HIII (1970)
' g Quad Name.
if z 19 or perennial if z 30
0
3
A.
Geomorphology Subtotal = 23
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a.
Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2
2.
Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
0
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
ool se uence
0
1
2
1
3
4.
Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
0.5
3
2
5.
Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
Yes
3
6.
Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
1.5
3
7.
Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
8.
Headcuts
0
1
2
3
1
9.
Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
1
10.
Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
1
11.
Second or greater order channel
No
= 0
Yes = 3
3
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12.
Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13.
Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14.
Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.0
0
0.5
15.
Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16.
Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
.11
_
1.5
1
17.
Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
0.5
Yes
= 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 10.5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos note diversityand abundance
0
1
2
3
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1 1.5
0.5
24. Amphibians
0 1
0.5
1
1.50.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW
= 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
1.5
.perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: S1 is a strong perennial channel crossing under Covil Farm Road
via a 36" Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP). The stream has good meanders and
structures as well as a large floodplain and accompanying wetland. There are
multiple flood channels established throuahout the wetland.

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: New Hanover County 2. Evaluator's name: 1. Hartshorn (KHA), L. Virtaranta (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation: 07/16/2013 4. Time of evaluation: 2:00 pm
5. Name of stream.. Covil Farm - Stream S1
7. Approximate drainage area: 200 acres
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100'
11. Site coordinates (if known):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
prefer in decimal degrees
34.2615
6. River basin: Cape Fear
8. Stream order: First Order
10. County: New Hanover
12. Subdivision name (if any): n/a
Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -77.8167
Method location determined (circle): ✓DPSaopo Sheetl Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS[DDther GIS❑0ther
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Perpendicular to Covil Farm Road between Vistamar Drive and Old Fort Road.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): n/a
15. Recent weather conditions: Mid -70's (F) to mid -80's with 0.13" of rainfall recorded 48 hours prior to field evaluation.
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Partly cloudy, temperature high 80's (F).
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: aSection 10 FlTidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
a_Trout Waters 210utstanding Resource Waters 13 Nutrient Sensitive Waters ,aWater 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: n/a
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
80% Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other (
22. Bankfull width: 8'23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: DFIat (0 to 2%) QGentle (2 to 4%) aModerate (4 to 10%) aSteep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity:Straight Occasional bends ✓Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 60 Comments:
This is a strong perennial channel crossing under Covil Farm Road via a 36" CMP. The stream is sinuous and has many in -
channel structures. S1 has a large floodplain and accompanying wetland. Multiple flood channels have established within the
wetland due to frequent high flow events.
Evaluator's Signature Ym,<, ' Aa/7,0t,&7, ' Date 07/16/2013
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

Covil Farm - Stream S1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1no
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
4
flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = maxpoints)0-5
0 - 4
0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 - 4
0-4
3
Uno
discharge = 0• springs, s sees wetlands, etc. = max points)
.,
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0- 4
0- 4
0- 2
3
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
/ floodplain access
aEntrenchment
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding= max points)
0- 5
0- 4
0- 2
4
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
4
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max oints
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
4
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
NA
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max oints
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
>�
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0 - 5
0-5
2
severe erosion = 0; no erosion stable banks = maxpoints)0-5
dRoot
14
depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
E-'
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
Qn
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
4
substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = maxpoints)
Q
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
3
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)
m
Q
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
z
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
NA
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0
1
no evidence = 0• common numerous es = maxpoints)0-4
- 5
0-5
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
O
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = maxpoints)
22
Presence of fish
0 - 4
0-4
1
no evidence = 0; common numerous types = maxpoints)0-4
m
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
60
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 7/16/2013
Project/Site: Covil Farm Bike
Lane - S2
Latitude: 34.2608
Evaluator: Hartshorn (KHA), L
Virtaranta (KHA)
Count New Hanover
y�
Longitude: -77.8187
g
Total Points: 23
0
1
0
Stream Det circle one )
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Epheme I Intermittent erennial
Scotts HIII (1970)
e g Quad Name.
if >_ 19 or perennial if z 30
3
1
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 11.5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
0
3
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
14.
2
3
1
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-
ool se uence
0
0.5
2
3
1
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
0
3
2
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
0.5
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5 1
2
3
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
Amphibians
1
2
3
0
8. Headcuts
25.
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
Wetland plants in streambed
1.5
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
2
13.
Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14.
Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
15.
Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
16.
Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
17.
Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
0.5 1
Yes = 3
1 1.5
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 5.5
18.
Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
1
19.
Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20.
Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0
21.
Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22.
Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23.
Crayfish
0
0.5 1
1
1 1.5
0
24.
Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25.
Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26.
Wetland plants in streambed
FACW
= 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
1.5
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: S2 is a weak intermittent channel formed at a 36" Corrugated Metal
Pipe (CMP) underneath Covil Farm Road. The stream dissipates into a
nearby wetland offsite.

