20071581 Ver 1_Individual_20070918

CWS
Carolina Wettand Services
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 - Phone
704-527-1133 - Fax
TO: L,gndl' kUd�/
FROM: AW A, Cw j
Date: V -7167
Project No: ZOO '/d G1 /
pmNEWIRP
Si -"-P 1 8 2007
DEiNP -WATER QIJAUTY
SWETLMND3 MD STQRAMATER 9RAWH
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
07-1 581
Ric DV
WE ARE SENDING YOU: PlAttached ❑Under separate cover via the following items:
❑ Prints ® Plans
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order
❑ JD Package ❑ Specifications
❑ Wetland Survey )] Other
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE
r. „s � .
t #v '� �x °` 'tea ^�+ Y x `' i.-'�' '�i "`'`'` �• ,`,� ^ m%*,
IWs
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑For approval
❑Approved as submitted
❑Resubmit
copies for approval
❑For your use
❑Approved as noted
❑Submit
copies for distribution
❑As requested
❑Returned for corrections
❑Return
corrected prints
❑For review and comment
❑For your verification and signature
REMARKS: 4eo
y i -T-1d �yi//UP.c Q Pe, -m l 'f 4,Og &eizz""
Q
M'N I -L
Copy to: (A4/�LAY 5��� („� C, f1

September 17, 2007
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
Mr. Tom Steffens
U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers
107 Union Drive, Suite 202
Washington, NC 27889
Subject: Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Plymouth Municipal Airport Expansion
Plymouth, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2005-1061
The Plymouth Municipal Airport is located approximately V2 mile east of the State Highway 1100 —
State Highway 1104 intersection in Plymouth, North Carolina (Sheets 1 and 2, enclosed). The
purpose of this project is to expand the existing runway by 1,800 feet and redevelop the terminal area.
On behalf of the Town of Plymouth Municipal Airport, Delta Consultants has contracted CWS, Inc. to
provide Section 404/401 permitting services for this project. Please see the attached, signed Agent
Certification of Authorization Form. Delta Consultants has prepared an Environmental Site
Assessment of the Plymouth Municipal Airport to evaluate potential adverse affects of the proposed
airport expansion. Comments from the State Clearinghouse are included.
Applicant Name: Town of Plymouth Municipal Airport, Mr. Knapp Brabble
Mailing Address: 1069 Plymouth Airport Road, Plymouth, NC 27962
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: 252-793-9801
Street Address of Project: Plymouth Landing, Plymouth, NC
Waterway: UT's to Conaby Creek
Basin: Roanoke River (HU# 03010107)
City: Plymouth
County: Washington
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35.816900, W76.755660
USGS Quadrangle Name: Plymouth East and West, North Carolina, 1987 and 1974, respectively
Current Land Use
The current land use for the project area is a municipal airport with adjacent with adjacent wooded
areas (Sheet 4). Dominant vegetation within the project area consists of common blackberry (Rubus
argutus), river cane (Arundinaria gigantea), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum),
soft stem rush (Juncus effusus), curlytop knotweed (Polygonum lapathifolium), bushy bluestem
(Andropogon glomeratus), laurel greenbriar (Smilax laurifolia), various grasses (Festuca spp.), and
sedges (Carex spp.).
According to the Soil Survey of Washington County', on-site soils consist of Portsmouth fine sandy
loam (Pt), Altavista fine sandy loam, 0-2% slopes (AaA), Augusta fine sandy loam (At), and Tomotley
fine sandy loam (To) (Sheet 4). All on-site soil types are listed by the NRCS as hydric soils for
Washington County2. The Portsmouth series is typically very poorly drained and exhibits moderate to
1 United States Department of Agriculture, 1989. Soil Survey of Washington County, North Carolina.
2 NRCS Hydric Soils of North Carolina, December 15, 1995.
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA • NEW YORK
WWW.CWS-INC.NET

September 17, 2007
Mr. Tom Steffens
Page 2 of 7
rapid permeability in the underlying materials. The Altavista series is moderately well drained and
water movement within the most restrictive layer is moderately high. The Augusta series is somewhat
poorly drained with moderate permeability. The Tomotley series is poorly drained with moderate to
moderately slow permeability.
FEMA Floodplains and Coastal Barriers
No portion of the project area or the proposed runway expansion is located within a FEMA regulated
floodplain (Sheets 5 and 6, enclosed), therefore no FEMA floodplain will be impacted by the project
activities. CWS consulted the FEMA Coastal Resource Barrier Communities database for North
Carolina to determine if the proposed project is located within a Coastal Barrier Resource System. This
database was last updated October 22, 2004. According to FEMA, there are no Coastal Resource Barrier
Communities located within Washington County; therefore construction of this project will have no
impact on any Coastal Resource Barrier Communities.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
CWS consulted the National Park Service's (NPS) National Wild and Scenic River (WSR) System
database for North Carolina to determine if the proposed project is located within a National Scenic
Waterway. This database was last updated in early 2005. According to NPS, on-site jurisdictional
waters are not located within nor proximity to a waterway designated as a WSR, therefore construction
of this project will have no impact on any National WSR.
Farmland
The criteria used for prime and unique farmlands are published in the Natural Resource Conservation
Service (MRCS) National Soil Survey Handbook. Criteria for farmland of statewide importance were
developed in 1988 by the North Carolina (MRCS) State Soils staff in consultation with soil survey
cooperators, resource conservations, and key soil survey customers. They are summarized on the
NRCS-North Carolina website.
On -Site soils consist of Portsmouth fine sandy loam (Pt), Altavista fine sandy loam, 0-2% slopes
(AaA), Augusta fine sandy loam (At) and Timotley fine sandy loam (To). The Portsmouth series is
typically very poorly drained and exhibit moderate to rapid permeability in the underlying materials.
The Altavista series is moderately well drained and water movement within the most restrictive layer
is moderately high. The Augusta series is somewhat poorly drained with moderate permeability. The
Tomotley series is poorly drained with moderate to moderately slow permeability. The current land
use is a municipal airport and landing strip with adjacent forested areas. The land directly adjacent to
the runway is drained to provide dry conditions for an emergency landing. Portsmouth fine sandy
loam, Augusta fine sandy loam and Tomotley fine sandy loam are considered prime farmland if
drained. Altavista fine sandy loam is considered prime farmland. No farming activities are currently
taking place on or adjacent to the airport. This land was converted to a municipal airport, so there will
be no conversion of prime farmland and the project will require no coordination under the Farmland
Protection Policy Act (FPPA).
Jurisdictional Delineation
On November 3, 2005 and April 26, 2007, CWS's Ron Johnson, PWS and Matt Jenkins, WRIT
delineated jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the project area. Jurisdictional areas were

September 17, 2007
Mr. Tom Steffens
Page 3 of 7
delineated using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Routine On -Site Determination
Method. This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual .3
Jurisdictional stream channels were classified according to USACE and North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ) guidance. These classifications included sampling with a D -shaped dip net,
taking photographs, and defining approximate breakpoints (location at which a channel changes
classification) within each on-site stream channel.
The results of the on-site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there are four
jurisdictional stream channels (Streams A -D) and six jurisdictional wetland areas
(Wetlands AA — FF) located within the project area. Jurisdictional waters include unnamed
tributaries to Conaby Creek. Conaby Creek is within the Roanoke River basin (HU# 03010107) and
is rated "Class C - swamp waters" by the NCDWQ. Jurisdictional features located within the original
project boundary (Figure 2, enclosed) were verified by Mr. Tom Steffens of the USACE —
Wilmington District on June 19, 2006 (Action Id. SAW -2006-32597-194). An addendum to the
previously submitted report was submitted to the USACE Washington Office to verify the delineation
of the acquired properties to the north of the existing airport (see enclosed report).
Features in the northern properties include 10 non jurisdictional ditches (Ditches C — M) located
throughout the central portion of the property. Ditches C -M are straight, manmade and were dug
using mechanical equipment through a mature pine forest. These ditches exhibited an average width
of 3 to 4 feet and an average depth of 3 to 5 feet allowing for weak to moderate groundwater
infiltration. The ditches lack substrate sorting and contained no biological life or habitat. According
to the recent USACE/EPA guidance, "ditches excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that
do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water are generally not waters of the United States because
they are not tributaries or they do not have a significant nexus to downstream traditional navigable
waters". The area surrounding these ditches exhibited indicators of a non jurisdictional upland area
including a lack of saturated soil and a lack of hydric soil indicators. Dominant vegetation within
these areas includes common blackberry (Rubus argutus), river cane (Arundinaria gigantea), loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), and various sedges (Carex spp.). See attached
Addendum to Jurisdictional Delineation and Verification Report.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on November 17, 2005 to
determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that
would be affected by the project. In a response letter dated January 4, 2006 (enclosed), the SHPO
stated that they "are aware of no historic resources that would be affected by the project and have no
comment on the project as proposed."
Coastal Zone Management Program
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) Division of Coastal Management on November 22, 2005 to determine if the proposed
project area is located within an Area of Environmental Concern and would require consultation per
the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) or the State's Dredge and Fill Law. In a response letter,
dated December 1, 2005 (enclosed), the Division of Coastal Management stated they "have
determined that the project will not occur within an Area of Environmental Concern as designated by
3 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual", Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
4 "HU#" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey. 1974.

