Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPreliminary JD Packet ATTACHMENT PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD: North Carolina Department of Transportation C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT SITES) State: NC County/parish/borough: Richmond City: Rockingham Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 34.947500 Pick List, Long. -79.851350 Pick List. Universal Transverse Mercator: 17S 604885 3867823 Name of nearest waterbody: Pee Dee River Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area- Non-wetland waters: 16725.95 linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres. Cowardin Class: Riverine Stream Flow: Intermittent/Perennial Wetlands: 7.21 acres. Cowardin Class: PFO/PEM/PSS Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10 waters: Tidal: NA Non-Tidal: NA E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): ❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date: ❑ Field Determination. Date(s): 1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to 1 request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site. Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in this instance and at this time. 2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre-construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331, and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33 C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This preliminary JD finds that there "may be"waters of the United States on the subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information: SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply - checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): 2 Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.. D Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report, El Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report, Data sheets ,prepared by the Corps, Corps navigable waters' study: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas.. El USOS NHD data, El USOS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps, Z U',S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name,1,24,000 Rockingham, NC, El USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: El National wetlands inventory map(s), Cite name: El State/Local wetland inventory map(s), El FEMA/FIRM maps: EJ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is, (National t eodectic Vertical Datum of 1 g2 g) Photographs- Z Aerial (Name & Date),CGIA, 2010. or[] Other(Name & Date). [� previous determination(s). File no, and date of response letter, Other information (please specify),NRCS Digital Soil Survey. IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form hats not negessariliv been verifie he Cor s and should not be relied a on for later iurisd'ictional determinations. 4, Signature and date of Sil store and date of Regulatory Project Manager person requesting g 1)(0-6h,6&y JD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is impracticable) 3 Estimated Site Cowardin amount of Class of number Latitude Longitude Class aquatic aquatic resource in resource review area WA 34.9476 -79.8620 PSS 0.06 Section 404 - wetland WAA 34.96750 -79.84534 PFO 0.03 Section 404 - wetland WB 34.9465 -79.8539 PFO 0.41 Section 404 - wetland WBB 34.96951 -79.84345 PFO 0.14 Section 404 - wetland WC 34.95720 -79.84960 PFO 0.20 Section 404 - wetland WCC 34.98129 -79.80486 PFO 0.68 Section 404 - wetland WD 34.96233 -79.84824 PFO 0.16 Section 404 - wetland WDD 34.98384 -79.80199 PFO 0.59 Section 404 - wetland WE 34.96290 -79.84867 PFO 0.08 Section 404 - wetland WEE 34.98357 -79.80420 PFO 0.55 Section 404 - wetland WF 34.93862 -79.84103 PFO 0.01 Section 404 - wetland WFF 34.98232 -79.80475 PFO 0.66 Section 404 - wetland WG 34.94967 -79.84764 PFO 0.49 Section 404 - wetland WI 34.95166 -79.84356 PFO 0.36 Section 404 - wetland WJ 34.96346 -79.84889 PSS 0.01 Section 404 - wetland WK 34.97595 -79.83185 PFO 0.11 Section 404 - wetland WL 34.98468 -79.80638 PFO 0.21 Section 404 - wetland WM 34.98472 -79.80600 PFO 0.07 Section 404 - wetland WN 34.99041 -79.79136 PFO 2.89 Section 404 - wetland SA 34.94745 -79.86292 R4 137.50 Non-Section 10- non-tidal 4 SB 34.94793 -79.85600 R4 150.18 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SC 34.94676 -79.85342 R2 735.03 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SD 34.9459 -79.8484 R4 37.61 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SE 34.94552 -79.84768 R2 1399.49 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SF 34.93973 -79.84176 R4 51.96 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SG 34.94611 -79.84488 R2 637.29 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SH 34.94903 -79.84769 R2 5431.89 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SI 34.95074 -79.84614 R4 895.07 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SJ 34.95159 -79.84259 R2 280.33 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SK 34.95218 -79.84263 R4 19.98 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SL 34.95192 -79.84265 R4 54.23 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SM 34.95313 -79.84639 R2 253.85 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SN 34.95335 -79.84914 R4 348.16 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SO 34.95331 -79.84946 R4 442.70 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SP 34.95582 -79.84836 R2 289.97 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SQ 34.96339 -79.84890 R4 82.89 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SR 34.97512 -79.83199 R2 906.26 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SS 34.97585 -79.83210 R4 59.31 Non-Section 10- non-tidal ST 34.97689 -79.82758 R4 928.42 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SU 34.97692 -79.82586 R2 1044.35 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SAA 34.96781 -79.84898 R2 2091.42 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SBB 34.96737 -79.84507 R4 14.93 Non-Section 10- non-tidal SCC 34.96816 -79.84673 R2 95.95 Non-Section 10- non-tidal 5 SDD 34.98060 -79.80424 R4 337.18 Non-Section 10- non-tidal 6 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont ProjecUSite: R-3421 City/County:.Rockingham,Richmond Co Sampling Date: 11/10/2014 Applicanl/Owner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point:WA3-up Investigator(s): J.Harbour Section,Township,Range. none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): terrace Local relief(concave,convex,none): none Slope Subregion(LRR or MLRA): P Lat: 34.9476 Long: -79.8620 Datum: VVGS84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Cullen-Wynott complex, 15-35%slope NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (if no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances'present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology—naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes v" No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes— No Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes No 10/ Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) — Surface Water(Al) True Aquatic Plants(1314) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) — High Water Table(A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(CI) Drainage Patterns(13110) — Saturation(A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) — Moss Trim Lines(1316) — Water Marks(BI) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) — Sediment Deposits(132) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) — Crayfish Burrows(C8) — Drift Deposits(133) Thin Muck Surface(C7) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(Cg) — Algal Mat or Crust(134) Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(DI) — Iron Deposits(B5) Geomorphic Position(D2) — Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) Shallow Aquitard(D3) — Water-Stained Leaves(139) Microtopographic Relief(D4) — Aquatic Fauna(B13) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes— No ✓ Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes— N o ✓ Depth(inches): >18 Saturation Present? Yes— No ✓ Depth(inches): >18 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_ No V/ (includes capillary fringe) I Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WA3-up Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 x 30 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: _%Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species i, Acer rubrum 10 Y FAC 7 (A) That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2. Liquidambar styraciflua 10 Y FAC - Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are 013L,FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/13) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of Multiply by: 20% =Total Cover OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 Saplino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3000 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 1, Acer rubrum 10 y FAC FAC species 0 X3= 0 2..Liquidambar styraciflua 5 Y FAC FACU species 0 x4= 0 3. Ulmus americana 5 Y FACW UPL species 0 X5= 0 4..Ligustrum sinense 2 N FACU Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =BIA= 0 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 8. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. 3-Prevalence Index is 53.01 22% =Total Cover - 4-Morphological Adaptations'{Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15X15 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(I m)tall. 10. 11. Herb--All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 12. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 0% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in Woody Vine Stratum {Plot size: 15 x 15 height. 1. Lonicera japonica 2 Y FAC 2, Toxicodendron radicans 2 Y FAC 3. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes No 4% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WA3-up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color imoist) — % Type' Texture Remarks 0-18 7.5YR 314 100 loam '.Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletlon.RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains, 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': HjstosoJ(Al) Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) Histic Epipeclon(A2) Polyvalue Below Surface(S$)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) Black Histic(A3) Thin Dark Surface(Sg)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(172) — Piedmont FloodpJaln Soils(Fig) Stratified Layers(A5) Depleted Matrix(173) (MLRA 136,147) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) Redox Dark Surface(176) — Red Parent Material(TF2) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Depressions(178) — Other(Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral(SI)(LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Umbric Surface(1713)(MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Redox(S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(Fig)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes— No Remarks: could not extract intact ped beyond 18" US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County: Rockingham,Richmond Co Sampling Date: 11/1012014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point:WA3-wet Investigator(s): J.Harbour Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hilislope,terrace,etc.): floodplain Local relief(concave,convex, none): concave Slope(%):<2 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): P Lat: 34.9476 Long: -79.8620 Datum:WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Cullen-Wynott complex, 15-35%slope NWI classification: PSS Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No_ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology—naturally problematic? (if needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Pr6sent? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Vegetation has been obviously stunted by periodic inundation HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators fminimurn of one is required:check all that apply.) Surface Soil Cracks(136) Surface Water(Al) True Aquatic Plants(1314) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) High Water Table(A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(CI) J Drainage Patterns(1310) V Saturation(A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Moss Trim Lines(1316) — Water Marks(131) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) — Sediment Deposits(132) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Crayfish Burrows(C8) — Drift Deposits(133) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(Cg) — Algal Mat or Crust(134) Other(Explain in Remarks) ✓ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) — Iron Deposits(135) Geomorphic Position(D2) — Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) Shallow Aquitard (D3) — Water-Stained Leaves(139) Microtopographic Relief(D4) — Aquatic Fauna(1313) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes_ No ✓ Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth(inches): 12 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No— Depth(inches): 2 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WA3-wet Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: % over Species? Status Number of Dominant Species I• That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) Z. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata* 1 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: (AB) 6, 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: Total%Cover of- Multiply by: 0% =Total Cover OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 Saplin-q[Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 FACW species 0 x2= 0 1. Acer rubrum 5 Y FAC FAC species 0 x3= 0 2. - FACU species 0 x4= 0 3. UPL species 0 x5= 0 4. Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) 5. Prevalence Index =B/A 0 6. 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 8. 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. _f_ 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. 3-Prevalence Index is X3.0' 4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. 'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 10. Herb--All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 11. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 it tall. 12. 0% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: height. 1. 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes ✓ No 0% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Scattered red maple saplings are the only vegetation growing in the depression area US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WA3-wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) — % pipe, Texture Remarks 0-4 7.5YR 212 100 silt loam 4-12 7.5YR 411 75 7.5YR 416 25 C M silt loam 12-20 1 OYR 311 95 1 OYR 416 5 C M silt loam 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(87) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(89)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(172) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) — Stratified Layers(A5) ✓ Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) Redox Dark Surface(176) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Sol]Present? Yes_Y/ No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 11/1912014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point:WAA2 up Investigator(s): ESI(Robert Turnbull) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): floodplain Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):4-10% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34.96750 Long: -79.84534 Datum:WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Alley gravelly loamy sand,15-25%slopes NWI classification: NA Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No— (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Sol] or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes v*' No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology_naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes— No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary,Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required check all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Surface Water(Al) True Aquatic Plants(1314) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) High Water Table(A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) — Drainage Patterns(B10) Saturation(A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16) Water Marks(Bl) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(132) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Crayfish Burrows(C8) Drift Deposits(B3) ^ Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(Dl) Iron Deposits(B5) Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Water-Stained Leaves(B9) Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(B13) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations-. Surface Water Present? Yes— No. V'r Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes— No Y'r Depth(inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes— No ✓ Depth(inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes— No V/ (includes capillary fdrige) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont--Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point-. WAA2 up size: 30ft.x30ft. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet. Tree -Stratum {Plot %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species Quercus rubs 30 Y FACU K 2 (A) That Are OBL,FAC or FAC: 2. Liquidambar styraciflua 20 Y FAC - Total Number of Dominant 3, Ilex opaca 30 Y FACU Species Across All Strata: 7 (6) 4. - Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL,FACK or FAC: 28.57% {A/B} 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: Total%Cover of- Multiply by.: 80% Total Cover OBL species x 1= 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum {Plot size: 30%00ft. FACW species x2= 0 1 Ilex opaca 20 Y FACU FAC species - 50 x3= 150 2, Quercus alba 20 Y FACU FACU species 110 x4= 440 3, Juniperus virginlana 10 Y FACU UPL species _ x5= 0 4. Column Totals: 160 (A) 590 (B) 5. Prevalence Index =B/A= 3.7 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators, 8. 