LUSACE AID# - -
DWQ#,
Site # (indicate on attached map)
0 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: New Hanover County 2. Evaluator's name: 1• Hartshorn (KHA), L. Virtaranta (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation: 07/16/2013 4. Time of evaluation: 3:00 pm
5. Name of stream: COVII Farm - Stream S2 6. River basin: Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area: 100 acres 8. Stream order: First Order
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100' 10. County: New Hanover
11. Site coordinates (if known)
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
prefer in decimal degrees.
34.2608
12. Subdivision name (if any): n/a
Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -77.8188
Method location determined (circle):✓aPSQlbpo Sheet❑✓ Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS[DDther GIS[]Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Perpendicular to Covil Farm Road, between Pierpoint Drive and Vistamar Drive.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): n/a
15. Recent weather conditions: Mid -70's (F) to mid -80's with 0.13" of rainfall recorded 48 hours prior to field evaluation.
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Partly cloudy, temperature high 80's (F).
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: OSection 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
DTrout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters 0 Nutrient Sensitive Waters DWater 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: N/A
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
80% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (
22. Bankfull width: 6' 2'23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: OFlat (0 to 2%) WIGentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) nSteep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight M17 Occasional 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): 46 Comments:
Stream S2 is an intermittent channel formed at a 36" CMP underneath Covil Farm Road. The stream dissipates into the
wetland downstream, but offsite. The channel is likely only present due to the human disturbance: the area was likely only a
wetland prior to construction of Covil Farm Road,
Evaluator's Signature YMA-Im ` an ut 1471n Date 07/16/2013
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

Covil Farm - Stream S2
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1no
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 - 4
0-5
3
flow or saturation = 0; strongflow = maxpoints)0-5
7
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = maxpoints)
_J
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 - 4
0-4
3
Uno
discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points
Presence of adjacent floodplain
6
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
0- 4
0- 4
0- 2
3
Z
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0- 5
0- 4
0- 2
4
Q'
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding= max points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
0-6
0-4
0-2
4
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
1
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
NA
fine homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
12
0-5
0-4
0-5
(deeplyincised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)3
F"
13
Presence of major bank failures
0 - 5
0-5
3
-�
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = maxpoints)0-5
14
Root depth and density on banks
1
E-�
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
0-3
0-4
0-5
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
4
15
substantial impact =0• no evidence = maxpoints)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
1
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
3
F"
(little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)
dCanopy
18
coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
2
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = maxpoints)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
NA
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
0
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = maxpoints)
V
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = maxpoints)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common numerous types = maxpoints)
Evidence of wildlife use
23
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
46
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 7/16/2013
Project/Site: Covil Farm Bike
Lane - S3
Latitude: 34.2577
Evaluator: Hartshorn (KHA), L
Count New Hanover
Y
Longitude: -77.8229
Virtaranta (KHA)
0
1
Total Points: 34.5
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
Stream Determination
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermitt t Perennial
Scotts Hill (1970)
g Quad Name
if a 19 or perennial if a 30
0
1
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 16.5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
1.5
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-
ool se uence
0
1
15.
3
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
2
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
?
2
3
1
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1.5
2
3
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
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
0.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12.
Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
13.
Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14.
Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
15.
Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16.
Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
17.
Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
1.5
Yes = 3
26. Wetland plants in streambed
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 10
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3 2
1
0
2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0 1
2
3
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0 1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0 0.5
1
1.5
1
23. Crayfish
0 0.5 1
1 1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0 0.5
1
1.5
0.5
25. Algae
0 0.5
1
1.5
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; DBL
= 1.5; Other
= 0
1.5
.perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p 35 of manual
Notes: S3 is an encised perennial channel flowing between residential
neighborhoods. Fish as well as frogs were observed within the stream. This is
a natural stream system that also receives a significant amount of stormwater
from adjacent properties.