September 17, 2007
Mr. Tom Steffens
Page 4 of 7
the Coastal Resources Commission. Therefore, no permits are required from this Division for
construction of the aforementioned airport expansion."
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) by Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc. to determine the
presence of rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas that would be
affected by the project. In a response letter dated July 25, 2002 (enclosed), the NCNHP stated that
they "have no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas at the
site or within a mile of the site."
Protected Species
A protected species survey was conducted to determine the potential for the occurrence of animal and
plant species formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened by current Federal regulations
[Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)] within the proposed project area.
The assessment consisted of a literature and records search, and a pedestrian survey performed by CWS
biologists Ron Johnson, PWS and Matt Jenkins, WPIT on April 26, 2007. The literature review included
searching databases and literature available through the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the United States Department of
Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS), as well as other independent
sources. The NCNHP database indicates that five federally -endangered species are known to occur in
Washington County, North Carolinas. The five species include red wolf (Canis rufus), bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Rafinesque's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii), American alligator
(Alligator mississippiensis), and Waccamaw killifish - Lake Phelps population
(Fundulus waccamensis population 2). Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under
the Act unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. However, because they
may become formally proposed or listed during the construction of this project, they were included in
this survey. After completion of an on-site habitat assessment, it was determined that there is not
sufficient habitat in the project area for any of the listed species. Brief descriptions of each federally -
listed species recorded within Washington County, North Carolina are summarized below.
Red wolf (Canis rufus)
The red wolf is a Significantly Rare (SR) species in North Carolina and listed as Federally Endangered,
with a nonessential experimental population (EXN). The species is a medium-sized, wild canine that
resembles a coyote. However, the red wolf is larger and more robust. Its legs and ears are relatively
longer than the coyote's. The red wolf s coloration is similar to that of the coyote, but the tawny element
is more pronounced. Its habitat is restricted to swamps and pocosins in the coastal plain and extensive
forests in the mountains in North Carolina.
Biological conclusion: Given the results of the literature search and field investigation, it is not likely
that this species or its habitat is present within the proposed project area.
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
The bald eagle is listed as Threatened (T) both federally and in North Carolina. It is a large raptor with a
characteristic adult plumage consisting of a white head and tail with a dark brown body. Its habitat
consists of mature forests near large bodies of water for nesting and lakes and sounds for both nesting
5 North Carolina Department of Parks and Recreation — Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/search.html.
Accessed 04/17/03.

September 17, 2007
Mr. Tom Steffens
Page 5 of 7
sites and non -breeding sites. Bald eagles are found in the piedmont, coastal plain, and tidewater
physiographic provinces.
Biological conclusion: Given the results of the literature search and field investigation, it is not likely
that this species or its habitat is present within the proposed project area.
Rafinesque's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus raftnesquii)
Rafinesque's big -eared bat is a species that is Threatened (T) in North Carolina and a Federal Species of
Concern (FSC). It is a bat with very large ears and ventral hairs that are black at the base and white at
the tips. It roosts in old buildings, caves, and mines, usually near water. This species inhabits forested
regions in the mountains, sandhills, and coastal plain regions of North Carolina. In the Coastal Plain
they are suspected to use hollow trees for cold weather, and possibly winter roosts.
Biological conclusion: Given the results of the literature search and field investigation, it is not likely
that this species or its habitat is present within the proposed project area.
Waccamaw killifish - Lake Phelps Population (Fundulus waccamensis population 2)
The Waccamaw killifish - Lake Phelps Population is listed as a species of Special Concern (SC) in North
Carolina and a (FSC) Federal Species of Concern. The species is known only to Lake Phelps in
Washington County, North Carolina where probably introduced through its use as fishing bait.
Population 1 is found in Lake Waccamaw in Columbus County in North Carolina. They are thought to be
distinct species. The species occurs over sand in lakes, near and away from shoreline and is often found
near vegetation.
Biological conclusion: Given the results of the literature search and field investigation, it is not likely
that this species or its habitat is present within the proposed project area.
American alligator (Alligator mississWiensis)
American alligator is listed as Threatened (T) in North Carolina and Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance T (S/A) Federally. The species is a large, lizard -like reptile with a broadly rounded snout.
The adults average six to 12 feet long and can reach lengths of 15 or more feet. They are blackish in
appearance, but have pale crossbands on the back and vertical markings on the sides. It inhabits fresh
and brackish marshes, ponds, lakes, rivers, swamps, bayous, large spring runs in the coastal plain and
tidewater regions.
Biological conclusion: Given the results of the literature search and field investigation, it is not likely
that this species or its habitat is present within the proposed project area.
Purpose and Need for the Project
Aviation growth at the Plymouth Municipal Airport is expected to cause many of the existing facilities
inadequate with regard to runway safety, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards and
guidelines and homeland security. This project proposes to expand the existing 3,700 foot runway by
1,800 feet as well as construct an extended runway safety area (ERSA). This expansion is necessary
to provide safety for aviators, passengers, and people on the ground and to bring the Airport up to
current FAA standards. This project will provide strategic improvements to Plymouth Municipal
Airport that will directly result in a significant increase in new businesses, job creation and flight
operations and make Plymouth, Washington County and eastern North Carolina much more attractive
to new industry'.
6 Plymouth Municipal Airport Environmental Assessment Report, prepared by Delta Environmental Consultants, dated August, 2006.

September 17, 2007
Mr. Tom Steffens
Page 6 of 7
Alternatives Analysis
Several alternative concepts to extending Runway 3/21 and extending the Runway Safety Area were
considered. In each case, the alternatives were not considered to be viable or appropriate for the
Plymouth Municipal Airport. The alternatives are presented and discussed as follows:
Alternative A: Extending Runway 3/21 and the Safety Area southward.
Alternative B: Relocate the Airport.
Alternative C: No project.
Alternative A: The first concept is the extension of the Runway 3/21 an additional 1,800 feet, as well
as extension of the Runway Safety Area 1,000 feet to the south. This is an alternative to the extension
of 3/21 toward the north.
Extending Runway 3/21 southward would require the airport authority to purchase significant
amounts of land and is considered to not be economically feasible.
Alternative B: Relocating Plymouth Municipal Airport. This alternative is not realistic. Several
hundred acres of land would need to be acquired, cleared and new facilities be constructed.
Environmental impact would be significantly higher with this alternative. This alternative is not
prudent or cost effective given the extent of the existing facilities.
Alternative C: The "No Project" option would preserve the existing natural environment in the
vicinity of the airport. This alternative is not consistent with the need to upgrade to meet Federal
Aviation Administration requirements. It is believed that growth in aircraft operations will continue
with or without this project. Safety to the general aviation community and the surrounding area will
become increasingly important if this alternative is selected. Therefore, the "No Project" alternative
is not viable.
In reviewing the above options, it becomes clear that the proposed expansion on the airport property is
the only economically feasible and viable option at this time.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Approximately 1,800 linear feet of new runway will be constructed to the north of the existing runway
3-21. Approximately 1.2 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 788 linear feet of previously ditched
(Photograph A) perennial drainage channel will be impacted due to grading activities associated with
the expansion (Sheets 7-9). Approximately 1.2 acres of Wetland AA will be filed due to grading and
construction activities associated with runway expansion (Sheet 8). The existing wetland is
herbaceous and is routinely mowed due to FAA regulations (see Photographs B and C, enclosed). The
existing 90 -linear foot 15" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) to the north of the runway will be removed
and replaced with 225 linear feet of new pipe. A new drainage system will be constructed to
accommodate the additional runoff from the new runway (Sheet 9). This will include the construction
of approximately 2,860 linear feet of new drainage channel. The new system will create the loss of
788 linear feet of existing channel. Impacts will be due to the piping of the existing channels under
the new runway and drainage field. Approximately 907 linear feet of non jurisdictional drainage ditch
(Photograph D) will be filled as a result of the runway expansion. The newly created drainage system
will re-route any storm water drainage that the upland ditches conveyed in the past. Approximately 26
acres of forested land north of the runway expansion will be cleared for safely requirements. The
vegetation of this area will be maintained on a regular basis to allow for the proper clear zone for the
air traffic. No grading activities will occur in these areas. On behalf of The Town of Plymouth, CWS

September 17, 2007
Mr. Tom Steffens
Page 7 of 7
is submitting a Section 404 Individual Permit Application (enclosed) with attachments for impacts to
on-site jurisdictional stream channels and wetlands.
Compensatory Mitigation
To compensate for loss of jurisdictional wetlands, The Town of Plymouth is proposing a donation to
the Great Dismal Swamp Restoration Bank. The Town of Plymouth will purchase wetland restoration
credits at a 2:1 ratio for 1.2 acres of wetland impacts. Credits will be purchased for $13,200 per credit
making the total credit purchase worth $31,680. The Town of Plymouth has already contacted the
Bank and verified that the 2.4 wetland restoration credits are available for purchase. In order to
compensate for the loss of the perennial drainage channels, the Town of Plymouth has constructed a
new drainage system to accommodate the expansion. The new system will construct an additional
2,860 linear feet of perennial drainage channel (Sheet 9). The construction of these new drainages
will result in a 2,072 linear foot net gain of drainage channel on the airport property.
Please do not hesitate to contact us at 704-527-1177 or through email at [e-mail] should you
have any questio s or comments regarding these findings.
Matt Jenkins, WPIT Ron G.?hnonPWS
Project Scientist Seniorist
Enclosures: Sheet 1 of 9. Vicinity Map
Sheet 2 of 9. USGS 7.5' Plymouth East and West, NC Topographic Quadrangles
Sheet 3 of 9. Aerial Photograph
Sheet 4 of 9. NRCS Washington County Soil Survey
Sheet 5 of 9. FEMA Floodplain Map (1 of 2)
Sheet 6 of 9. FEMA Floodplain Map (2 of 2)
Sheet 7 of 9. Proposed Impacts Overview
Sheet 8 of 9. Proposed Impacts
Sheet 9 of 9. Proposed Drainage System
Section 404 Individual Permit Application (ENG FORM 4345)
Agent Certification of Authorization Form
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination (Action ID No. SAW -2006-32597-194)
Addendum to Jurisdictional Delineation Report
Agency Correspondence
Representative Photographs (A — D)
Adjoining Property Owners
cc: Mr. Kyle Barnes, NC Division of Water Quality
Ms. Kelly Johnson, Delta Consultants
Mr. Scott Recker, Delta Consultants
Mr. Terry Bumpas, LPA Group
Mr. Knapp Brabble, Plymouth Municipal Airport
Mr. Sam Styons, The Town of Plymouth