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. 2-Dominance Test is>50% 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 10. 4-Morphological Adaptations'{Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x3Oft. 50% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2,. 'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. SaplinglShrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 It(I m)tall. 10. 11. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 0% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in Woody Vine Stratum {Plot size: 30ft•x30ft. height. 1 Smilax rotundifolia 30 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes No ✓ 30% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WAA2up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features — (inches} Color(moist) % Color T (moist) % !Yoe' o,r 7— Texture Remarks 0-8 1 OYR 4/2 100 S 8-20 1 OYR 5/6 100 SC 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) — Coast Prairie Redox(A116) Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(39)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) Stratified Layers(A5) — Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TIF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 'indicators of hydrophyfic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(SS) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes_ No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 1111912014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State;NC Sampling Point:WAA2 wet Investigator(s): ESI(Robert Turnbull) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): floodplain Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):4-10% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Let: 34.96750 Long: -79.84634 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Ailey gravelly loamy sand, 15-25%slopes NWI classification: PFO Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No_ (if no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes V No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two reguired) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks(136) Surface Water(Al) True Aquatic Plants(1314) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) ✓ High Water Table(A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(CI) Drainage Patterns(13110) ✓ Saturation(A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Moss Trim Lines(B16) Water Marks(131) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(82) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Solis(C6) Crayfish Burrows(C8) Drift Deposits(133) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Algal Mat or Crust(134) Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Iron Deposits(135) Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) T Shallow Aquitard(D3) Water-Stained Leaves(139) Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(1313) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth(inches): 3 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth(inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No (includes capillary fringe) I Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2,0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants, Sampling Point: WAA2 wet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance test worksheet: %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species Liquidambar styraciflua 40 Y FAC That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 4 (A) 2. - Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 40% Total Cover OBL species x 1 = 0 Saimling!Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft. FACW species x 2= 0 j..Liquidambar styraciflua 30 y FAC FAC species x 3= 0 2. Alnus serrulata 40 Y OBL FACU species x4= 0 3. UPIL species x 5= 0 4. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =BIA= 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7. 8. 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. 3-Prevalence Index is<-3.0' 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size. 30ft.x30ft. 70% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata* 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7, more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(I m)tall. 10, Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 11. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 it tall. 12. 0% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft. height. Smilax rotundifolla 10 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes ✓ No 10% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point-. WAA2 wet Profile Description; (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type hoc Texture Remarks 0-5 1 OYR 211 100 S 5-20 1 OYR 411 95 1 OYR 416 5 C M S 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydne Soils': — Histosol(Al) ✓ Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) — Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplafn Soils(F19) — Stratified Layers(A5) Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(176) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) — Depleted Dark Surface(177) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(At 2) — Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(1712)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 3indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ✓ Sandy Redox(S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(1719)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): THydri,7S ,1 Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County: Rockingham,Richmond Co 11110!2014 Sampling Date: Applicant/Dwner: NCOOT State:NC Sampling Point:WB2-up Investigator(s): J.Harbour Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc,): terrace Local relief(concave,convex,none): none Slope Subregion(LRR or MLRA): P Lat: 34.9465 Long. -79.8539 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla loam NWI classification.. NA Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No_ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology ✓ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes— No ✓ Are Vegetation­Soil­or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks,) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophyfic Vegetation Present? Yes— No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No Y/ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks* Area is entirely surrounded by roadways;inside a major intersection. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks(136) — Surface Water(Al) True Aquatic Plants(1314) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) — High Water Table(A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) — Drainage Patterns(13110) — Saturation(A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Moss Trim Lines(1316) — Water Marks(131) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) — Sediment Deposits(132) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Solis(C6) — Crayfish Burrows(C8) — Drift Deposits(133) Thin Muck Surface(C7) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) — Algal Mat or Crust(134) Other(Explain in Remarks) — Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) — Iron Deposits(135) — Geomorphic Position(D2) — Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) — Shallow Aquitard(D3) —Water-Stained Leaves(139) — Microtopographic Relief(134) — Aquatic Fauna(1313) — FAC-Neutral Test(135) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes— No ✓ Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes_ No ✓ Depth(inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes— No ✓ Depth(inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes— No V/ (includes capillary fringe) I Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont--Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WB2-up Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3, Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0% (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 0% =Total Cover OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 Saolinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 FACW species 5 x2= 10 1 Ilex opaca 25 Y FACU FAC species 0 x3= 0 2..Cornus florida 5 N FACU FACU species 30 x4= 120 3, Ulmus americana 5 N FACW UPL species 0 x5= 0 4, Column Totals* 35 (A) 130 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =BIA= 33 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 8. I-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. 3-Prevalence Index is:53.01 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 35% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum (Plot size: I 1. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 2. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9• than 3 in,DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 10. Herb--All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 11. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 0% =Total Cover Woody vine--All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 x 15 height. 1. 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes No V( 0% =Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WB2-up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth -_ Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moistl % Type Texture Remarks 0-20 7.5YR 313 100 loam 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric SoH Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(88)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) — Stratified Layers(A5) — Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl) (LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic, Restrictive Layer(if observed); Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes_ No V Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County: Rockingham, Richmond Co Sampling Date: 11/10/2014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State:NO Sampling Point:W82-wet Investigator(s): J.Harbour Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc,): floodplain Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):<2 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): P Lat: 34.9465 Long: -79.8539 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla loam NWI classification: PFO Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No_ (if no,explain in Remarks,) Are Vegetation­Soil ✓ ,or Hydrology ✓ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes— No ✓ Are Vegetation­Soil—,or Hydrology—naturally problematic? (if needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transacts, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes f No Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Area is entirely surrounded by roadways;inside a major intersection. Hydrology maintained by large box culverts HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is reguiredycheck all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks(86) — Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(814) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) — High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(CI) ✓ Drainage Patterns(B1 0) ✓ Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Moss Trim Lines(816) ✓ Water Marks(131) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) — Sediment Deposits(132) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Crayfish Burrows(C8) — Drift Deposits(133) — Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) — Algal Mat or Crust(B4) — Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(Dl) — Iron Deposits(B5) Geomorphic Position(D2) — Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Shallow Aquilard(D3) V Water-Stained Leaves(B9) Microtopographic Relief(D4) — Aquatic Fauna(B13) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth(inches): 5 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No Depth(inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes V" No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: W132-wet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 x 30 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet; %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 Acer rubrum 2 N FAC 3 (A) That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2. Salix nigra 10 Y OBL Total Number of Dominant 3, Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 12% =Total Cover OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 FACW species 0 x2= 0 1, Acer rubrum 5 N FAC FAC species 0 x3= 0 2..Salix nigra 5 N OBL FACU species 0 x4= 0 3. Alnus serrulata 20 y OBL UPIL species 0 X5= 0 4, Morelia cerifica 2 N FAC Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =B/A= 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2-Dominance Test is>50% 3-Prevalence Index is{3.0' 32% — 4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting Her"tratum (Plot size: 15 x 15 Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1 Saururus cernuus 2 Y OBL — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in,DBH and greater than 328 ft(I m)tall. 10. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 11. of size,and woody plants less than 328 ft tall. 12. 2% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 x 15 height. 1. — — 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes ✓ No 0% =Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: W132-wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches l Color{moist) % Ty Color(moist) % Pe' Loc Texture Remarks 0-18 7.5YR 311 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 C M mucky loam 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(87) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) — Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic;(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(89)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) — Stratified Layers(A5) ✓ Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) Depleted Dark Surface(177) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Umbric Surface(IF13)(MLRA 136,122) 'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic, Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: could not extract intact soil ped beyond 18" Problematic hydric soil within this cloverleaf intersection. Does not exactly meet the 4/1 color necessary for depleted matrix,but he soil Is hydric. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2,0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/site: R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 11/1912014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point:WBI32 up Investigator(s): CSI(Robert Turnbull) Section,Township,Range:–none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc,): hillslope Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):10-15% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34.96954 Long: -79.84345 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Ailey gravelly loamy sand,15-25%slopes NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (if no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation_Soil or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology—naturally problematic? (if needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transacts, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes— No V/ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators. Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required)I I Primary,Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks(136) — Surface Water(Al) True Aquatic Plants(1314) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) — High Water Table(A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(CI) Drainage Patterns(1310) Saturation(A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Moss Trim Lines(1316) Water Marks(131) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(132) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Crayfish Burrows(C8) Drift Deposits(133) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Algal Mat or Crust(134) Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(DI) Iron Deposits(135) Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Water-Stained Leaves(139) Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(1313) J FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations- Surface Water Present? Yes— No v/ Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes— No ✓ Depth(inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes— No v*' Depth(inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes— No v/ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 VEGETATION(Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WBB2 up Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x3Oft. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Quercus montana 40 Y UPL That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Pinus taeda 20 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 3• Liriodendron tullpifera 20 Y FACU Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5• That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 500 (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x3ft 8010 =Total Cover FACW species x2= 0 1.'Liquidambar styraciflua 20 Y FAC FAC species 70 x3= 210 2. - FACU species 20 x4= 80 3. UPL species 50 X5= 250 4. Column Totals: 140 (A) 540 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =BIA= 3.9 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators. 7. 8. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. 3-Prevalence Index is X3.0' 20% =Total Cover - 4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x3Oft. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Quercus montana 10 Y UPL - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. - 'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4• Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata. 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in. (7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of heig ht. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9• than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(I m)tall. 10. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 11. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 10% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft. height. I Smilax rotundifolia 30 Y FAC• Z 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes No V( 30% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WBB2up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators,) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) — % Tyne L:O—C"7— Texture Remarks 0-8 1 GYR 4/6 100 CL 8-20 10YR 616 100 CL 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators, Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3,* — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(1719) — Stratified Layers(A5) Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF 12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 3 Indicators of hydrophyfic vegetation and Sandy Redox(S5) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(1719)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Sol]Present? Yes_ No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 WETLAND OETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site.. R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 11/1912014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point:WBB2 wet Investigator(s): ESI(Robert Tumbull) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): drainage Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):4-10% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34.96954 Long: -79.84345 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Ailey gravelly loamy sand,15-25%slopes NWI classification: PFO Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes V No Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transacts, important features,etc. Hydrophyfic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes v( No Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks(136) — Surface Water(Al) True Aquatic Plants(B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) — High Water Table(A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(CI) Drainage Patterns(1310) ✓ Saturation(A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Moss Trim Lines(13116) Water Marks(131) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(132) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Crayfish Burrows(C8) Drift Deposits(133) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Algal Mat or Crust(134) Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(DI) Iron Deposits(135) Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Water-Stained Leaves(139) Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(1313) V FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No f Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes f No Depth(inches): 15 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No Depth(inches): 6 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes v( No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont--Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WBB2 wet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species Liquidambar styraciflua 40 Y FAC That Are 013L.FACW,or FAC: 5 (A) 2. Betula nigra 20 Y FACW Total Number of Dominant 3. - Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100% {A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of- Multiply by: 6004 =Total Cover OBL species x I = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft. FACW species x2= 0 1. Quercus nigra 10 Y FAC FAC species x3= 0 2. FACU species x4= 0 3. UPIL species x5= 0 4. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index =B/A= 0 6. 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 8. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. 3-Prevalence Index is<3.0' 4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft. 10% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1, Arundinariagigantea 30 Y FACW Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(11 m)tall. 10. 11. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants, regardless of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 30% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft. height. I Smilax rotundifolia 10 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes v( No 10% =Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WBB2 wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Tc lype' Texture Remarks 0-4 1 OYR 311 100 S 4-20 1 OYR 411 80 1 OYR 616 20 C M S 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) ✓ Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(Sg)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Solis(Fl 9) — Stratified Layers(A5) — Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) — Depleted Dark Surface(177) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(1712)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ✓ Sandy Redox(S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(Fl 9)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed)* Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: 8-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 1111=014 Applicant/Owner., NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point:WC3 up Investigator(s): ESI(L Roper, K Mu rphrey) Section,Township,Range-. none Landform(hillslope,terrace, Drainage — Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):2-4% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34.95722 Long: -79,84949 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Cullen-V\fynoff complex, 15-35%slopes NWI classification: NA Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No_ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology—significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology—naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transeGtS, important features,etc. Hydrophyfic Vegetation Present? Yes— No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes— No—V/ Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks(136) Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(1314) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) — Drainage Patterns(1310) Saturation(A3) — Oxidized RhIzospheres on Living Roots(C3) — Moss Trim Lines(B16) Water Marks(81) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(112) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) — Crayfish Burrows(C8) Drift Deposits(133) — Thin Muck Surface(C7) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) — Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Iron Deposits(135) Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Water-Stained Leaves(139) Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(B13) FAG-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes— No ✓ Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes— No ✓ Depth(inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes— No ✓ Depth(inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes— No ✓ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WC3 up Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3Ox3o Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Ilex opaca 10 Y FACU That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0 (A) 2. Quercus albs 5 Y FACU Total Number of Dominant 3• Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBIL,FACW,or FAC: 0% (A1B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet- Total%Cover of: Multiply,by: 8. OBL species 0 x 1 0 _Saolino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 15% Total Cover FACW species 0 x2= 0 1. Ilex opaca 15 Y FACU FAC species 0 x3= 0 2. Uriodendron tulipifera 10 Y FACU FACU species 65 x4= 260 3. - UPI_species 0 x5= 0 4, Column Totals: 65 (A) 260 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =BIA= 4 7, Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators. 8. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9, 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3000 25% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) I Ilex opaca 15 Y FACU Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 2. Eupatorium capillifolium 10 Y FACU 3. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in,(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(I m)tall. 10. 11, Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 25% =Total Cover Woody vine--All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 height. I none 2, 3. 4, 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. Present? Yes No V( 0% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2,0 SOIL Sampling Point: WC3 up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators,) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Texture Remarks 0-3 7,5YR 312 100 S 3-8 10YR 414 100 LS 8-20 10YR 416 100 S 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix, Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) 2 cm Muck(AIG)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) ^ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ^ Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) — Stratified Layers(A5) — Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(176) ^ Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) :'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed)-. Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes— No V( Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont pmjecvsuo n-3421 otvxzvuntv: mnkm»nd somp nVoa�� �n8x�14�_ Applicant/Owner: NCDVT State:NC Sampling point.VVC3wet Investigator(s): EG) L Section,Township,Range: »»»o Lammbnn(hmo|vpe.terrace,e\c.): Drainage Local relief(cmncmvo.convex,nnne): concave Slope(%):5-10»%__ Subregion(LnRmMLRA): LRRp Lat: o^.g57uV Long: -79�81960 Datum: YVGSg4 Soil Map Unit Name: Cull mvwmo^sinmaUon: pp] Are climatic/hydrologic conditions vn the site typical for this time wfyeorY You °' wo____ (if no,explain|nRemodm.) Are Vegetation .Soil nr Hydrology_____significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes v/ wo____ Are Vegetation SwU wr Hydrology____naturally problematic? (if needed,explain any answers mnomonm.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,tnamsmGtS, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators; Secondary Indicators(minimum of two reguired) Primary.Indicators(minimum of one is -rectuired:check all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks(136) Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(1314) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) V. High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) V Drainage Patterns(1310) Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(Q) _ Moss Trim Lines(1316) Water Marks(131) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(132) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Crayfish Burrows(CS) Drift Deposits(133) — Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(Cg) Algal Mat or Crust(134) — Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(131) Iron Deposits(135) Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Shallow Aquftard(D3) Aquatic Fauna(B13) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations; Surface Water Present? Yes No y0' Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes No— Depth(inches)� 1 Saturation Present? Yes No_ Depth(inches): su rface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: us Army Corps ofEngineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.V VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WC3 wet Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum {Plot size: 30x30 %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Ilex opaca 15 Y FACU 5 (A) That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2• Acer rubrum 5 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 3• - Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 71.43% (A/B} 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of- Multiply by: 20% =Total Cover OBL species x 1 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum {Plot size: 30x30 FACW species x 2= 0 1 FAC species x 3= 0 2. FACU species x4= 0 3. UPIL species x 5= 0 4. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =BIA= 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2-Dominance Test is>50% 3-Prevalence Index is 53.01 10. 4-Morphological Adaptations' {Provide supporting Hen"tratum (Plot size: 30x3O 0% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) I_ Ilex opaca 10 Y FACU Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. Woodwardia areolata 10 Y OBL 3, Juncus effusus 10 Y FACW 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. - Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. SaplinglShrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(I m)tall. 10. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 11. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12, 30% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum {Plot size: 30x30 height. 1 Smilax rotunidfolia 10 Y FAC 2. Lonicera japonica 15 Y FAC 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes No 25% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WC3 wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Loci(inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 0-4 7.5YR 312 100 L 4-6 1 OYR 311 100 LS 6-8 1 OYR 411 100 S 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix, Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils'. Histosol(At) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) Hisfic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) Black Histic(A3) v( Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) Stratified Layers(A5) — Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF1 2) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed)- Type: Depth(inches)* Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: CNR past 8",water filling hole US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 11119/2014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point:WCC20 up Investigator(s): ESI(Robert Turnbull) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): drainage Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):4-10% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34.98129 Long: -79.80486 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Alley gravelly loamy sand,0-8%slopes NWI classification: NA Are climatic!hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (if no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation / Soil or Hydrology—significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes V No Are Vegetation­Soil-,or Hydrology_naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No V( Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Upland surrounding wetland WCC has been recently clearcut. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is reguired:check all that al.),ply) — Surface Soil Cracks(136) — Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(1314) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) — High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) — Drainage Patterns(1310) — Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Moss Trim Lines(1316) — Water Marks(1311) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) — Sediment Deposits(132) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) — Crayfish Burrows(C8) — Drift Deposits(133) — Thin Muck Surface(C7) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Algal Mat or Crust(134) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Iron Deposits(135) — Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) — Shallow Aquitard(133) Water-Stained Leaves(139) — Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(1313) — FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes— N o Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes No Depth(inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes— No ✓ Depth(inches): >20 Welland Hydrology Present? Yes— No V( (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)—Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WCC20 up Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x3Gft. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species • That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (8) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL, FACK or FAC-. 1000/0 (A/B) 6. 7, Prevalence Index worksheet: 8, Total%Cover of. Multiply by: 0% Total Cover OBL species x 1 = 0 Sapling�hrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft. x 2= 0 L FACWspecles I Quercus nigra 20 Y FAC FAC species x 3= 0 Z FACU species x 4= 0 3, UPILspecies x5= 0 4. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =B/A= 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7. 8. I-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. .1L 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. — 3-Prevalence Index is<3.0' — 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft, 20% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1, — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4, Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5, 6. Tree—Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7, more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub—Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9• than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. Herb—All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless it. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall, 12, 0% =Total Cover Woody vine—All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft. height. 1 Smilax rotundifolia 10 Y FAC 2 Vitis rotundifolia 30 Y FAC 3, 4. 