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
M
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET _AQP
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: New Hanover County 2. Evaluator's name: 1. Hartshorn (KHA), L. Virtaranta (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation: 07/16/2013 4. Time of evaluation: 4:00 pm
5. Name of stream. COVil Farm - Stream S3 6. River basin: Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area: 100 acres 8. Stream order: _First Order
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100' 10. County: New Hanover
11. Site coordinates (if known):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
prefer in decimal degrees.
34.2576
12. Subdivision name (if any): n/a
Longitude (ex. -77.556611)
-77.8227
Method location determined (circle):�PS[:Ibpo Sheel rtho (Aerial) Photo/GIS03ther GISE]Dther
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Located at the intersection of Covil Farm Road and Snug Harbour Drive.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): n/a
15. Recent weather conditions: Mid -70's (F) to mid -80's with 0.13" of rainfall recorded 48 hours prior to field evaluation.
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Partly cloudy, temperature high 80's (F).
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
IITrout Waters 0outstanding Resource Waters El Nutrient Sensitive Waters DWater 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: N/A
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
80 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 4'23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: OFlat (0 to 2%) , Gentle (2 to 4%) ElModerate (4 to 10%) DSteep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: F Straight 00ccasional 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): 42 Comments:
Stream S3 is an encised perennial channel flowing between residential areas. Fish and frogs were observed within the stream.
S3 al2pears to be a natural stream system that receives a significant amount of stormwater flow from adjacent properties.
Evaluator's Signature ` cn c.n Kcvr1JLo7,n, Date 07/16/2013
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

Covil Farm - Stream S3
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
4
1
no flow or saturation = 0• strongflow = maxpoints)0-5
0 — 4
0-5
Evidence of past human alteration
0 — 5
0-5
1
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)0-6
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
2
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 — 4
0-4
1
U5
no discharge = 0• springs, see s, wetlands etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
no floodplain = 0• extensive floodplain — maxpoints)
0-4
0-4
0-2
1
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
1
a=.
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding= max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max oints
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
4
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = maxpoints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
NA
fine homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
y+
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = maxpoints)1
F"
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks =maxpoints)
QRoot
14
depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
E�
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15
substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
4
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
2
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = maxpoints)
0-3
0-5
0-6
QHabitat
1
complexity
0-6
0 — 6
0-6
2
F"
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
dCanopy
18
coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = maxpoints)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
NA
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = maxpoints)
(�
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
O
no evidence = 0• conunon numerous types = maxpoints)
O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
�
(no evidence = 0; common numerous types =maxpoints)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
42
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