d
K4,
” ft
0 7- 1 5 8 1
Approximate Scale 1"
= 8000'
Reference. USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Plymouth West and East Quadrangles, NC, dated 1987 and 1974, respectively.
Carolina Wetland Services
Vicinity Map
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Plymouth Municipal Airport Expansion
CwsCharlotte,
L
North Carolina 28273
Plymouth, NC
CWS Project No. 2005-1061
PREPARED BY
DATE
CHECKED BY
DATE %/� 7kms~ �/ ` %
/?�T
�07
1
APPLICANT NO.
SHEET
OF al
0 7- 1 5 8 1

r110p7j
27
311
U
`� •• • � � �� ` '� � �. rl � attock
US 64 fes,
Ito d; / I • \moo
t/,\"a=_'.��L4'.� f % I • SSR 1106 i
j
�c
\It
0 o `t
SSR�1100 I 1 M` I K3 :.�, h• l
e = PINnaNi Landing
,tq. �1Ili5j� tib/ � P j ���� � I'•
N
,l 1133
1 I, / �•_._._..- J � N 1 �'�
01
-— g �ll _ Plyrrrouth Municipal
Airport /
( .
/ Ren
aascs rw�a� VL. J _ I 1 f
Approximate/Scale 1" = 2000'
Reference: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Plymouth West and East Quadrangles, NC, dated 1987 and 1974, respectively.
Carolina Wetland Services USGS Site Location Map
I 550 East Westinghouse Boulevard Plymouth Municipal Airport Expansion
CwSJ
/ Charlotte, North Carolina 28273 Plymouth, NC
CWS Project No. 2005-1061
PREPARED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE
/vt,-s 9 ' •07 9Gy q/'�-rOen
APPLICANT NO. SHEET 2 OF 1

�1
t:
K' r
J
1
Approximate Scale 1" = 1000'
Reference: Aerial photograph provided by Delta Environmental Consultants.
Carolina Wetland Services Aerial Photograph
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard Plymouth Municipal Airport Expansion
Cws
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273 Plymouth, NC
CWS Project No. 2005-1061
PREPARED BY DATE CHECKED BYDATE
APPLICANT NO. SHEET ^ OF

rD
W\kB
Do
/E. De
Approximate Scale V = 2000' u
Reference: NRCS Soil Survey of Washington County, North Carolina, Sheet Nos. 4 and 5, dated 1981.
1,I Carolina Wetland Services USDA -MRCS Soil Survey
I� J CWSQ 550 East Westinghouse Boulevard Plymouth Municipal Airport Expansion
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273 Plymouth, NC
ls.�.CWS Project No. 2005-1061
PREPARED BY DA"IE CHECKED BY DATE
17.�.07 k6 r
APPLICANT NO. SHEET , 1 OF

JOINS PANEL 135
SR 1105
ZONE A
h
3kX
PLYMOUTH
MUNICIPAL
IRPORT
a,
1104
ZONE C
0
\�\
-
h
N
a
o
Q,
=
tl
tt
U
H
t
1r
��
11
11
Il
111
/' 11
11 11
�1 11
\ \\\\
rl
r 1 1
11
11
1�
1
-_-
I
o /i
11
v.
H
RM 9
ii
p'
11 1
11 i
u
lu
�
Approximate
Scale 1" = 2000'
Reference. Flood
Insurance Rate Map, Washington County, NC, Community Panel No 370247 0150 B, Effective Date August 19, 1985.
Carolina Wetland Services
FEMA Floodplain Map
j 550 East
Westinghouse Boulevard
Plymouth
Municipal Airport Expansion
J Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
Cws
Im. I
Plymouth, NC
CWS Project No. 2005-1061
PREPARED BY
DATE
CHECKED BY
k
DATE
'i( �G7
t
APPLICANT NO.
SHEET * ,�—
5
OF C'�

0
VALLEY PINE
DR
a
U)
ZONE A
d
lr R-- _ ZONE X c�� 06
GONOY
I\gJ
o II
ZONE X o RM 8Qu
llorb
WEL CR ! \
--- —CREEK 1 \\\
TRIBUTARY
11 �\
�1
3 ZONE X
I I
14 Ii
I I
15 II
\ II
e
i
LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY 0
r� h
ZONE A
Approximate Scale 1" = 1000'
Reference: Flood Insurance Rate Map, Washington County, NC, Community Panel No, 370247 0135 C, Map Revised November 2, 1994_
Carolina Wetland Services FEMA Floodplain Map
��� 550 East Westinghouse Boulevard Plymouth Municipal Airport Expansion
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273 Plymouth, NC
..�.— CWS Project No. 2005-1061
PREPARED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE
�.o-7
APPLICANT NO. SHEET OF
n

Y �
� t
• NORFOLK& SOUTHERN RAILROAD,W R-
- - PLYMOUTH AIRFDRTRO.i -
BBL
VIATION
TERMINAL --"
LEGEND
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
IMPACTED WETLAND AREA
AVOIDED STREAM CHANNEL
AVOIDED NON -JURISDICTIONAL DITCH
IMPACTED STREAM CHANNEL
IMPACTED NON -JURISDICTIONAL DITCH
AVOIDED WETLAND AREA
APPROXIMATE SCALE: V= 1200'
1
heet 9
Sheet 8
�
CWSCarolina Wetland Services
1 550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
REFERENCE: SITE SURVEY PROVIDED BY LPA GROUP, DATED 2007.
Sheet 7 of 9. Proposed Impact Overview
Plymouth Municipal Airport Expansion
Plymouth, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2005-1061
PREPAf$EGBYD /_ CCS DAT�� ��

Perennial Stream D —
587 If impacted \
Perennial Stream C —
201 If imocted t,
Wetlond AA — /
1.2 Acres impacted
LEGEND
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
IMPACTED WETLAND AREA
AVOIDED STREAM CHANNEL
AVOIDED NON -JURISDICTIONAL DITCH
3 IMPACTED STREAM CHANNEL
IMPACTED NON -JURISDICTIONAL DITCH
APPROXIMATE SCALE: V = 400'
i�LLi1I\IIVl7 viva i
NO GRADING
i Carolina Wetland Services
ki 550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
, CWS Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
REFERENCE: SITE SURVEY PROVIDED BY LPA GROUP, DATED 2007.
Sheet 8 of 9. Proposed Impacts
Plymouth Municipal Airport Expansion
Plymouth, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2005-1061
PREP DB DAT/ CHECKED
Dq��'
r

Perennial Stream D — Ditch C -
587 If impacted 460 If impacted
Ditch D -
447 If imp
Stream C
acted (JR d
-
n. NO��imnri � ancon. o .
rY � u s Y iuv. our ise -
Y Y Y.tl
Irvv. nn=me _ .
na �ra�e�oEnEannrm it e•reawnnnn ... ,.... um - -
su�ncssae"rww,eo - cvn uxoEnonnl"®ox ... ®ax � ras �rav s-veRro"Arco - _
con urvoEao.¢nlu�¢% -- �Y.. '� caa urvo[noanlry fox Yl .
NSa to
J.e cD
. C08 Loa Xm YN
_. 6PCEAiauTED
,RUNWAY 321 aaa r^'OFAOR"I"aa.'r'� RUNWAY 321
w.oEnow�wiO1Voo� ".wFOPAo a �FrfnE�nae� X 317'.1--E
e .
r
X10 ..11Y o Y4 YJ» co -
cwu"xenon:lr ¢arEo uM
Al. ®ana" 'uQowix�r
eY Y Ya•
P ri
B 8 Y
" ar °�mo^� I g �e a
."rs:x:
�oe� wn. aw x
Wetland AA — /
1.2 Acres impacted
LEGEND
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
IMPACTED WETLAND AREA
AVOIDED STREAM CHANNEL
AVOIDED NON -JURISDICTIONAL DITCH
IMPACTED STREAM CHANNEL
IMPACTED NON -JURISDICTIONAL DITCH
APPROXIMATE SCALE: I" = 200'
Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
[1 Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
REFERENCE: SITE SURVEY PROVIDED BY LPA GROUP, DATED 2007.
Sheet 9 of 9. Proposed Drainage System
Plymouth Municipal Airport Expansion
Plymouth, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2005-1061
PREP�RlE�Y DVA cCHE D�
DAT
KK 102 /c /�7

APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003
(33 CFR 325) Expires December 31, 2004
The Public burden for this collection of information is sestimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should require
5 hours or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information
Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control
number, Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection , Research and
Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a
permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies.
Submission of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit
be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructional and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
1. APPLICATION NO. 12. FIELD OFFICE CODE 13. DATE RECEIVED
11TEMS BELOW TO BE FILLEDBYAPPLICANTl
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (.nevem is not reauire;
Knapp Brabble, Town of Plymouth
Gregg Antemann, CWS, Inc.
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
1069 Plymouth Airport Road
550 E. Westinghouse Boulevard
Plymouth, NC 27962
Charlotte, NC 28273
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
10 AGENT'S PHONE NOS W/AREA CODE
a. Residence
a. Residence
b. Business 252-793-9801
I b. Business 704-527-1177
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION _
I hereby authorize, (see agent authorization form) to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE lseeinstructrons:
Plymouth Municipal Airport Expansion
(CWS Project No. 2005-1061)
13. NAME OF WATERBODY. IF KNOWN af—di–hiPji 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS a,,.ppiicabiei
UT to Conaby Creek
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT 1069 Plymouth Airport Road
Washington North Carolina Plymouth, NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, 1F KNOWN, lsee rnstructionsl
N35.4120 W80.7031
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From Washington, take US -264 to NC 17 and turn right. Continue to follow NC 17 and turn
right onto NC 171. Travel approximately 17 miles and turn right on US -64 bypass and continue
to follow US -64E. Turn right on Long Ridge Road and left on Morratock Road. Turn right on
Airport Road and end a Plymouth Landing.
ENG FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE. (Proponent: CECW-OR)

18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all feeturesi
Approximately 1,800 linear feet of new runway will be constructed to the north of the
existing runway 3-21. Approximately 1.2 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 788 linear feet
of previously ditched perennial drainage channel will be impacted due to grading activities
associated with the expansion.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instrucituns.)
This project proposes to expand the existing 3,700 foot runway by 1,800 feet as well as
construct an extended runway safety area (ERSA). This expansion is necessary to provide
safety for aviators, passengers, and people on the ground and to bring the Airport up to
r�irronr P,DD ct-anrla rric Ccc -----t i7nr arl rli rir�nal rlctailc
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
The on-site stream channels and wetlands will be filled due to grading activities associated
with the runway expansion.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Tvoe in Cubic Yards
Fill material discharged into on-site jurisdictional areas will consist of dirt and has been
estimated at 5000 cubic yards.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled /seeinsrrnca.nsl
The total surface area of streams and wetlands that will be filled is approximately 1.38
acre.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes = No" IF YES. DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
See Attached List.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPRnVFn nATF nFwGn
*Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
appiication is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
duly authorized agent of the applicant.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C, Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.