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation 6, Present? Yes f No 40% =Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 G0L Samplin wo�o� g�� Profile Description; (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators,) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color innoist) % Type' Co-7— Texture Remarks 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grain$, 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: — Histosol(At) Dark Surface(S7) 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) Thin Dark Surface(Sg)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(1719) — Stratified Layers(A5) Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(176) Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(178) Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(1712)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MILRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136t 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(Fig)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes_ No UG Army Corps mEngineers EmstemMpunw\nmarmPioumont—Versmnoo WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-342 nuv/nountv: Richmond Sampling Date: 11/1912014 Applicant/Owner: N000T State:NC Sampling Point:YVCC2Vwet Investigator(s): ESI Section,Township, Range: none Lamumnn(hWkNope,terrace,etc.): mama ���|n,|�r�onxmva.convex.nunn): �m»�«e Slope(%):4-10»%__ Subregion(LRRorMLRA): LnRp Lat »uo»12o Long: -79.80486 m$um:VVGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Ailey mg| loamy sand,0-8m slopes NNOclauoificamm: pnO Are climatic/hydrologic conditions un the site typical for this time ofyear? Yes_�`_ wo (if no,explain innnma*mJ Are Vegetation_____.Soil .ur Hydrology_____significantly disturbed? Are''Nonma|Circumstances"present? Yes `/ Nu____ Are Vegetation___~Soil mH>dm|ogy____naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers inRemamu.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features, etc. Hydrophyfic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes V( No Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes No Margins of wetland have been disturbed by logging activities. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is reguired:check all that al2glyl — Surface Soil Cracks(136) Surface Water(Al) True Aquatic Plants(1314) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) High Water Table(A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) — Drainage Patterns(B10) Saturation(A3) V Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Moss Trim Lines(1316) Water Marks(131) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(132) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Crayfish Burrows(C8) Drift Deposits(B3) — Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(Cg) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) — Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Iron Deposits(B5) Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) — Shallow Aquitard(D3) V, Water-Stained Leaves(Bg) — Microtopographic Relief(D4) —Aquatic Fauna(B13) — FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes— No V Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes vo' No_ Depth(inches): 8 Saturation Present? Yes v" No_ Depth(inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes V( No (includes capillary fringe) Deschbe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Portions of wetland are inundated. VS Army Corps m[Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.V VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WCC20 wet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x3ft Absolute Dominant Indicator Dom Inance Test worksheet: %Cover S_,pecies? Status Number of Dominant Species Acer rubrum 40 Y FAC FACW, (A) That Are OBL,FAC or FAC: 2. Ilex opaca 10 Y FACU Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 75% (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 50% =Total Cover OBL species x I = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x3ft FACW species x 2= 0 1. Alnus serrulata 20 Y OBL FAC species x3= 0 1 - FACU species x4= 0 3. UPI-species x5= 0 4. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 5. Prevalence Index =B/A 0 6. 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 8. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. 3-Prevalence Index is!-3.01 20% =Total Cover - 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x3oft. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. 3. 'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(I m)tall. 10. 11. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants, regardless 12. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall. 0% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x3Oft. height. I Smilax rotundifolia 20 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes No 20% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WCC20 wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators,) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Texture Remarks 0-5 1 OYR 311 100 8 5-20 2.5Y 511 95 1 OYR 616 5 C PL S 'T e: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location. PL=Pore Lining,M=Matjx. Hydric Sol]Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sells': — Histosoi(Al) ✓ Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A18) — Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplafn Soils(IF19) — Stratified Layers(A5) — Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRIR N) — Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(SI)(LRIR N, — iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LIRIR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(34) — Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Redox(35) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(Fl 9)(MLRA 148) — wetland hydrology must be present, Stripped Matrix(36) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2,0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 11/1812014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling point:WDN1E4a up Investigator(s): BSI(L Roper) Section,Township, Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Drainage — Local relief(concave, convex,none): concave Slope(%):24% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34,96302 Long: -79,84867 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Ailey gravelly loamy sand, 15-25%slopes NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No_ (if no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation­Sol] or Hydrology_naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes— Na Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: L-- — HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Seconda!y Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) — Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(B14) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) — High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) — Drainage Patterns(B10) — Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16) — Water Marks(B1) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) — Sediment Deposits(B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) — Crayfish Burrows(C8) — Drift Deposits(133) Thin Muck Surface(C7) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(Cg) — Algal Mat or Crust(134) Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) — Iron Deposits(B5) Geomorphic Position(D2) — Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Shallow Aquitard(D3) — Water-Stained Leaves(139) Microtopographic Relief(D4) — Aquatic Fauna(B13) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes— No ✓ Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth(inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes— No ✓ Depth(inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes— No VI/ (includes capIllaryjringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:WDIWE4a up Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30x3O Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 Quercus nigra 10 y FAC 6 (A) - That Are OBIL,FACW,or FAC: 2. Liquidambar styraciflua 10 y FAC Total Number of Dominant 3. - Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBIL,FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 20% Total Cover OBIL species x 1 0 Sap-linnMrub Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 FACW species x2= 0 1, Liquidambar styraciflua 10 Y FAC FAC species x 3= 0 2. FACU species x4= 0 3. UPL species x5= 0 4. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 5. Prevalence Index = B/A 0 6. 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 8. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. ✓ 2-Dominance Testis>50% 10. - 3-Prevalence Index is S3,01 - 4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 10% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1. Arundinaria gigantea 30 y FACW - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2, Quercus alba 5 N FACU 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 10. 11. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody}plants,regardless 12. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 35% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in Wood Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 height. 1. Vitis rotundifolia 5 Y FAC 2. Lonicera japonica is y FAC 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes � No 20% =Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:WDME4a up Profile Description. (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features -(Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type I LUC 2 Texture Remarks 0-4 7.5YR 3/2 100 LS 4-6 7.5YR 3/1 60 7.5YR 414 40 C M LS 6-12 7.5YR 5/6 100 — S gravel present 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators* Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) — Stratified Layers (A5) — Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(A112) — Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbfic Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type'. Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes— No Remarks: CNA past 12',gravel layer present US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 1111812014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State,.NC _ Sampling Point,.WD/WE4a wet Investigator(s): ESI(L Roper) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hilislope,terrace,etc.): Drainage — Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):5-10% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34.96290 Long: -79.84867 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Ailey gravelly loamy sand,15-25%slopes NWI classification: PFO Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No— (if no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes *( No Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology—naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks-) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Welland? Yes Vl No Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) — Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) — High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ✓ Drainage Patterns(1310) — Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) — Moss Trim Lines(B16) — Water Marks(BI) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) — Sediment Deposits(B2) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) — Crayfish Burrows(C8) — Drift Deposits(B3) — Thin Muck Surface(C7) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) — Algal Mat or Crust(B4) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) — Iron Deposits(B6) — Geomorphic Position(D2) — Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) — Shallow Aquitard(D3) ✓. Water-Stained Leaves(B9) — Microtopographic Relief(D4) — Aquatic Fauna(B13) J FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations-. Surface Water Present? Yes— No f Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth(inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes— No f Depth(inches): >20 Welland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 VEGETATION(Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:WDIWE4a Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3OX30 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % over Species? Status Number of Dominant Species Liquidambar styraciflua 10 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 3 (A) 2. - Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 75% (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 10% =Total Cover OBL species x 1 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 FACW species x2= 0 1.'Liquidambar styraciflua 5 Y FAC FAC species x3= 0 Z Ilex opaca 10 y FACU FACU species x4= 0 3. UPL species x5= 0 4. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =BIA= 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7. 8. 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. v"_ 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. - 3-Prevalence Index is s3.0' - 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30X30 15% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1. Arundinaria gigantea 30 Y FACW - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. Rubus argutus 5 N FACU 3. 'Indicators of hydnc:soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in, (7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9• than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(I m)tall. 10. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 11, of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 35% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 height, 1 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5� Vegetation 6. Present? Yes V( No 0% =Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:WD1WE4a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features _ (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Tvr)e Toc-7--- Texture Remarks 0-2 7.5YR 313 100 SL 2-8 1 OYR 311 90 2.5YR 416 10 C M LS gravel present 'T e: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) ✓ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(IF19) — Stratified Layers(A5) Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF 12) — Thick Dark Surface(A112) — Redox Depressions(178) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses(IF12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks* CNA past 8",gravel layer below US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM--Eastern Mountains and Piedmont PmjecVSite: R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 1112012014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point:WDD1 7A up Investigator(s): ESI(Robert Turnbull) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillsiope,terrace,etc.): drainage — Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):4-10% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Let: 34.98384 Long: -79.80199 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Ailey gravelly loamy sand,0-8%slopes NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances'present? Yes v/ No Are Vegetation_Soil or Hydrology—naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features, etc. Hydrophyt(c Vegetation Present? Yes No V Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes— No within a Wetland? Yes— No V/ Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required} Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks(136) — Surface Water(At) — True Aquatic Plants(1314) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) — High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) — Drainage Patterns(B10) — Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) — Moss Trim Lines(1316) — Water Marks(BI) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) — Sediment Deposits(132) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) — Crayfish Burrows(C8) — Drift Deposits(133) — Thin Muck Surface(C7) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(Cg) — Algal Mat or Crust(134) — Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(DI) — Iron Deposits(135) Geomorphic Position(D2) — Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) Shallow Aquitard(D3) — Water-Stained Leaves(Bg) Microtopographic Relief(D4) — Aquatic Fauna(1313) FAC-Neutral Test(135) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No f Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth(inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth(inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes— No V/ (includes capillary fringe) I Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 VEGETATION(Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WDD1 7A up Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft�x3oft� Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species Quercus nigra 30 Y FAC That Are OBI-,FACW,or FAC: 3 (A) Z Quercus alba 40 Y FACU Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 8 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBIL,FACW,or FAC: 500/0 (A/B} 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. -- Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 70% Total Cover OBIL species x 1 = 0 Sapfingt$hrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft•x3oft• FACW species x 2= 0 1, Quercus alba 20 Y FACU FAC species 55 X3= 165 2. Ilex opaca 10 Y FACU FACU species 70 x4= 280 3- UPL species _ x5= 0 4. Column Totals'. 125 (A) 445 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =BIA= 16 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: & I-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. 3-Prevalence Index is{3.0' 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft�x3oft. 30% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7� more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 10. 11. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 0% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody,Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft• height. 1. Smilax rotundifolia 20 Y FAC Z Vitis rotundifolia 5 Y FAC 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes ✓ No 25% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SM Sampling Point: WDD17A up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators,) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Tvr)e' Loc Texture Remarks 0-12 2.5Y 412 100 S 12-20 2.5Y 413 100 S 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocatiow-PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Sol]Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Solis(1719) — Stratified Layers(A5) — Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(SI)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbric Surface(1713)(MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) — Piedmont Floodplain Solis(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed). Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes— No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: 8-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 1112012014 Applicantiowner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point:WOD1 7A wet lnvestigator(s).. ESI(Robert Turnbull) Section,Township,Range.. none Landform(hfilslope,terrace,etc.): drainage Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):4-10% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34.98384 Long: -79.80199 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Ailey gravelly loamy sand,0-8%slopes NWI classification: PFO Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N( No Are Vegetation­Sol[ or Hydrology—naturally problematic? (if needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transeGtS, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes rt No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required check all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Surface Water(Al) True Aquatic Plants(1314) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) High Water Table(A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) — Drainage Patterns(1310) ✓ Saturation(A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Moss Trim Lines(1316) Water Marks(Bl) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(132) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) — Crayfish Burrows(C8) Drift Deposits(133) Thin Muck Surface(C7) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Algal Mat or Crust(134) Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Iron Deposits(135) Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) Shallow Aquitard(D3) ✓ Water-Stained Leaves(B9) Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(B13) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes— N o -.1 Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes Vr No Depth(inches): 18 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No Depth(inches): 4 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes V/ No (includes ca ilia fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:WDDI 7A wet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x3Oft. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Quercus nigra 30 Y FAC That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 4 (A) 2. Ilex opaca 20 Y FACU 3,.Magnolia virginlana 20 Y FACW Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) 4. Liriodendron tullpifera 20 Y FACU Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 57.14% {A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet- Total%Cover of Multiply by: 90% Total Cover OBL species x 1= 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft. FACW species x 2= 0 j..Quercus nigra 10 Y FAC FAC species x 3= 0 2,,Ilex opaca 10 Y FACU FACU species x4= 0 3'.Vaccinium corymbosum 30 Y FACW UPIL species x5= 0 4. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 5. Prevalence Index =BIA 0 6. 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators. 8. 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Strgtu (Plot size: 30ft.x3oft. 50% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 1. 2. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata; 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7, more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 10. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 11. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 0% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 301t.x30ft. height. 1. - - 2. 3, 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes ✓ No 0% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:WDD1 7A wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) No Tvoe Loci Texture Remarks 0-20 1 OYR 211 100 SL 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(172) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(1719) — Stratified Layers(A5) — Depleted Matrix(173) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(176) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) — Depleted Dark Surface(177) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(178) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(SI)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(1712)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ✓ Umbric Surface(1713)(MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 1112012014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point:WEE1 6 up Investigator(s): ESI(Robert Turnbull) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): hillslope Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):4-10% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34.98357 Long: -79.80420 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Ailey gravelly loamy sand,0-8%slopes NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Vr No (if no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes f No Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology—naturally problematic? (if needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks(136) — Surface Water(Al) True Aquatic Plants(B14) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) — High Water Table(A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C11) — Drainage Patterns(B10) Saturation(A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16) Water Marks(131) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(132) ^ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) — Crayfish Burrows(C8) Drift Deposits(B3) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(Cg) Algal Mat or Crust(134) Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(DI) Iron Deposits(B5) Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Water-Stained Leaves(139) Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(B13) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes— No ✓ Depth(inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes— No f Depth(inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes— No V1 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WEE16 up Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x3oft. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: %Cover Snecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Quercus nigra 40 Y FAC 5 (A) That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2• Liquidambar styraciflua 20 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 3. - Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 71.43% (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8• Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 60% =Total Cover OBL species x 1 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30%x3ft FACW species x 2= 0 1.'Magnolia virginiana 10 Y FACW FAC species x3= 0 2. Ilex opaca 10 Y FACU FACU species x4= 0 3. UPIL species X5= 0 4. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 6. Prevalence Index =B/A= 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2-Dominance Test is>50% 3-Prevalence Index is-53.01 10. 4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft. 20% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) I Quercus nigra 5 Y FAC Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2• Pteridium aquillnum 20 Y FACU 3. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4• Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 it(1 m)tall. 10. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 11. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 25% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft•x30ft. height. 1 Smilax rotundifolia 5 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes ✓ No 5% =Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WEE16 up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features {inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Laces Texture Remarks 0-4 2.5Y 412 100 S 4-20 2.5Y 513 100 'Type: C=concentration,D=Depletion.RM=Reduced Matrix.MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Mat(ix, Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) — Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) — Stratified Layers(A5) — Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 3 Indicators of hydrophyfic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed)- Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes_ No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 1112012014 ApplicantlOwner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point:WEE1 6 wet Investigator(s): ESI(Robert Turnbull) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): drainage Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):4-10% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Let: 34.98367 Long: -79.80420 Datum:WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Ailey gravelly loamy sand,0-8%slopes NVIA classification: PFO Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No— (if no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology—naturally problematic? (if needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytfc Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area 'Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes Y( No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes V/ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators- Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks(B6) — Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(814) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) — High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(CI) V Drainage Patterns(1310) ✓ Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Moss Trim Lines(1316) Water Marks(131) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(132) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Crayfish Burrows(C8) Drift Deposits(B3) — Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(Cg) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) — Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(Dl) Iron Deposits(BS) ^ Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Water-Stained Leaves(Bg) Microtopographfc Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(B13) V FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth(inches): 15 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No Depth(inches): 6 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No (includes capillary fringe) I Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)—Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WEE1 6 wet Tree Stratum (Plot s!70' 30ft.x30ft. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1..Liquidambar styraciflua 30 Y FAC That Are OBI_,FACW,or FAC: 4 (A) 2, Ilex opaca 30 Y FAC 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5, That Are OBIL,FACW,or FAC: 100% (A1B) 6. 7, Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of- Multiply by: 60% Total Cover OBIL species x 1= 0 Sawling/Shrub-Straturn (Plot size: 30ft,x30ft, FACW species x2= 0 1. FAC species x3= 0 2. FACE)species x4= 0 3. UPIL species x5= 0 4. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =B/A= 0 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 8, 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. ✓ 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. 3-Prevalence index is 53.0' 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft. 0% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Arundinarla gigantea 30 Y FACW Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) Z Cismundastrum cinnamomea 5 N FACW Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3, — be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4• Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6, Tree—Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub—Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9, than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 10. Herb—All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 11, of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12, 35% =Total Cover Woody vine—All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft,x30ft, height. 1 Smilax rotundifolia 5 Y FAC 2, 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5, Vegetation 6. Present? Yes ✓ No 5% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WEE1 6 wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features To—T- Texture Remarks (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' 0-20 2.5Y 2.511 100 SL 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) — Stratified Layers(A5) Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(SI)(LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ✓ Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(Fig)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont ProjecuSite: R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 11/10/2014 ApplicantlOwner: NCDOT State..NC Sampling Point:WF5 UP Investigator(s): ESI(L Roper) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc,): Drainage Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):2-4% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34,93873 Long. -79.84133 Datum:WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Cullen-Wynott complex,15-35%slopes NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No— (if no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes Y" No Are Vegetation Sol] or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed,explain any answers in Remarks-) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes— No Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators* Secondary Indicators(minimum of two reguired) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply? Surface Soil Cracks(136) — Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(1314) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) — High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(CI) Drainage Patterns(1310) — Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Moss Trim Lines(1316) — Water Marks(BI) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) — Sediment Deposits(132) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Solis(C6) Crayfish Burrows(C8) — Drift Deposits(133) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) — Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(Dl) — Iron Deposits(B5) Geomorphic Position(D2) — Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) Shallow Aquitard(D3) — Water-Stained Leaves(Bg) Microtopographic Relief(D4) — Aquatic Fauna(1313) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes— N o ✓ Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes No Depth(inches): -20 Saturation Present? Yes— No Depth(inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes— No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WF5 up Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet. %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Pines teach 5 Y FAC 4 (A) That Are OBI,FACK or FAG: 2, Acer rubrum 5 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 3..Liquidambar styraciflua 5 Y FAC Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBI,FACW,or FAC: 66.67% (AiB) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet- Total%Cover of: Mulfioly by: 8. 15% Total Cover OBI species x 1= 0 SaolingIShrub Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 FACW species x2= 0 1. FAC species X3= 0 2. FACU species x4= 0 3. UPI species x5= 0 4. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =BIA= 0 7 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. 2-Dominance Test is>50% % 3-Prevalence Index is-<3.01 - 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 0% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1 Rubus argutus 10 Y FACU - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) Z Asplenium platyneuron 5 Y FACU 'Indicators of hydr(c soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(1313H),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9• than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(I m)tall. 10. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 11. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 15% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 height. 1 Smilax rotundifolfa 5 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes No 5% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WF5 up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Re ,jdox Features -(inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Texture Remarks 0-6 1 OYR 5/4 100 L 6-20 7.5YR 5/6 100 CL 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(172) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) Stratified Layers(A5) — Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) — Depleted Dark Surface(177) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF1 2) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(178) — Other(Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(1712)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbric Surface(1713)(MLRA 136,122) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Redox(S5) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date-. 11/10/2014 ApplicantlOwner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point:WF5 wet Investigator(s): BSI(L Roper) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Drainage — Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope 5-10% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Let: 34.93862 Long: -79.84103 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Cullen-Wynott complex,15-35%slopes NWI classification: PFO Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No_ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features, etc. Hyd rophyfic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two recluiredl Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required check all that ap-P ly) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(B14) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) ✓ High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) — Drainage Patterns(B10) ✓ Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16) Water Marks(Bl) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(B2) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) — Crayfish Burrows(C8) Drift Deposits(B3) — Thin Muck Surface(C7) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) — Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Iron Deposits(135) Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Water-Stained Leaves(Bg) Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(B13) J FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth(inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available'. Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WF5 wet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3Ox3O Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: %Cover S• pecies? Status Number of Dominant Species Liquidambar styracfflua 15 y FAC 8 (A) That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2. Djospyros virginiana 10 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 1 Acer rubrum 10 y _FAC Species Across All Strata: 8 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5• That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of., Multiply by: 35% Total Cover OBL species x 1 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 FACW species x2= 0 1. Liquidambar styraciflua 10 Y FAC FAC species x3= 0 2. FACU species x4= 0 3. UPIL species x 5= 0 4, Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 5. Prevalence Index =B/A 0 6. 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: & 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. 3-Prevalence Index is s3.0' 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30X30 10% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1. Juncus effuses 10 Y FACW Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2, Woodwardia areolata 5 y OBL 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3, Athyrium filix-femfna 10 Y FAC be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. - Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height, 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 25% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 height. 1 Vitis rotundifolia 5 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes ✓ No 5% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WF6 wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features -_ (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % TV13W�Loc Texture Remarks 0-3 1 OYR 4/6 100 CL 3-12 2.5Y 612 100 SL gravel present 'T e: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location:._PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators- Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) — Stratified Layers(A5) ✓ Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TIF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Depressions(FS) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(81)(LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(85) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: CNA past 12",gravel layer below US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 11/2012014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point:WFF3 up Investigator(s): ES1(Robert Turnbull) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hilislope,terrace,etc.): drainage Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave -10% — Slope(%):4 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34.98232 Long. -79.80475 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Ailey gravelly loamy sand,0-8%slopes NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (if no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology_naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Watland? Yes V/ No Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes No_Z_ Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Surface Water(Al) True Aquatic Plants(814) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) High Water Table(A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(CI) Drainage Patterns(1310) Saturation(A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Moss Trim Lines(B16) Water Marks(Bl) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Crayfish Burrows(C8) Drift Deposits(B3) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(DI) Iron Deposits(85) Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Water-Stained Leaves(B9) Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(B13) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes— No v( Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes— No v( Depth(inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes— No ✓ Depth(inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes— No v/ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)—Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WFF3 up Tree Stratum (Plot size, 30ft.x3Oft. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: %Cover -Species? Status Number of Dominant Species Quercus alba 50 Y FACE) 2 (A) That Are GBIL,FACK or FAC: 2.-Quercus nigra 20 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 3• — Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBIT,FACK or FAC: 40% (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 7004 Total Cover OBL species x I = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum {Plot size: 30ft.x30ft. FACW species x2= 0 1• Quercus alba 20 Y FACE) FAC species 40 x3= 120 2. FACU species 80 x4= 320 3, UPL species _ x5= 0 4, Column Totals: 120 (A) 440 (B) 5. Prevalence Index =B/A 3.7 6, 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 8, 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9, 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. 3-Prevalence Index is<3.0' 4-Morphological Adaptations'{Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x3ft 20% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1, Ilex opaca 10 Y FACE) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4• Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree—Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7, more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub—Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9, than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(I m)tall. 10. 11. Herb—All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 it tall. 12, 10% =Total Cover Woody vine—All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft. height. 1. Smilax rotundifolla 20 Y FAC 2. 3, 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6, Present? Yes No V/ 20% =Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WFF3 up Profile Description'. (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features inches Color(mois) % Color(moist) _Tvo­eT Loc"_ Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 211 100 S 4-10 2.5Y 411 100 S 10-20 2.5Y 412 100 S 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) J Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) Polyvalue Below Surface(SO)(MLRA 147,148) — Coast Prairie Redox(At 6) — Black Hisfic(A3) Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(172) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) — Stratified Layers(A5) Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(At 1) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Redox(S5) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes v/ No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 11/20/2014 Applicant/Owner. NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point:WFF3 wet Investigator(s): ESI(Robert Turnbull) Section,Township, Range: none Landform,(hillslope,terrace,etc.): drainage Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):4-10% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34.98232 Long: -79.80475 Datum.. WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Ailey gravelly loamy sand,0-8%slopes NWI classification: PFO Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no,explain in Remarks,) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology_naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Welland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicato rs(minimum of two required} Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required•check all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks(136) — Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(1314) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) — High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ✓ Drainage Patterns(1310) — Saturation(A3) ✓ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) — Moss Trim Lines(B16) ✓ Water Marks(131) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) — Sediment Deposits(132) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) — Crayfish Burrows(C8) — Drift Deposits(133) Thin Muck Surface(C7) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) — Algal Mat or Crust(134) Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(DI) — Iron Deposits(136) Geomorphic Position(D2) — Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) Shallow Aquitard(D3) — Water-Stained Leaves(139) Microtopographic Relief(D4) — Aquatic Fauna(1313) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes— N o ✓ Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes— No vo' Depth(inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes— No_,/ Depth(inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No (includes capillary fringe) I Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WFF3 wet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: %Cover 3 Status Sprigs?-cijes? Number of Dominant Species Liquidambar styraciflua 30 Y FAC 7 (A) That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: Z Acer rubrurn 30 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 3, Magnolia virginiana 20 Y FACW Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBIL,FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of Multiply by: 80% Total Cover OBI.species x 1 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft. FACW species x2= 0 1."Magnolia grandiflora 20 Y FACU FAC species x3= 0 2.*Vaccinium corymbosum 20 Y FACW FACU species x4= 0 3. UPL species x5= 0 4, Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =BIA= 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7. 8. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. ✓ 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. - 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' - 4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft. 40% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1.-Arundinaria gigantea 30 Y FACW - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 2. - 'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4• Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata-, 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in,(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(OBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 It(I m)tall. 10. 11. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 it tall. 12. 30% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft.x30ft. height. 1 Smilax rotundifolia 20 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes ✓ No 20% =Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WFF3 wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type To c Texture Remarks 0-20 2.5Y 4/1 95 1 OYR 516 5 C PL S 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion.RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls3: Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) Histic EpIpedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Solis(F19) Stratified Layers(A5) — Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophyfic vegetation and Sandy Redox(S5) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) Weiland hydrology must be present, Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed). Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County:.Richmond Sampling Date: 11/1012014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State:NC_ Sampling Point:WG1 1 up Investigator(s): ESI(IL Roper) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Drainage Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):2-4% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34,94988 Long: -79.84755 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Cullen-Wynott complex,15-35%slopes NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Na— (if no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes­2�_ No Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology_naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes— No V( Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: L— I HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required} Primary Indicators{minimum of one is required check all that apply} — Surface Soil Cracks(136) Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(B14) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(CI) — Drainage Patterns(13110) Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) — Moss Trim Lines(1316) Water Marks(B1) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(132) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Solis(CB) — Crayfish Burrows(C8) Drift Deposits(133) — Thin Muck Surface(C7) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(Cg) Algal Mat or Crust(134) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Iron Deposits(135) — Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) — Shallow Aquitard(D3) Water-Stained Leaves(139) — Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(13113) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes— No Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes— No Depth(inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes— No Depth(inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes— No ✓ (includes capillary fringe) I Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 VEGETATION(Four Strata)—Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WG11up Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30x3O Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: %Cover Soecies? —Status 1 none Number of Dominant Species 3 That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 60% (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of, Multiply by: 0% Total Cover OBL species x I= 0 Saplingl$hrub Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 FACW species x2= 0 1. Alnus serrulata 5 Y OBI. FAC species x3= 0 2. Salix nigra 15 Y OBL FACU species x4= 0 3.1 — UPL species x5= 0 4, Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 5. Prevalence Index =B/A 0 6. 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 8. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. 2-Dominance Test is>60% 10, 3-Prevalence Index is:-Q.0' 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 20% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1. Rubus argutus 20 Y FACU Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2, Eupatorium capillifolium 20 Y FACU 3, Juncus effusus 16 Y FACW 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 4. be present,unless disturbed or problematic, 5, Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 6, Tree—Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7,6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub—Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in,DIBH and greater than 3.28 it(1 m)tall. 10. 11. Herb--All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless of size,and woody plants less than 3,28 ft tall. 12. 66% =Total Cover Woody vine—All woody vines greater than 3,28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 height, 1 none 2, 3. 4. Hydrophytic 6, Vegetation 6. Present? Yes ✓ No 0% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WGI I up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix — Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Texture Remarks 0-4 7,5YR 4/6 100 C 4-20 2.5YR 316 100 C 'Type: C=Coriceritration,D=Deplefion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matdx. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 orn Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Hisfic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) — Stratified Layers(A5) — Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) — Depleted Dark Surface(177) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(1712)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbr(c Surface(1713)(MLRA 136,122) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed); Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes_ No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont ProjectiSite: R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 11/11/2014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point:WGI I wet Investigator(s): ESI(L Roper) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc,): Drainage Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):5-100 Subregion(LRR or MLRA)., LRR P Lat: 34.94967 Long: -79.84764 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Cullen-Wynott complex,15-35%slopes NWI classification: PFO Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology_naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks') SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features, etc. Hydrophyfic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes rf No Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one Is required check all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(1314) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) — Drainage Patterns(B10) Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16) ✓ Water Marks(BI) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(B2) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) — Crayfish Burrows(C8) Drift Deposits(B3) — Thin Muck Surface(C7) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Stunted or Stressed Plants(DI) Iron Deposits(B6) — Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) — Shallow Aquitard(D3) Water-Stained Leaves(B9) — Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(B13) J FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations- Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth(inches): 10 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No Depth(inches): 3 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No (includes capillaryfringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: Beaver Activity US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)—Ilse scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WG11wet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3000 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: _% over Species? ,Status Number of Dominant Species Salix nigra 15 Y OBL That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 5 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 83.33% (AJB) 6. 