PRELIMINARY
JURISDICTI®NAL
DETERMINATI®N

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -2014-00309 County: New Hanover U.S.G.S. Quad: Scotts Hill
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: New Hanover County Agent: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Attn: Karen Crichton attn: Beth Reed
Address: 230 Go,,ernment Center Drive P.O. Box 33068
Wilmington, NC 28403 Raleigh, NC 27636
Phone No. [phone]
Property description:
Size (acres) =1 Nearest Town Wilmington
Nearest Waterway Paces Creek River Basin Cape Fear River Basin
USGS HUC 03030001 Coordinates N 34.2615 W -77.8167
Location description: The project area is located on Covil Farm Road, west of Old Fort Road in Wilmineton New
Hanover County, NC.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X Based on preliminary information, there may be waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described
Property. We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army
(DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps This
preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal
Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331). If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed) by
contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further
consideration by the Corps to ree,. aluate the JD.
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of ) our proper.;. and'or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and
verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to C WA
jurisdiction on ;your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five } ears.
The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed
by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations,
this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed fie years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
Page 1 of 2

X The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in
Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). if you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Christy Wicker at [phone].
C. Basis For Determination
The site exhibits wetland criteria as defined in the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and its appropriate Regional
Supplement and an ordinary high water mark. This determination is based on information provided by Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc. and a site visit conducted by Christy Wicker on 11/13/2013.
D. Remarks
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Actjurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request The delineation'determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above descnbed site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received b) the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence **
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date 2/14/2014 Expiration Date: 2/14/2019
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit http ,/pei2.nwp usace.army.mib'survey html to
complete the survey online.