01/17/2006 11:33 2527937504 PLYMOUTH AIRPORT PAGE 02/02
Jan,12. 2006 S T AM
A CEN>1' CYRTMCATI®N OF AUTTIORTZATI®N
T, ignagp i3rabbie, hereby eerbry Lbsi r save authorized Gregory C, Antcmano of Carolina
Wctlsnd Spices, Inc. to W on nay behalf and take all actions necessary to the
processing„ issuance, and Accepmee of this jurisdictional Delineatiote and Any and all
standard and 4poc ial wriditions attached.
We hereby c=fy that the above information submitted in this application. it trua and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
Appplicant,a signature
Z7 -
Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application eorresQoudence.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -2006-32597-194 County: Washington U.S.G.S. Quad: Plymouth East
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent: Town of Plymouth Municipal Airport c/o Knapp Brabble
Address: 1069 Plymouth Airport Road
Plymouth, NC
27962
Telephone No.: 252-793-9801
Property description:
Size (acres) 90.0 acres Nearest Town Plymouth
Nearest Waterway Conaby Creek River Basin Lower Roanoke
USGS HUC 03010107 Coordinates N 35. 808458 W 76. 758903
Location description 90 acre tract located at the terminus of Plymouth Landing Road off Morrattock Road; off
Hwy. 64, south of Plymouth, Washington County, North Carolina
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
_ Based on preliminary information, there may be 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).
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.
X There are 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 your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
deiineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters of the U.S. including wetland 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 CWA
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 years.
_ The 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 five years from the date of this notification.
_ Please be advised that a Prior Converted Cropland (PC) determination made by the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) remains valid as long as the area is devoted to an agricultural use. If the land changes to a non-agricultural use,
the PC determination is no longer applicable and a new wetland determination is required for Clean Water Act purposes.
_ 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 6

Action ID: SAW -2006-32597-194
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 Washington, 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 Tom Steffens at 252-975-1616 Ext. 25
C. iasis For Determination
This site exhibits wetland criteria as described in aae 1987 Corns Wetland Delineation ,,Ianual and is adjacent to an
unnamed tributary to Conabv Creek.
D. Remarks
E. ^-pp eats in ornmtion (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described 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 formtothe South Atlantic Division, Division Office at the_Following
address:
Mr. Michael F. Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-ET-CO-R
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
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 33 1.5, and that it has been received by 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 08/19/2006.
**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:fZ
Date 06/19/2006 Expiration Date 06/19/2011
Copy fi unshed:
Greg C. Antemann
550 E Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina
28273
[phone]
Page 2 of 6

JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Revised 8/13/04
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
DISTRICT OFFICE: CESAW-RG-W
FILE NUMBER: SAW -2006-32597-194
PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION:
State: North Carolina
County: Washington
Center coordinates of site (latitude/longitude): N 35.808458 W 76.758903
Approximate size of area (parcel) reviewed, including uplands: 90 acres.
Name of nearest waterway: Conaby Creek
Name of watershed: Lower Roanoke
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Completed: Desktop determination Date:
Site visit(s) Date(s): 03/29/2006
Jurisdictional Determination (JD):
Preliminary JD - Based on available information, ❑ there appear to be (or) ❑ there appear to be no "waters of the United States"
and/or "navigable waters of the United States" on the project site. A preliminary JD is not appealable (Reference 33 CFR part
331).
Approved JD —An approved JD is an appealable action (Reference 33 CFR part 331).
Check all that apply:
El'There are "navigable waters of the United States" (as defined by 33 CFR part 329 and associated guidance) within the reviewed
area. Approximate size of jurisdictional area:
There are "waters of the United States" (as defined by 33 CFR part 328 and associated guidance) within the reviewed area.
Approximate size of jurisdictional area: 4.79 acres.
There are "isolated, non -navigable, intra -state waters or wetlands" within the reviewed area.
Decision supported by SWANCC/Migratory Bird Rule Information Sheet for Determination of No Jurisdiction.
BASIS OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION:
A. Waters defined under 33 CFR part 329 as "navigable waters of the United States":
EJ The presence of waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in
the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
B. Waters defined under 33 CFR part 328.3(a) as "waters of the United States":
(1) The presence of waters, which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in
interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
(2) The presence of interstate waters including interstate wetlands'.
(3) The presence of other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats,
wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could
affect interstate commerce including any such waters (check all that apply):
❑ (i) which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ (ii) from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ (iii) which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
(4) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the US.
(5) The presence of a tributary to a water identified in (1) — (4) above.
(6) The presence of territorial seas.
(7) The presence of wetlands adjacentz to other waters of the US, except for those wetlands adjacent to other wetlands.
Rationale for the Basis of Jurisdictional Determination (applies to any boxes -checked above).- If the jurisdictional water or
wetland is not itself a navigable water of the United States, describe connections) to the downstream navigable waters. IfB(1) or B(3)
is used as the Basis of Jurisdiction, document navigability and/or interstate commerce connection (i.e., discuss site conditions, including
why the waterbody is navigable and/or how the destruction of the waterbody could affect interstate or foreign commerce). If B(2, 4, 5 or
6) is used as the Basis of Jurisdiction, document the rationale used to make the determination. IfB(7) is used as the Basis of
Jurisdiction, document the rationale used to make adjacency determination: This site exhibits wetland criteria as described in the 1987
Corps Wetland Delineation Manual and is adjacent to an unnamed tributary to Conaby Creek.
Page 3 of 6

Lateral Extent of Jurisdiction: (Reference: 33 CFR parts 328 and 329)
EJ Ordinary
High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ High Tide Line indicated by:
❑
clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑
oil or scum line along shore objects
❑
the presence of litter and debris
❑
fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
❑
changes in the character of soil
❑
physical markings/characteristics
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑
tidal gages
❑
shelving
❑
other:
❑
other:
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ survey to available datum; ❑ physical markings; ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
1Z Wetland boundaries, as shown on the attached wetland delineation map and/or in a delineation report prepared by: Ron Johnson
and Matt Jenkins
Basis For Not Asserting Jurisdiction:
The reviewed area consists entirely of uplands.
Unable to confirm the presence of waters in 33 CFR part 328(a)(1, 2, or 4-7).
Headquarters declined to approve jurisdiction on the basis of 33 CFR part 328.3(a)(3).
LV The Corps has made a case -specific determination that the following waters present on the site are not Waters of the United States:
❑ Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, pursuant to 33 CFR part 328.3.
❑ Artificially irrigated areas, which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased.
❑ Artificial lakes and ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and
retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing.
❑ Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created
by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons.
❑ Water -filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose
of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting
body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States found at 33 CFR 3283(a).
❑ Isolated, intrastate wetland with no nexus to interstate commerce.
❑ Prior converted cropland, as determined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Explain rationale:
❑ Non -tidal drainage or irrigation ditches excavated on dry land. Explain rationale:
❑ Other (explain):
DATA REVIEWED FOR JURSIDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (mark all that apply):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant.
® This office concurs with the delineation report, dated 11/03/2005, prepared by (company): Ron Johnson and Matt Jenkins
❑ This office does not concur with the delineation report, dated prepared by (company):
Data sheets prepared by the Corps.
Corps' navigable waters' studies:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Topographic maps: Plymouth East
U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Historic quadrangles:
U.S. Geological Survey 15 Minute Historic quadrangles:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey: Washington 4/5
National wetlands inventory maps:
State/Local wetland inventory maps:
FEMA/FIRM maps (Map Name & Date):
100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (NGVD)
Aerial Photographs (Name & Date):
Other photographs (Date):
Advanced Identification Wetland maps:
Site visit/deternrination conducted on: 03/29/2006
Applicable/supporting case law:
Other information (please specify):
`Wetlands are identified and delineated using the methods and criteria established in the Corps Wetland Delineation Manual (87 Manual) (i.e., occurrence of
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology).
'The term "adjacent" means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands_ separated from other waters of the U.S. by man-made dikes or barriers, natural
river berms, beach dunes, and the like are also adjacent.
Pn. A ^F K

Page 5 of 6
......:. ..... . . ... .... ..... .. .. _ ......mai—, „ _. .• _,,. .» n. , ...:...-X .. _ ., . ..— a
Applicant: SAW -2006-32597-194 File Number: SAW -2006- Date: 06/19/2006
32597-194
Attached
is:
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of
A
permission)
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELWINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERiVIINATION
E
C he�a �sd ire �4
Yal
S �
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return
the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of
the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your
letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your
concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having
determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the
district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and
conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal
Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must
be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
-C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section H of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
Page 5 of 6