7 Prevalence Index worksheet: & Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 15% Total Cover OBL species x 1= 0 Sapling/Shrub tr atum (Plot size: 30x30 FACW species x2= 0 1..Salix nigra 20 Y OBL FAC species x3= 0 2, Platanus occidentalis 5 Y FACW FACU species x4= 0 1 UPL species x5= 0 4. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =BIA= 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7. 8. 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophyt(c Vegetation 9. 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 25% =Total Cover — 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size. 3000 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1. Juncus effusus 20 Y FACW — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2, Rubus.argutus 15 Y FACU — 'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3� Persicaria hydropiperoides 10 Y OBL be present,unless disturbed or problematic, 4' — Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree—Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7, more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub—Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(I m)tall. 10. 11� Herb—All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 12, of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 45% =Total Cover Woody vine—All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3040 height. 1.-none 2. 3. 4. 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. Present? Yes ✓ No 0% W Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WGIIII wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators,) Depth Matrix Redox Feature, -(Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 0-3 1 OYR 412 100 Fine S 3-6 7,5YR 414 100 CL 6-20 1 OYR 311 100 CL °T e: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) Dark Surface(87) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) — Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) Thin Dark Surface(Sg)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) — Stratified Layers(A5) Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(84) Umbric Surface(1713)(MLRA.136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(85) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, Stripped Matrix(86) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed); Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2,0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 11/1112014 Applicant/owner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point:WH5 up Investigator(s): BSI(L Roper) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace.etc.); Drainage — Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):2-4% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34.95166 Long: -79,84339 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Cullen-Wynott complex, 15-35%slopes NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes vo' Na (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No V within a Wetland? Yes— No V� Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators-. Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks(1136) — Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(B14) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) — High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C11) — Drainage Patterns(B10) — Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16) — Water Marks(131) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) — Sediment Deposits(B2) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) — Crayfish Burrows(C8) Drift Deposits(B3) — Thin Muck Surface(C7) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) — Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Iron Deposits(135) Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Water-Stained Leaves(139) Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(B13) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations.* Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth(inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No Depth(inches): 15 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes— No Y/ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Wiloup Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30x3O Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance test worksheet: %Cover 5pecles? , Status Number of Dominant Species Ulmus rubra 15 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 5 (A) 2, Liquidambar styraciflua 15 Y FAC 1 Acer rubrum 15 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBI.,FACW,or FAC: 71,43% (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: Total%Cover of- Multiply by: 45% Total Cover OBIL species x I= 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 FACW species x2= 0 1, Liriodendron tullpifera 15 Y FACU FAC species x3= 0 2. FACU species x4= 0 3. UPL species x5= 0 4• Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =BIA= 0 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: B. — I-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. 2-Dominance Test is>5o% 10, 3-Prevalence Index is 53.01 15% =Total Cover — 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) I Athyrium filix-fernina 10 Y FAC — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2, Rubus argutus 10 Y FACU 3, Liriodendron tulipifera 5 N FACU Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must — — be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Boehmerica cylindrica 15 Y FACW Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(I m)tall. 10. 11, Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 12. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 40% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 height, 1, none 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5, Vegetation 6. Present? Yes ✓ No 0% =Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WHO up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Texture Remarks 0-20 1 OYR 4/4 60 1 OYR 516 40 C M CL 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletlon,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(58)(MLRA 147,148) — Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(172) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(1719) — Stratified Layers(A5) — Depleted Matrix(173) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(176) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(178) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbric Surface(1713)(MLRA 136,122) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(SS) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(1719)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(it observed): Type: Depth(inches); Hydric Soil Present? Yes— No V/ Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: 8-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 11111/2014 ApplicantlOwner: NCOOT State:NC Sampling Point:W110 wet Investigator(s): ESI(L Roper) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hilislope,terrace,etc.): Drainage — Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):5-10% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34.95166 Long: -79.84356 Datum:WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Cullen-Wynott complex,15-35%slopes NWI classification: PFO Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No— (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology—significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology_naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks-) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Sol)Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks(136) — Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(1314) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) — High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ✓ Drainage Patterns(B10) ✓ Saturation(A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Moss Trim Lines(1316) ✓ Water Marks(Bl) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(132) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Crayfish Burrows(C8) Drift Deposits(133) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(Dl) Iron Deposits(135) T Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Shallow Aquitard(03) ✓ Water-Stained Leaves(B9) Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(1313) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes— No ✓ Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes V/ No Depth(inches): 16 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No Depth(inches): 4 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Will 0 wet Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30x3O Cover S.p.gcies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1.,Liquidambar styraciflua 15 Y FAC That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 6 (A) 2. Acer rubrum 15 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 3. - Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100% {A/B) 6, 7, Prevalence Index worksheet* 8. ---Total%Cover of- Multiply by: 30% =Total Cover OBL species x 1= 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30x34 FACW species x2= 0 1, Ulmus rubra 15 Y FAC FAC species x 3= 0 2. FACU species x4= 0 3, UPL species x5= 0 4, Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =B/A= 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators* 7, 8. 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 9, 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. 3-Prevalence Index is<3,01 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30x3O 15% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1 Carex sp. 20 Y Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. Rubus argutus 15 Y FAG 3. Persicaria hydropiperoldes 15 Y OBL 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. - Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata* 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 It(1 m)tall. 10. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 11. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 50% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 height. 1 none 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes ✓ No 0% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: W110wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches} Color(moist) % Color(molstl % jyge' Laos Texture Remarks 0-15 2.5YR 4/2 70 1 OYR 5/6 30 C M CL 15-20 2.5YR 4/2 70 10YR 5/6 30 C M SCL 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon (A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(172) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) — Stratified Layers(A5) ✓ Depleted Matrix(173) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) Redox Dark Surface(176) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(All 2) Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1)(LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses(1712)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(1719)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont ProjectlSlte: 8-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 11/19/2014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State.,NC Sampling Point:WJ5 up Investigator(s): ESI(L Roper) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Drainage Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):2-4% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34.96345 Long. -79.84880 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name.,_Alley gravelly loamy sand, 15-25%slopes NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation­Sol] or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes V/ No Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology—naturally problematic? (if needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features, etc. Hydrophyfic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes— No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required check all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks(B6) — Surface Water(All) — True Aquatic Plants(B14) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) — High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(CII) — Drainage Patterns(B10) — Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16) — Water Marks(131) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) — Sediment Deposits(B2) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) — Crayfish Burrows(C8) — Drift Deposits(B3) — Thin Muck Surface(C7) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(Cg) — Algal Mat or Crust(134) — Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(Dl) — Iron Deposits(135) Geomorphic Position(D2) — Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Shallow Aquitard(03) — Water-Stained Leaves(Bg) Microtopographic Relief(D4) — Aquatic Fauna(1313) FAG-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes— No vO' Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth(inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes— No vOr Depth(inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes— No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WJ5 up Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30X30 %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Liquidambar styraciflua 10 Y FAC That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3• Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 60% (A1B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1= 0 SaplinglShrub Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 1010 Total Cover FACW species x2= 0 1'.Liquidambar styraciflua 15 Y FAC FAC species x3= 0 2..Ilex opaca 10 Y FACU FACU species x4= 0 3. UPIL species x5= 0 4. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =BIA= 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators- 7. 8. 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. 3-Prevalence Index is 53.01 4-Morphological Adaptations'{Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 25% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1. Arundinaria gigantea 5 Y FACW Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. Ilex opaca 5 Y FACU Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. - be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4• Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata* 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 it(I m)tall. Herb-Ail herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 10% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:_30x30 height. 1 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes 1?' No 0% =Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WJS up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators,) Depth —_ Matrix Redox Features (inches) —Color(moist) to Color(moist) % Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 3/3 80 10YR 516 20 C M LS 4-20 10 YR 518 100 — LS gravel present 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining.M=Matflx. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) _„ Polyvalue Below Surface(SB)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(At 6) — Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(Fig) — Stratified Layers(A5) _„ Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) _„ Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(Fig)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes— No ✓ Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2,0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 11119/2014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State:NC — Sampling Point:WJ5 wet Investigator(s): ESI(L Roper) Section,Township,Range: none — Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.):.Drainage Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave — _ Slope(°t°):5-10% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34.96346 Long: -79.84889 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Ailey gravelly loamy sand,15-25%slopes NWI classiticationi PSS Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes V" No— (if no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology_naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes v/ No Is the Sampled Area Hydrfc Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes f No Welland Hydrology Present? Yes v" No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(mirflmurn of one is required:check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks(136) Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(1314) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) V High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ✓ Drainage Patterns(1310) ✓ Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhfzospheres on Living Roots(C3) Moss Trim Lines(1316) — Water Marks(131) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) — Sediment Deposits(132) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Crayfish Burrows(C8) — Drift Deposits(133) — Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) — Algal Mat or Crust(134) — Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) — Iron Deposits(135) Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Water-Stained Leaves(139) Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(1313) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes— No v( Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes � No Depth(inches): 1 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No— Depth(inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2,0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WJ5 wet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3OX30 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: 1. %Cover -Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 3 That Are OBL,FACK or FAC: 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5, That Are OBIL,FACK or FAC: - 75% (A1B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of, - Multiply by: 0% Total Cover OBIL species x 1 0 Sar)linql$hrub Stratum (Plot size: 3OX30 0 FACW species x2= 1. Acer rubrum 15 Y FAC FAC species x3= 0 2,.Liquidambar styraciflua 15 Y FAC FACU species x4= 0 3, UPIL species x5= 0 4• Column Totals. (A) 0 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =BIA= 0 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 8, 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. 