Cz
G
U_
4
E
ti
Q
E
0
U_
U
I
Q
N
e 'e
N
PEPPER TREE
AT COML
ESTATES HOA,
INC.
DB 4776, PG
46
PARID:
804413- 007 -036 -0
n
N
THOMAS
WUNDER do
ADRIENNE
WUNDER
DB 2165. PG
559
PARID:
R04413 -007- 002 -000
r
/
� � - 6. �;; / � �.- ..s 8 PVC •„� `�
ro
f
-k- �
/ .. _... .. 7 WOOD
FENCE
AJN � rya lj _ i r.INV 12.40'
.4'WOOD FENCE
1
TRRRAV- & -NV
,
'E:285 r 02 715
— 1.5°.53'
-
N,�`f
kI vi''�zt, N/T
G�
J AC SILL IN WETLAND TRACEY M
TL °0EL II�ry De s7 s PD
EXTEND 42" CMP 1630
{ , 12 LF � 2.0% N/F PARID:
PIPE CO U R PEPPER TREE 804414- 012 - 006 -000
Ct
y. v 1 LF F E FI T TA CO ML A
ESTATES HOA,
INC.
DB 2169. PG
n 423
PARID:
' N/r 9 804418- 007 -005 -000
d�:s..x -ads
CC �wESSEX AT �..
W N/F COVIL ESTATES
CL
JAMES F„ HOA, INC.
ROGERS 09 2179, PG °
DB 9911, P4 ? 480 °
1712 PARID:
_ PARID: 80441 - °
R04417- 010 -00'1 -000 ,mac" <r 005- 038 -D00 •�
� < :<)
�P_ Coo®
0
;P
8 ^h 01��.
VC �
Q�
o°
REV. Noa REVISIONe DATE: DRAWN Vi CHECKED Vi
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is
Intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper
reliance on this document without written authorization and adoption by Kimsey -Horn and Associates, Inc.
shall be without liability to Kimsey -Horn and Associates. Inc.
Copyright Klmley -Horn and Assoofates, Inc., 20 13
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE 01F:
N/F
8 "PVC r R=21.38' ELIZABETH
IN( wM 4,10' WILLIAMS
rLiNV= 13.98' DB 5665. PG
- � 136
o > PARID:
w�
R04414- 001 - 031 -000
x
M
c!i
EXTEND 48 "`'CMP -
O 8 LIB - 0.8°74
t PIPE ''<® COLLAR
EXTEiYD 48" CARP -
n1 PIPE COLLAR
WOOD SIGN
w E.
i t
WM
_..._ TRAV -1 NL
�1"$50_.. ..._ — -'" wo ICJ
co
u � o
rTu (60' PUBLIC RM��
nl
co
ou
A
nX
00
M
N/F
PEPPER TREE
AT COVIL
ESTATES HOA.
INC.
DB 2169, PG
423
PARID:
R04414 -001- 032 -000
N/F
RICHARD E.
AV
NjA
WOODMAN do
N/r
DONNA W.
PAULA D.
VICKI ELLEN
SMALLiEY
REVOCAIBLE
WOODMAN
REVOCABLE
KESTERMONT
TRUST
TRUST
DB 3140. PG t
DB 3630., PG
DB 3418, PG
PARID:
R04414-015-001-000
317
1553
2793
PARIIOn
PARID:
R04413- 007 - 001 -000
R04414 -015- 002 -0001
804400 -005- 012 -000
2388
/
� � - 6. �;; / � �.- ..s 8 PVC •„� `�
ro
f
-k- �
/ .. _... .. 7 WOOD
FENCE
AJN � rya lj _ i r.INV 12.40'
.4'WOOD FENCE
1
TRRRAV- & -NV
,
'E:285 r 02 715
— 1.5°.53'
-
N,�`f
kI vi''�zt, N/T
G�
J AC SILL IN WETLAND TRACEY M
TL °0EL II�ry De s7 s PD
EXTEND 42" CMP 1630
{ , 12 LF � 2.0% N/F PARID:
PIPE CO U R PEPPER TREE 804414- 012 - 006 -000
Ct
y. v 1 LF F E FI T TA CO ML A
ESTATES HOA,
INC.
DB 2169. PG
n 423
PARID:
' N/r 9 804418- 007 -005 -000
d�:s..x -ads
CC �wESSEX AT �..
W N/F COVIL ESTATES
CL
JAMES F„ HOA, INC.
ROGERS 09 2179, PG °
DB 9911, P4 ? 480 °
1712 PARID:
_ PARID: 80441 - °
R04417- 010 -00'1 -000 ,mac" <r 005- 038 -D00 •�
� < :<)
�P_ Coo®
0
;P
8 ^h 01��.
VC �
Q�
o°
REV. Noa REVISIONe DATE: DRAWN Vi CHECKED Vi
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is
Intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper
reliance on this document without written authorization and adoption by Kimsey -Horn and Associates, Inc.
shall be without liability to Kimsey -Horn and Associates. Inc.
Copyright Klmley -Horn and Assoofates, Inc., 20 13
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE 01F:
N/F
8 "PVC r R=21.38' ELIZABETH
IN( wM 4,10' WILLIAMS
rLiNV= 13.98' DB 5665. PG
- � 136
o > PARID:
w�
R04414- 001 - 031 -000
x
M
c!i
EXTEND 48 "`'CMP -
O 8 LIB - 0.8°74
t PIPE ''<® COLLAR
EXTEiYD 48" CARP -
n1 PIPE COLLAR
WOOD SIGN
w E.
i t
WM
_..._ TRAV -1 NL
�1"$50_.. ..._ — -'" wo ICJ
co
u � o
rTu (60' PUBLIC RM��
nl
co
ou
A
nX
00
M
N/F
PEPPER TREE
AT COVIL
ESTATES HOA.
INC.
DB 2169, PG
423
PARID:
R04414 -001- 032 -000
N/F
DENOTES
AV
LANDMARK
N
DENOTES
DEVELOPERS,
REBECCA L.
IMPACTS
R=114.20'
INC.
TAYLOR &
IMPACTS
q.INV ®7,17'
DB 9804, PG
HERMAN
2793
TAYLOR. IV
PARID:
DB 5:573, PG
804400 -005- 012 -000
2388
LF SURFAdE WATER IMPACT
D:
R04414- 001- 022 -000
c�
EXTEND ° 48" CMP,
;
8 LF - 6.7%
PIPE COLLAR
TC= 14.11'
�
iiN(E) =11.19'
OUT=10.$6°
1$' °Rig
x.016.. E WETLAND
IMPACT
18 €°r 1
\\
•�
\
\
0 A FILL IN WETLAND LL I
TCm15
I i E x R=15E72' INM11.
IN(E) 8.75" \\
OUT =i
A Cri T UVCJ Cl r:
c �L� : {� FE'N kIR4V;689' �t
4
co z(�I z'' —g --� 1� - w ,aT � �i¢,
VIL FARM ROAD
It
1q) I I A
oa•-..
�T
I��21.061
v,
IN(N)=J-3.08- 0.
IN(S)= 13,06'
^� ( Cl
w
f
1
T� 12 9 ' F'
hip-,
c _
d EXTEND 48" CMP
12 LF - 0.8°%
R =21.35' PIPE COLLAR
rk9NV =13,27' � L �/�
v EXTEND 48 , CMP
8 LF - 0.7%
PIPE COLLAR
N/F a LL
CMUTA v
WEST
DB 9912, PC
1202
PARID:
R04414 -012 -004 -000
N
PEPPER TREE
AT COVIL
ESTATES HOA,
INC.
DB 2169, PG
423
PARID:
R04418- 007 -005 -000
r_:) —•Y( '�^"' -_. _ � ' s � 4``° "`, 'mss
"
g�• ... -.:..
8, �UOOCD ENCE
A.�° '
I
b `. C�CbaC)
TC =16.02'
C� OU`11,77°
Z0,06 FILL IN' ETL
�0 ° � N
6 0 c
001 ACCT BEM WETLAND IHPAC a N/
F. �IILUAM
N M
LAND KANZIN ER dt
DEVELOPERS, CHERYN, A.
INC. KANZIN6ER
DB 9804. PO DB PG
2793 39 9
PARID: PARID:
804400- 005- 012 -000' 804414 -012- 003 -000
INCOMPLETE PLANS 20 4 40
DO NOT US FOR R/W ACQTJM7ION
PRELIMINARY PLANS ■
no NOT Uss FOR CoxBTRuancm
LEGEND
I�
.R 0
Q
0
n�
qJ
E�
I (.;011.
Nm11.2«
vrmi 1
:
R=19.761'
T.INV =6.42'
na
cti
PROJECT:
COVIL FARM ROAD
BICYCLE LANES
AND RESURFACING
)B NUMBER; o 180 18005 SHEET NUMBER:
DENOTES
WETLAND
DENOTES
3 OR A R`,-
IMPACTS
IN WETLAND
DENOTES
IMPACTS
SURFACE
WATER
PROJECT:
COVIL FARM ROAD
BICYCLE LANES
AND RESURFACING
)B NUMBER; o 180 18005 SHEET NUMBER:

cz%;
M'1,
,.
sum=
Rio INC,
W 9046 PC
/
an
»,
W m Pa
PAM
sky
M
,,
TEMPOR" r r EASEMENT
IWALL SILT w
S
fa ,
M 1�
i.n All rif r
ka
Rio INC,
W 9046 PC
117112
PlAft
1
'\
V
IZ
L
0
ZZ
v
LO
°o
0
i
M 1�
i.n All rif r
ka
Rio INC,
W 9046 PC
117112
PlAft
1
TWOR,
REV. NO,: REVISION: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:
O This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is
N intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper
Lc) reliance on this document without written c.uthorization and adoption by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
shall be without liability to Kimley -Horn and :associates, Inca
Op I Copyright Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc„ 20'3
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OIIF
Kimley -Horn
� U and Associates, Inc.
P.O. BOX 33068 - RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27636 -3068
PHONE.- (9 19) 677-2000 FAX- (9 19) 677 -2050
6'
W L!
N
1
s
P
�►
ENWH
MA
TYPICAL SECTION NO. I
INCOMPLETE PLANS 20 0 4 ::0
DO NOT USE FOR R/W ACQUISITION
PRELIMINARY PLANS '®
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION I I
UNWR CUT EXMOOV AMA
SELECT GRAAK/AL MATEN-4
IN METLAMV AREAS
C- I