D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
m ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
® APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELall i AR L, JURISDICTIONAL DET ER'Yf ATIO�,1: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. 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 reevaluate the JD.
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS. (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
If you have questions regarding this decision
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact:
may also contact:
Tom Steffens
Mr. Michael F. Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CESAD-ET-CO-R
Dost Office Bo 1 1_000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Washington, NC 27889
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
252-975-1616 ext.25
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your, signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
DIVISION ENGINEER:
Commander
U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3490

CWS
June 14, 2007
Mr. Tom Steffens
U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers
107 Union Drive, Suite 202
Washington, NC 27889
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
866-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
Subject: Jurisdictional Delineation Report and Request for Verification
ADDENDUM to Plymouth Municipal Airport Expansion
Plymouth, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2005-1061
Dear Mr. Steffens:
On behalf of Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc., CWS, Inc. is requesting written verification from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of the extent of jurisdictional features on the subject project. The
project is located in Plymouth, North Carolina, approximately 0.6 mile east of the State Highway 1100
— State Highway 1104 intersection (see location map, enclosed). Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc.
has contracted CWS to provide a jurisdictional delineation report and request for verification on this
project.
Applicant Name: Town of Plymouth Municipal Airport, Mr. Knapp Brabble
Mailing Address: 1069 Plymouth Airport Road, Plymouth, NC 27962
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: 252-793-9801
Street Address of Project: Plymouth Landing
Waterway: UT's to Conaby Creek
Basin: Roanoke River (HU# 03010107)
City: Plymouth
County: Washington
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35.81690°, W76.75566°
USGS Quadrangle Name: Plymouth East and Plymouth West, NC, 1987 and 1974 respectively
Methods
On April 26, 2007, CWS's Ron Johnson, PWS and Matt Jenkins, WPIT delineated jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. within the project area. Jurisdictional areas were delineated using the U.S. Anny
Corps of Engineers (USACE) Routine On -Site Determination Method. This method is defined in the
1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.' A Routine On -Site Data Form representative
of non jurisdictional upland areas is enclosed (DPI).
Jurisdictional stream channels were classified according to USACE and North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ) guidance. These classifications included sampling with a D -shaped dip net,
taking photographs, and defining approximate breakpoints (location at which a channel changes
classification) within each on-site stream channel. NCDWQ Stream Classification Fon-ns and USACE
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets representative of Streams A and B have been enclosed
(SCP 1— SCP2).
' Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual", Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
NORTH CAROLINA ° SOUTH CAROLINA ' NEW YORK
WWW.CWS-INC.NET

June 14, 2007
Mr. Tom Steffens
Page 2 of 3
Results
The results of the on-site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there are two jurisdictional
stream channels (Streams A and B) located within the project area (Figure 1). Jurisdictional waters
include unreamed tributaries to Conaby Creek. Conaby Creek is within the Roanoke River basin
(HU# 03010107') and is rated "Class C - swamp waters" by the NCDWQ. Jurisdictional features
located within the original project boundary (Figure 1, enclosed) were verified by Mr. Tom Steffens of
the USACE — Wihnington District on June 19, 2006 (Action Id. SAW -2006-32597-194). On-site
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. total approximately 0.97 acre (42,266.3 square feet).
Perennial Streams
Streams A and B are located along the eastern property boundary and are approximately 4,315
and 614 linear feet in length, respectively (Figure 1, enclosed). These channels were evaluated to
be perennial and exhibited average ordinary high water widths of 4 to 12, significant aquatic life,
strong groundwater flow, and substrate consisting of silt to fine sand. USACE Stream Quality
Assessment scores for these channels ranged from 41 to 48 out of a possible 100 points and
ranged from 30.25 to 35 out of 71 possible points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form,
indicating perennial status (SCP 1 — SCP3, enclosed). Photographs of Perennial Streams A and B
have been enclosed as Photographs A — C.
Additional on-site features include 10 non jurisdictional ditches (Ditches C — M) located
throughout the central portion of the property (Figure 1, enclosed). Ditches C — M are straight,
manmade and were dug using mechanical equipment through a mature pine forest. These ditches
exhibited an average width of 3 to 4 feet and an average depth of 3 to 5 feet allowing for weak to
moderate groundwater infiltration. The ditches lack substrate sorting and contained no biological
life or habitat. According to the recent USACE/EPA guidance, "ditches excavated wholly in and
draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water are generally not
waters of the United States because they are not tributaries or they do not have a significant nexus
to downstream traditional navigable waters". These ditches scored 25 out of a possible 100
points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 12 out of 71 possible points on
the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form, indicating non jurisdictional status (SCP4, enclosed).
The area surrounding these ditches exhibited indicators of a non jurisdictional upland area
including a lack of saturated soil and a lack of hydric soil indicators (DP 1, enclosed). Dominant
vegetation within these areas includes common blackberry (Rubus argutus), river cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubruin), and various sedges
(Carex spp.). Photographs of non jurisdictional ditches have been enclosed as
Photographs D — F.
Z "HU#" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey. 1974.

June 14, 2007
Mr. Tom Steffens
Page 3 of 3
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 704-527-1177 or [e-mail] should you have any
questions or comments regarding this request.
Sincerely,
yam.
Matt L . Jenkins, WPIT
Project Scientist
Ron G.,,�'ohnson, PWS
Senior Scientist
Enclosures:
USGS 7.5 -Minute Plymouth East and Plymouth West, NC Topographic Quadrangles
NRCS Washington County Soil Survey
Figure 1. Wetland Boundary Survey
Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
Agent Certification of Authorization Form
NCDWQ Stream Classification Fonns (SCP 1— SCP4)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (SCP 1— SCP4)
Routine Wetland Detennination Data Forms (DPI)
Representative Photographs (Photographs A — F)
cc: Mr. Rodney Gibson, Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc.
\Wiss-00c10a\server3\20051Projects12005-1061 Plymouth AirportWD report 2UD Letter.doc

i
Plymouth Airport Expansion Pro'ect No. 2005-1061
Jurisdictional Delineation Re ort and Request for Verification
j �Rv. •rE �4. '
Mfg (9.9° W)
,
--
:
t r+
110 ' 1 I "Y I * � : d ' � • `,��( `
.i�. orettock
4 ��' v�� r ,�•,��� • - �.• 1 �'���% ivy �.,�'t
�01t.
• US 64 •ir Ptyl oL1h Landing 49
ii
1 as
,:v 1 eitat9 HidhWey
..� •.I� I . � / i9 � 1 ._irk i.
K
li State Highway 1104
Plymouth Municipal Q n
Airport al
Ren
SEP 1 2007
i �r% ` ° I DENR WAi' Fi f
'r: y iYE11ANA.lA DS10;iMWAT61Z+9RANQ4,� r
Scale 1:24,000
ft
0 800 1600 2400 3200 4000
}
1" = 2,000.0 ft Data Zoom 13-1 i},jam ..,<:f` '•,`, I
Image Courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Plymouth West and Plymouth East Quadrangles, North Carolina,
dated 1987 and 1974, respectively.
Approximate Scale 1" = 2000'

1
Plymouth Airport Expansion Prouect No. 2005-1061
Jurisdictional delineation Report and Request for Verification
4 T o _
AaA
\,AeA �` ,,vtl7 1Vi r
VU
m TaR
Aal
Wk3 AaAFO
\ �5 r, n AaA '' `: NEW TRACTS
-
�:. JbAt
a CtA !-C
�.',-AaA t,„��• (�` _ rt'�'�, lra�� '� ria .Ly..
jSITE?
' ( r ciA t
r � � �_.� •� ij
CtA
Is7v
/0 SSC y
% FR
IFj
�ED PAR
7,
tiDs!4 a ' ' e* C FC
h'tF ' .fi � # . µ k„ '� ,:+• r r' t {may 'i"' / .w
s Cq,� ,x ; P t ,p .., r � , M ,• it ' ` .
D's aF
;A71-*/
A PPy"a��;+� d?}ry�,'rAfr � � �, '�. _ a� t"f,y,.••�"..R.: ,� �f � •l• y:�
i,Jl { k�i •AR:a .t• s�:�
t ��+'. { ..ir •'R I �,�t �•_, ^r�T +'�,4,,' A•"., na 3 .f AY ,
..- ` '1 � ,.;_ � 1: zr'���"1a i��� t"�'"S r t,�'z•' w+.t � i Ls•:�7.,..,, y�,.y Y� .
-� � i• ��� I<t ,,��±t��,'144 f}�.tti fir' s�`�ihpK wu 1° ';• -t- � �31Jk R�9.�, _,�d•i`
DS
14,� .
t t P
,gyp
AP
Pt
_ ( /•: a
Soil Survey Courtesy of the USDA-NRCS
MRCS Soil Survey of Washington County, North Carolina, Sheet Nos. 4 and 5; dated 1981.
Approximate Scale P = 2000'

Figure 1A \ \ \ \
Previously Verified
APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1-800'
Figure"! SUB-METER(� NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS of THE U.S. WERE DELINEATED AND SURVEYED USING A
f 1 _. , rtC RD • PTHEUSACE-YWILMINGTON DISTRICT ON NNE JURISDICTIONAL 19 S �E VER
IFIED
194STEP FEN$ OF
�DRRPT lii
SCP3
Ditch L - 809 Linear Feet
Ditch M - 118 Linear Feet
Ditch H - 508 Linear Feet Ditch K - 1,4 Linear Feet
Existing culvert��l
III.
Ditch G - 1,386 Linear Feet
Ditch F.-1,511 Linear Feet
DP1/ II
�►''r�'
/ Ditch J - 2,715 Linear Feet I r -,� 17 1
Ditch E -1,615 Linear Feet
NE7lQ�vAND'qjM QUA $'Y
RA�UCN
Ditch D -1,727 Linear Feet `"-'�I l j
/ Ditch C -1,828 Linear Feet
Perennial Stream A - 4,315 Linear Feet
t
_ Perennial Stream B - 614 Linear Feet
Ij
i
SCP2
LEGEND
Existing Culverts
-� PROPERTY BOUNDARY 'f Wetland 1.2 Acre
'I.
L- -_1 PREVIOUSLY VERIFIED SC 1
--- RMSDICTIONAL STREAM CHANNEL
- ----
NON -JURISDICTIONAL DITCH •~ Carolina Wetland Services
I' 550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
— JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND AREA Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
• $CPI STREAM CLASSIFICATION POINT ar. Fset PreviouslyREFERENCE: RRESURVEY PROVNED BY LPA GROUP, UATE03E0).
Verified Figure 1. WetlaudBoundarySnrvey
. DPI WETLAND DATA POINT Plymouth Municipal Airport Expansion
Plymouth, North Carolina
PHOTO LOCATION AND DIRECTION / CWS Project No. 2005-1061

01/17/2006 11:33 2527937504 PLYMOUTH AIRPORT
Jan,13. 2006 9:21AM
T, Knapp Brahhle, hereby eer fy tbat T have luthorixed Gmgory C. Antcmann of Carolina
Wetland ScrVices, Inc. to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary to the
processing. issuance, and acceptance of this juris6ctionai Delineatior and any .and all
staudaard and spmial WDditiOns attached.
We hcreby certify that the about information submitted in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
Applicant's 9ignatute
Uate
PAGE 02/02
at
nmpletian ai thl4 form wall allow tt►e agent to sign all future application correspondence.

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: June 14, 2007
COUNTY Washington County North Carolina TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT — 95 Acres
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Plymouth Municipal Airport Expansion
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
Plymouth Municipal Airport
POC' Mr. Knapp Brabble
1069 Plymouth Airport Road
Plymouth North Carolina 27962
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
POC: Mr. Ron G. Johnson at [phone]
550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte NC 28273
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On-going site work for development purposes
( X } Project in planning stages
(Type of project: airport expansion )
( ) No specific development planned at present
( ) Project already completed
(Type of project: )
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Check items submitted - forward as much information as is available. At a minimum, the following first two items must be
forwarded.
(X) USGS 7.5 -Minute Plymouth East and Plymouth West, NC Topographic Quadrangles
(X) NRCS Washington County Soil Survey
(X) Wetland Boundary Survey (Figure 1)
(X) Agent Certification of Authorization Form
(X) NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms (SCP 1 — SCP4)
(X) USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (SCP1 — SCP4)
(X) Routine On -Site Data Forms (DPI)
(X) Representative Photographs (Photographs A — F)
Sign e of Property Owner or
Authorized Agent
Mr. Ron G. Johnson

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 04/26/2007 Project: Plymouth Municipal AirportLatitude: N35.816900
Evaluator: RGJ and NMJ site: SCP1 Longitude: W76.755660
Total Points: Other Perennial Stream A
Stream is at least intermittent County:
if? f9 or erennia( if a 30 32.5 Washington e.g. Quad /flame:
A. Geomorphology (subtotal = 12.0 )
Groundwater floWdischarge
Absent.:
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank
3.
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity
O.0
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: rifle -pool sequence
O.0
0
1
2
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
LC
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
1.
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
LC
0
1
2
3
7. Braided channel
0,
0
1
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
LC
0
1
2
3
9` Natural levees
0A
0
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
OX
0
1
2
3
11. Grade controls
Lf
0
0.5
1
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0„J
0 1
0.5
1
1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
3.
No = 0
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 10.0
14.
Groundwater floWdischarge
3.
0
1
2
3
15.
Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain. or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
3.
0
1
22. Crayfish
3
16.
Leaflitter
1.
1.5
1
0.5
0
17.
Sediment on plants or debris
O.f
0
0.5
1
1.5
18.
Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0.
0
0.5
1
1.5
19.
Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? 1.1
O.f
No = 0
0.5
Yes= 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = 10.50 )
20'. Fibrous roots in channel
3.0
3
2
1
0
21 . Rooted plants in channel
3.0
3
2
1
0
22. Crayfish
O.f
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Bivaives
OX
0
1
2
3
24. Fish
Lf
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Amphibians
LC
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
O.f
0
0.5
1
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
LC
0
1
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus.
0.q
0
0.5
1
1.5
29 t. Wetland plants in streambed
O.Oq
FAG = 0.5;
FACW = 0.75:
OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0;
Other = 0
C Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)'
Strong presence of fish and weak presence of crayfish.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 10.0 )
3.0
Absent.
­.,Weak
Mo Iefate
Strong.
1a. Continuous bed and bank
2.0
15.
Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain. or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
2
3
2. Sinuosity
O.0
2
Crayfish
2
3
3. In -channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
O.0
1.5
23.
2
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
1.
0
1
2
3
5. Activelrelic floodplain
LC
1
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
OX
0
0.5
2
3
7. Braided channel
0.
0
1
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
LC
Filamentous algae; periphyton
1A
2
3
9` Natural levees
0,
0
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
0A
0
1
2
3
11. Grade controls
Lf
0
0.5
1
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0.4
0
0.5
1
1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
P.VIriP.n[Y?
3.
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
R I-Ivr-Irnlnn%/ (Ci ihtntal = 1 1 n_n
14. Groundwater flovv/discharge
3.0
3.0
3
2
2
0
3
15.
Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain. or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
3.
0
1
1
2
Crayfish
3
16.
Leaflitter
Lf
1.5
23.
1
0.5
0
0
17.
Sediment on plants or debris
O.f
0
1.
0.5
1
1
1.5
18.
Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
0
0.5
0.5 1
1
26.
1.5
19.
Hvdric soils (redoximorphic features) present? 1.
0.5
No = 0 1
1.5
Yes = 1.5
C-' Rinlnnv (Ri ihtntal = 111-25 )
20
. Fibrous roots in channel
3.0
3
2
1
0
21
. Rooted plants in channel
2.(
3
2
1
0
22.
Crayfish
O.j
0
0-5
1
1.5
23.
Bivalves
0A
0
1
2
3
24.
Fish
1.
0
0.5
1
1.5
25.
Amphibians
LC
0
0.5
1
1.5
26.
Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
O.f
0
0.5
1
1.5
27.
Filamentous algae; periphyton
1A
0
1
2
3
28.
Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus.
0.
0
0.5
1
1.5
'29t
Wetland clants in streambed
0.71
FAG = 0.5;
FACW = 0.75:
OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0;
Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch_
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Strong presence of fish and weak presence of crayfish.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 04/26/2007 Project: Plymouth Municipal AirportLatitude: N35.816900
Evaluator: RGJ and NMJ Site: SCP3 Longitude: W76.755660
Total Points: Other Perennial Stream A
Stream is at least intermittent County:
rt>_ 18 or erenniai if>_ 30 35.00 Washington
e.g. quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (subtotal = 14.0 )
Groundwater floWdischarge
Absent
Weak'
Moderate '!
Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank
3.
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity
IX
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
LC
0
1
2
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
1.
0
1
2
3
5. Activelrelic floodplain
1A
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
1A
0
1
2
3
7. Braided channel
OX
O.f
Yes = 1.5
0.5
3
S. Recent alluvial deposits
LIE
Filamentous algae; periphyton
LC
2
3
9` Natural levees
O.0
28.
Iron oxidizing bacteriaifungus.
2
3
1 C. Headcuts
O.0
1.5
29 t.
2
3
11. Grade controls
Lf
0
0.5
1
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainagetivay
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or MRCS map or other documented
evidence.
3.
No = 0
Yes = 3
d Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
R Hvdrnlnnv (Si ihtntal = 10-5
14.
Groundwater floWdischarge
3.0
3
2
1
2
3
15.
Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain. or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
3.
0
1
1
2
3
16.
Leaflitter
1.
1.5
1.5
1
0.5
0
17.
Sediment on plants or debris
1.
0
24.
0.5
1
1.5
18.
Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0.1
0
Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
19.
Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? 1.1
26.
No = 0
O.f
Yes = 1.5
C: Rinlonv (Subtotal = 10-50
_2G'Fibro�us
roots in channel
3.
3
2
1
0
21 '.
Rooted plants in channel
3.0
3
2
1
0
22.
Crayfish
0.4
0
0.5
1
1.5
23.
Bivalves
OX
0
1
2
3
24.
Fish
Lj
0
0.5
1
1.5
25.
Amphibians
LC
0
0.5
1
1.5
26.
Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
O.f
0
0.5
1
1.5
27.
Filamentous algae; periphyton
LC
0
1
2
3
28.
Iron oxidizing bacteriaifungus.
O.Q
0
0.5
1
1.5
29 t.
Wetland plants in streambed
0.00
FAG = 0.5;
FACW = 0.75: CBL =
1.5 SAV = 2.0:
Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes:)
Strong presence of fiA and weak presence of crayfish.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 04/26/2007 Project: Plymouth Municipal Airport Latitude: N350 48' 30"
Evaluator: RGJ and MLJ site: SCP4 Longitude: W760 45' 32"
Total Points: other Non -Jurisdictional Ditch E
Stream is at least intermittent County:
it >_ 19 or perenniaj if a 30 12.00 Washington e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 0.0 )
Groundwaterflow/discharge
Absent is
Weak
Moderate
Strong
la.
Continuous bed and bank
O.0
Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain. or
Water in channel -- dry or grovving season
1.
2
3
2.
Sinuosity
O.0
16.
Leaflitter
2
3
3.
In -channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
O.0
0
17.
2
3
4.
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
OX
1
1.5
2
3
5.
Activelrelic floodplain
OX
0
1
2
3
6.
Depositional bars or benches
0.
0
1
2
3
7.
Braided channel
O.0
0
1
2
3
8.
Recent alluvial deposits
O.0
0
1
2
3
9` Natural levees
OX
0
1
2
3
10.
Headcuts
OX
0
1
2
3
11.
Grade controls
OA
0
0.5
1
1.5
12.
Natural valley or drainageway
OA
0
0.5
1
1.5
13.
Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
0.
No = 0
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
R HvHrnlnnv fSi ihtntal = S_Il 1
14.
Groundwaterflow/discharge
LC
3
2
1
2
3
15.
Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain. or
Water in channel -- dry or grovving season
1.
0
1
1
2
3
16.
Leaflitter
Lf
1.5
1.5
1
0.5
0
17.
Sediment on plants or debris
0,
0
24.
0.5
1
1.5
18.
Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
O.d
0
Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
19.
Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? 1.1
26.
No = 0
OX
Yes = 1.5
C Rinlnnv fSuhtntal = 7.00 1
I&
Fibrous roots in channel
3.
3
2
1
0
21
. Rooted plants in channel
3.
3
2
1
0
22.
Crayfish
OX
0
0.5
1
1.5
23.
Bivalves
OA
0
1
2
3
24.
Fish
OX
0
0.5
1
1.5
25.
Amphibians
O.0
0
0.5
1
1.5
26.
Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
OX
0
0.5
1
1.5
27.
Filamentous algae; periphyton
1A
0
1
2
3
28.
Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus.
O.Q
0
0.5
1
1.5
29'.
Wetland plants in streambed
0.00
FAG = 0.5;
FACVV = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0:
Other = 0
r Items 20 an d 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Manmade ditch through uplands
07
Sketch:

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP1— Perennial Stream A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Plymouth Municipal Airport 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson and Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 4/26/07
5. Name of Stream: UT to Conaby Creek
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 450 acres
4. Time of Evaluation: 1.00 pm
6. River Basin: Roanoke
8. Stream Order: Second
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 200 if 10. County: Washington
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Plymouth travel south on NC -32 for
approximately lmile Turn right onto Morrattock Road After approximately 1 4 miles turn left onto Airport Road._ _
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.816900W76.755660
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunn 80 deglees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
1.7. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (Df yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: _% Residential
30 % Forested
19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
70 % Cleared / Logged _% Other (-
21. Bankfull Width: 10-12' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3-5'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: X 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): 41 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is int ` ded to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by t1 United States Army Corps of Engineers in order 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 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CfPl — Pi- ri nniq] Sstrenm A
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
#
CHARACTERISTICS
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
5
1
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow= max outs)
_
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6,
0-5
0-5
0
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = mixpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
0
('no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges= maxpoints)
�a]5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
3
U`
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
�,.
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
1
6
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
0
P�
7
(dee 1 entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max p..Dints)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0— 4
0-2
0
8
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max oints)
Channel sinuosity
0_ 5
0— 4
0— 3
0
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
Sediment input
0_ 5
0— 4
0— 4
2
10
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max Dints)
Size & diversity of channelbed substrateNA*
0-4
0-5
NA
I 1
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
�.,
12
(deeply(deepty incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
p_j
0-5
4
1'
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks= max points)
Cq
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
3
E�
1
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu 7hout = maxpoints)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
5
15
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max oints)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0 _ 5
0-6 ,
1
16
no riffles/ripples les or pools = 0; well-developed = max oints)
Habitat complexity
0- 6
0-6
0-6
2
17
Tittle or no habitat = 0; tie uent, varied habitats =max Dints
Canopy coverage over streambed'
0-5
0-5
0— 5
0
18
no shading ve etation.= 0; continuous catiopy = maxpoints).
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
NA
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
�0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
1
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
(�
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types .= max Dints)
O
Presence of fishU—
4
0-4
0— 4
3
�-+
_
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types' =maxpoints)
b Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
23
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence — max points)
_
100���',�
Total Points Possible
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
41
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP2 — Perennial Stream B
s,, o STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 9
1. Applicant's Name: Plymouth Municipal Airport 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson and Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 4/26/07
5. Name of Stream: UT to Conaby Creek
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 300 acres
4. Time of Evaluation: 1.30 pm
6. River Basin: Roanoke
8. Stream Order:
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 100 if 10. County: Washington
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Plymouth travel south on NC -32 for
approximately lmile Turn right onto Morrattock Road After approximately 1 4 miles turn left onto Airport Road.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.816900W76.755660
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the ast 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny 80 degrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES elf yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES Q 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES Q
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residential % Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
30 % Forested 70 % Cleared / Logged % Other (
21. Bankfull Width: 4' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 2-4'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: X Straight _Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):
Comments:
Evaluator's Signature G"�/ G` Date
This channel evaluation form is mended to be use "only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by khe United States Army Corps of Engineers in order 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 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Qt P7 — PPrPnninl Ctre.qm R
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
-
ECORE GION POINT RANGE
SCORE.
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain'.
##
CHARACTERISTICS
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 _ 5
0-4
0-5
5
1
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max oints)
i
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
1
3
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer =maxpoints)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
3
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
1
6
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
1
a
7
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = maxpoints)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
4
8
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
0
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5 ,
NA
j
11
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
1�
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed R banks = max points)
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
4
130-5
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = maxpoints)
Root depth and density on banks
0 - 3
0-4 4
0-5
3
14
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max.points)
CA
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0 - 5
0-4
0-5
5
15
substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
1
16
(no riffleshipples or pools = 0; well-developed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0- 6
2
(little or no habitat = 0; fife cent, varied habitats - max poi
p�
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 - 5
0 - 5
1.
14
(no shadingvegetation= 0; continuous nano = max.points)
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0 -4
0 - 4
NA
19
(deeply embedded. = 0; loose structure: = max)
Presence of stream invertebrates
�1 4
0_ 5
0_ 5
1
�0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints)
ur
Presence of amphibians
0_ 4
0- 4
0- 4
2
O
1
(no evidence.= 0; common,. numerous es.=max 'oints)
a
27no
Presence of fish
0 - 4
0-4
0 - 4
3
evidence = 0• common, numerous es = max oints)
Evidence of wildlife. use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
23
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
--------
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)'
48
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

r OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP3 — Perennial Stream A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
M
T
1. Applicant's Name: Plymouth Municipal Airport 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson and Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 4/26/07
5. Name of Stream: UT to Conaby Creek
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 450 acres
4. Time of Evaluation: 3:00 pm
6. River Basin: Roanoke
8. Stream Order: Second
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 200 if 10. County: Washington
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Plymouth travel south on NC -32 for
approximately lmile Turn right onto Morrattock Road After approximately 1 4 miles turn left onto Airport Road.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.816900W76.755660
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours -
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny 80 deffees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES Q
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
30 % Forested 70 % Cleared / Logged % Other
21. Bankfull Width: 4-8' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3-6'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: X 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): 47 Comments:
Evaluator's
This channel evaluation form is int ed to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by they United States Army Corps of Engineers in order 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 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
C'1 -'A"1 Q+Irn�m A.
* These characteristics are not assessed m coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
#' CHARACTERISTICS
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0 - 5
5
1
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong now = maxpoints_)
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-51
0
2
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
2
3
(no buffer= 0; contiguous, wide buffer= maxpoints)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
p_ 4
4
4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)
..�
Groundwater discharge
0_ 3
0- 4
O- 4
3
o
(no discharge = 0; s rings, seeps, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0- 4
0- 4
0- 2
1
..,
6
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
0
A�(deeplyentrenched
= 0; frequent flooding = max oints)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max.points)
j
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0- 3'
1
9
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0- 4
2
10
(extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA* ..
0 - 4
0 - -
NA
11
(tine, homogenous =.O; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
Evidence of channel or widening
l i
0-5
0-4
0-5.
3
�.,
12
(deeply.incised = 0• stable bed R banks = max points) _
Presence of major bank failures0_
5
0 -- 5
0- 5
4
1'
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks= max oints)
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
3
�.
14
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout =max oints)
rA
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
5
I S
substantial im act.=0; no evidence= maxpoints)
Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes
0-3
0- 5
0-6
2
16
no riffles/ripples les or pools = 0; well-developed = maxpoints
E
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
17
little or no habitat = 0; f -ec cent, varied habitats = max points)_
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0- 5
2
18
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous cano = max oints)
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0 - 4
0 -4
NA
19'
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
�0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints-)—
Presence of amphibians
0- 4
0- 4
0- 4
2
Q
1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints)
a
22
Presence of
0'-- 4
0- 4<
0-4
3
(no evidence.- 0; common, numerous es = max oints
Evidence of wildlife use
7
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
23
(no evidence - 0, abundant evidence =inax points) _
Total Points Possible
_too
100
- l
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 47
* These characteristics are not assessed m coastal streams.

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP4 — Non -Jurisdictional Ditch E
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Plymouth Municipal Airport 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson and Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 4/26/07 4. Time of Evaluation: 12.00 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT to Conaby Creek 6. River Basin: Roanoke
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 6 acres 8. Stream Order:
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 1.600 if 10. County: Washington
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Plymouth travel south on NC -32 for
approximately lmile Turn right onto Morrattock Road After approximately 1 4 miles turn left onto Airport Road.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.816900, W76.755660
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours --
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny 70 decrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES (�D 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
100 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (
21. Bankfull Width: 3-4' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3-4'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: X 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): 25 Comments: Manmade ditch through upland pine forest.
Evaluator's Signature y ' /�—Z, Date
This channel evaluation form is inte ded 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 in order 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 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
0 f -IDA XT..s,_T»s+iarlirlinTt��
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
---
EC'OREGION
POINT
RANGE
SCORE
--
9
CHARACTERISTICS
Presence of flow / persistent. poolsinstream
-�
1
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
0-5
0-4
0-5
1
— g, points)
saturation — 0• strong, flow — maY
no flow ors ,
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
4
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points).__
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
4
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
4
(extensive discharges = 0; no dischar47es = max oints)
r-�Groundwater
5
discharge
=
0-3
0-4
0-4
1
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. maxpoints)
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0— 4
0— 4
0- 2
0
FA`
6
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
`
Entrenchment / floodplain access_
5
0 - 4
p — ?
1
deeply entrenched = 0; fi•e went flooding = max points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0— 6
0— 4
EO -2
0
8
no wetlands= 0; lar e adjacent wetlands = max oints)
Channel sinuosity
0— 5
0— 4
0- 3
0
9
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints)
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
10
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
0
11
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0 — 5
0-4
0'— 5
1
�.,
12
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
E
Presence of major bank failures
0— 5
0-5
0-5
2
13
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
14
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max oints
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
4
15
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
0
16
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-develo ed= max oints
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
0
17
little or no habitat = 0 frequent, varied habitats = max oints),
p
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
18
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints) `
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 —4
0
19
(deeply embedded = 0;. loose structure = max
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
0
20
no evidence = 0• common, numerous es = maxpoints)
1 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
d no evidence = 0•, common numerous types = Max ointS
a Presence of fish
Ci 22
0-4
p— 4
0-4
0
no evidence =0; common numerous es =maxDints
p Evidence of wildlife use
D-6
0-5
0-5
1
23
�o evidence = 0; abundant evidence = ma��oirjts
_
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) _
25
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Plymouth Municipal. Airport Expansion
Date: 04/26/07
Applicant/Owner: Plymouth Municipal Airport
County: Washington
Investigator(s): Ron Johnson, PWS and Matt Jenkins, WRIT
State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Community ID: upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
Plot ID: DPl
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
Remarks:
More than 50% of the dominant
11
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1 Rubus argutus
Stratum
herb
Indicator
FACU+
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
2 Arundinaria gigantea herb FACW
3 Pinus taeda tree FAC
4 Acer rubrum tree FAC
5 Carex spp. herb
6
7
8
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
75%
Remarks:
More than 50% of the dominant
11
plant species
are FAC or wetter.
1
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations:
Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water:
N/A (in.)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
N/A (in.)
Water -Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil:
>12 (in.)
FAC -Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hvdroloizy
are present.
Routine On -Site Data Forms Page 1 of 2 6/14/2007

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Portsmouth fine sandy loam
Drainage Class poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Umbra uults
Confirm Mapped Type? Ye< No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-10 A Gley 12.5N N/A
N/A sandy clay loam
10-12 B 10 YR 4/2 N/A
N/A sandy clay loam
Histosol
Concretions
Histic Epipedon
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of hydric soils are present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes �N, Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a non-'urisdictional upland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
Routine On -Site Data Forms Page 2 of 2 6/14/2007

Plymouth Municipal Airport ]Expansion Project No. 2005-1061
Jurisdictional Delineation Report and Request for Verification
Photograph A. View of Perennial Stream A, lacing uUw,1buvaua.
Photograph B. View of Yerenmal Stream A, racing uV w11bLivaiii.

Plymouth Municipal Airport Expansion ]Project No..2005-106
Jurisdictional Delineation Report and Request for Verification
Photograph C. View of rerenniai 3rrumll -, la,�u•s--
Photograph D. View of Ditch E, facing ups ream.

Plymouth Municipal Airport ]Expansion Project No. 2005-1061
Jurisdictional Delineation Report and Request for Verification
Photograph E. View of ijiten ri, iacing u1Jbuoaiii.
Photograph F. view or liitcn r, —vv---

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
January 4, 2006
Ron G.Johnson
Project Biologist
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: Request for Records Search, Plymouth Airport Expansion, Plymouth, Carolina Wetland Services
Project No. 2005-1061, Washington County, ER 05-2742
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Thank you for your letter of November 17, 2005, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources that would be affected by the
project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
.Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above -referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Peter Sandbeck
cc: Rick Barkes, NCDOT/DOA
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC; 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801

� COASZq�
o�
z
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
1 December 2005
Carolina Wetland Services
Attn: Mr. Ron G. Johnson
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
Dear Mr. Johnson:
This letter is in reference to your 22 November 2005 request for a jurisdictional
determination for the proposed expansion to the existing Plymouth Airport, off SR 1106, in
Plymouth, Washington County. I have reviewed in-house jurisdictional determination references to
determine if permits for development are required per the Coastal Area Management Act or the
State's Dredge and Fill Law.
From my review of the proposed location of the project, I have determined that the project
will not occur within an Area of Environmental Concern as designated by the Coastal Resources
Commission. Therefore, no permits are required from this Division for construction of the
aforementioned airport expansion.
I appreciate your concern and effort to comply with the permit requirements of this Division
and encourage you to continue to consult representatives of this Division for fixture questions
regarding CAMA jurisdiction. Thank you for your time and concern in these matters. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
R. Kell Spivey
P Y
Coastal Management Representative
c: Terry E. Moore- District Manager, Washington Office, DCM
Raleigh Bland — U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Office
Steven Rynas — Morehead City Office
No'rthCarolina
,J1latura!!y
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: wwwmccoastalmanaoement.ned

APR -03-03 THU 05:22 PM FAX N0, P. 25/25
NCDER
Nc ilh Carolina Department of Environment and Naturai Resources
Division of Paas and Recreation
1v(icl nel 1 . I ,.rslc;y, Cic�vcrnnr William Cr_ Moss,, jr., Secretary Philip K. McKnelly, Director
hely 25, 2002
Ms, Amy
l��:lla 1?nviroi��114,nt 11 Com;lfli,.Irils, Inc_
8008 C(.)g)or�ttu CuilterDrive, Stlito 100
(;1T;jrlottl, NC 20226
1>ttl�)at,t: Rklo Vly Eixp,wsion Project, PIyrTToutli Municipal AiTporti, Washington County
Baker-
1'l,� i�l;atr,r,:t1 Clcritagr ProgratjT has no rccorcl of retro sl1ccies, significant natural communities, or
pi-Mlity 11MLIr01 ureas at the site nor wilhin a Milo ofthc site.
yot1 rli;ly villi to ohcck tlic Natural I leritago Prograin database website at
_�v��� v.rlc. li.�rks_�7ct/n1117/sc trcli.litn11> fora IistiilE; q( 11rc plants 1110 animalsand Sig111t1cant
r2lturul coilti ILMil ius in the County and oil 111e topographic quad rnap. Please do not hesitate to
r.{>t,t�rct irt,, Ott 919-715-8687 if yoi.i Irivc or need fuil.her information.
�;ii�c4;rcly,
.,l,i
f1,lrry lf',. I.c(Orandl Jr., :Loolol;ist
. 1�:'tturaS 1lcriiZt;c1'ro9raln
ltl✓Llh,�l
7
161.5 Mail SQrvicc CcntcT, Ralcigh, Notch Carolina 27699-1615
P i i o c,: 9 19 -73 3 -4121 919-715-3085 \ Internet: ncsparks.net

Plymouth Municipal Airport Expansion
Section 404 Individual Permit Application Prosect No. 2005-1061
Photograph A. View of Perennial Stream C;, tacmg north.
Photograph B. View of Wetland AA, facing south.

Plymouth Municipal Airport Expansion
Section 404 Individual Permit Application Project No. 2005-1061
Photograph C. View of Wetland AA, facing south.
Photograph D. View of Ditch D, facing upstream.

ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
Name
Weyerhaeuser Company
Martha Owens and Bertha Garrett
Eric and Lisa Johnson
Lewis Webb
Eliza Louise Thomas
Thomas and Tawana Kolikas
Glenn and Carolyn Armstrong
William Spruill
Zywanda Dixon
William and Merlinda Mackey
Stephen Moore, Jr.
Joyce Cherry
Emma Gee
Ethel Council
Eva Moore
Address
P.O. Box 1391
New Bern, NC 28563
1384 Reno Road
P.O. Box 514
Plymouth, NC 27962
1350 Reno Road
Plymouth, NC 27962
1338 Reno Road
Plymouth, NC 27962
1314 Reno Road
Plymouth, NC 27962
226 NC Hwy 149 North
Plymouth, NC 27962
57 Mackeys Road
Plymouth, NC 27962
1232 Reno Road
Plymouth, NC 27962
121 Village Drive
P.O. Box 36
Roper, NC 27970
1180 Reno Road
Plymouth, NC 27962
1156 Reno Road
Plymouth, NC 27962
1238 Albemarle Drive
Plymouth, NC 27962
6908 Idlewild Road
Charlotte, NC 28212
1030 Reno Road
Plymouth, NC 27962
998 Reno Road
Plymouth, NC 27962

Eloise Owens
Stanley and Wysonza James
James, Jr. and Melinda Porter
William Barkley
Louise McNair
James Owens
Keith and Carla Davenport
Gerald and Cindy Furlough
Donald and Janice Stotesbury
J. H. Gee
Guy and Marya Shavender
2454 Maurice Brown Road
Jamesville, NC 27846
948 Reno Road
Plymouth, NC 27962
P.O. Box 477
Plymouth, NC 27960
828 Reno Road
Plymouth, NC 27962
2908 7"' Street N. E. #1
Washington, DC 20017
880 Highway 32 South
Plymouth, NC 27962
P.O. Box 164
Plymouth, NC 27962
173 Country Lane
P.O. Box 548
Plymouth, NC 27962
5212 NC Highway 99 South
Pantego, NC 27860
1085 Morrattock Road
Plymouth, NC 27962
P.O. Box 206
Pantego, NC 27860