3-Prevalence Index is:53,01 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30X30 30% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1,-Rubus argutus 10 Y FACU Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. Woodwardia areolata 5 Y OBIL 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 4. - be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata; 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. SaplinglShrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9, than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(I m)tall. 10. 11, Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 12, of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 15% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30X30 height. 1 2, 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5• Vegetation 6. Present? Yes ✓ No 0% =Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WJ5 wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moiso % Color(moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 0-2 10YR 2/2 100 L 2-6 2.5YR 4/1 100 LS 6-20 1 OYR 5/1 100 LS 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains, 2 Location. PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix, Hydric Soil Indicators- Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(SO)(MLRA 147,148) — Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(1719) — Stratified Layers(A5) — Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) — Depleted Dark Surface(177) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(1712)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbric Surface(1713)(MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Redox(S5) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, Stripped Matrix(86) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydrlc Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 1111912014 ApplicanYOwner: NCDOT - State:NC Sampling Point:WK8 up Investigator(s): PSI(L Roper} Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Drainage Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):2-4% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34.97577 Long: -79.83185 Datum-.WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:_Masada sandy loam,15-25%slopes NWI classification: NA Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology—significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes Y*' No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology_naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks-) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transeGtS, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Vf Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No vf within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes No—Z— Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required} Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that am.1y) Surface Soil Cracks(136) Surface Water(At) — True Aquatic Plants(B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(CI) Drainage Patterns(1310) Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhfzospheres on Living Roots(C3) Moss Trim Lines(1316) Water Marks(131) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(132) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Crayfish Burrows(C8) Drift Deposits(133) — Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Algal Mat or Crust(134) — Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Iron Deposits(135) Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Water-Stained Leaves(139) Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(1313) FAC­Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes— N o Y*' Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes— N o Y*' Depth(Inches),. >20 Saturation Present? Yes— No ✓ Depth(inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_ No (includes capillary fringe) I Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WK8 up Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30x3O Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: %Cover _Svecies? Status Number of Dominant Species • That Are OBL,FACK or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACK or FAC: 25% (A/B) 6. 7, Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 0% =Total Cover OBL species 0 X 1= 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3000 FACWspecles 0 x2= 0 1'.Ilex opaca 15 Y FACU FAC species 30 x3= 90 Z FACU species 55 x4= 220 3. UPL species 0 X5= 0 4. Column Totals: 85 (A) 310 (B) 5. Prevalence Index =BIA 3.6 6. 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 8. 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. 3-Prevalence Index is:53.01 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3000 15% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1 Rubus argutus 15 Y FACU Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. Eupatorium 25 Y FACU 3. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic, 4' Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(11 m)tall. 10. 11. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 40% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3000 height. 1. Lonicera japonica 30 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 6. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes No 30% =Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WK8 up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Texture Remarks 0-20 2,5YR 316 100 C 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Hisfic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Solis(F19) — Stratified Layers (A5) — Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophyfic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes— No V1 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County: Richmond 11/1912014 Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling point:VVK8 wet Investigator(s): BSI(L Roper) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hfilsiope,terrace.etc.): Drainage — Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):5-10% Subregion(LRR or M LRA): LRR P Lat: 34.97595 Long: -79.83185 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:-Masada sandy loam,15-25%slopes NWI classification: PFO Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (if no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ✓ Soil—,or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes— No Are Vegetation­Soil­or Hydrology_naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes v/ No within a Wetland? Yes—V/ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes f No Remarks: Special circumstance due to logging HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators* Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required check all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks(136) — Surface Water(Al) True Aquatic Plants(13114) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) V High Water Table(A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(CI) L Drainage Patterns(B10) V. Saturation(A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16) Water Marks(1311) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(132) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) — Crayfish Burrows(C8) Drift Deposits(133) Thin Muck Surface(C7) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(Cg) Algal Mat or Crust(134) Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(01) Iron Deposits(135) Geomorphic Position(02) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) Shallow Aquftard(03) Water-Stained Leaves(Bg) Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(13113) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test(05) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No N( Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No— Depth(inches): 8 Saturation Present? Yes f No Depth(inches): 6 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 VEGETATION(Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WK8 wet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30x3O Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1, Acer rubrum 10 Y FAC That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC- 2 (A) 2. - Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 50% (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: Total%Cover of- Multiply by: 10% =Total Cover OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 FACW species 0 x2= 0 1'.Ilex opaca 15 Y FACU FAC species 20 x3= 60 2. FACU species 40 x4= 160 3. UPL species 0 X5= 0 4. Column Totals: 60 (A) 220 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =BIA= 3.7 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 8. 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. 3-Prevalence Index is S3.01 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 15% Total Cover - data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1 Rubus argutus 25 Y FACU - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. 'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(I m)tall. 10. Herb--Ail herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 11. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 25% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 it in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 height. 1 Vitis rotunidifolia 10 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. Present? Yes No V( 10% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Special circumstance due to logging US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WK8wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) 0% Color(moist) % T=!._ I or2 Texture Remarks 0-3 7.5YR 314 80 7.5YR 311 20 D M LC 3-20 10YR 3/1 90 2.5YR 416 10 C M C 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(Sg)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147, 148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(Flg) — Stratified Layers(A5) — Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136, 147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses(1712)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(Flg)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic, Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes—I/ No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: 8-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 11/1912014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point:WL14 up Investigator(s): ESI(L Roper) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Drainage Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):2-4% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34.98458 Long: -79.80626 Datum: WGS 84 Sol[Map Unit Name-. Candor and Wakulla soils,8-15%slopes NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year.? Yes ✓ No (if no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation­Soil ­or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes V No Are Vegetation­Soil­or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transacts, important features,etc. Hyd rophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply) ^ Surface Soil Cracks(136) — Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(1314) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) — High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) — Drainage Patterns(1310) — Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Moss Trim Lines(1316) — Water Marks(131) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) — Sediment Deposits(132) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Solis(C6) — Crayfish Burrows(C8) — Drift Deposits(133) — Thin Muck Surface(C7) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) — Algal Mat or Crust(134) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Stunted or Stressed Plants(DI) — Iron Deposits(135) — Geomorphic Position(D2) — Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) — Shallow Aquitard(D3) — Water-Stained Leaves(139) — Mfcrotopographic Relief(D4) — Aquatic Fauna(1313) — FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes— No Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes— No Depth(inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes- No ✓ Depth(inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes— No ✓ (includes ca ills fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WL14 up Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30x34 %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Liquidambarstyraciflua 10 Y FAC 5 (A) That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2.-Liriodendron tulipifera 20 Y FACU Total Number of Dominant 3. - Species Across All Strata* 9 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5• That Are OBIL,FACW,or FAC: 55.56% (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of. Multiply by: OBIL species x I= 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30x34 30% Total Cover FACW species x2= 0 1. Liquidambar styracifflua 5 Y FAC FAC species x 3= 0 2.-Liflodendron tullplfera 10 Y FACU FACU species x4= 0 3. Ulmus rubra 5 Y FAC UPIL species x 5= 0 4. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index =B/A= Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators. I-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2-Dominance Test is>50% 9. 3-Prevalence Index is<3.4' 10. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30x3O 20% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1. Rebus argutus 15 Y FACU Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2.-Eupatorium capillifollum 25 Y FACU 3. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must - be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(I m)tall. 10. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 111. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 40% =Total Cover Woody vine-At woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30x34 height. Lonicera japonica 15 Y FAC 2, Smilax rotundifolia 10 Y FAC 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes ✓ No 25% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WL14 up Profile Description. (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix - Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Tvi3e Co—cr– Texture Remarks 0-4 7.5YR 314 100 LS 4-15 2.5YR 416 80 10YR 411 20 D M LS 15-20 7.5YR 312 85 2.5YR 418 15 C M LS 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators- Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sells': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A18) — Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(172) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) — Stratified Layers(A5) — Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(176) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) — Depleted Dark Surface(177) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF1 2) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(178) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(SI)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(1712)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _, Umbric Surface(1713)(MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed)* Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes— No V11 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont R��u1 Richmond 11��on � Pn�r�v��� cu�co"nh, �vmvnncmv� �����__ w�OOT NC NK14w� App|��nK��nec ��oa� �mmp||nQPmini�_________ investigator(s): Eo Section,Township,Range: none Lamummn(m|kdope.terrace,om): Drainage Local relief(conoovo convex,none): mm»ovo slope(%):5-10% Subregion(LwRmmIUR/): LRwp Lat: 34,98468 Long: -7980638 oamnrWGS 84____ Soil Map Unit Name: Candor and Wakulla soils,8-15%slopes NVNclassificatimn: PFn Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time o,year? Yes_ wo____ (if no,explain|nnemamm.) Are vogetaUon_____ Soil _____.or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? vmn °/ wu____ Are Vegetation___~Sol)____ or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers|nRemadm,) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators- Seconda[y Indicators(minimum of two required) Prima[y Indicators(minimum of one is reguired:check all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks(136) — Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(1314) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) — High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) Drainage Patterns(1310) Saturation(A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Moss Trim Lines(1316) Water Marks(131) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(132) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Crayfish Burrows(C8) Drift Deposits(133) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial imagery(C9) Algal Mat or Crust(134) Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(Dl) Iron Deposits(135) Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) Shallow Aquitard(D3) V. Water-Stained Leaves(139) Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(1313) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes— No v( Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes No Depth(inches): -20 Saturation Present? Yes— No Depth(inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WL14 wet Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30X30 %Cover Snecies? Status Number of Dominant Species Uriodendron tulipifera 20 Y FACU That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 4 (A) 2, Liquidambar styraciflua 15 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 3. - Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 80% (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of Multioly by: 35% Total Cover OBL species X 1= 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 FACW species - x2= 0 1 FAC species x3= 0 2. FACU species x4= 0 3. UPL species x 5= 0 4. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 5. Prevalence Index =B/A= 0 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: I-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2-Dominance Test is>50% 9. 3-Prevalence Index is X3.0' 10. 4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 0% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1 Woodwardla areolata 15 Y OBL Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. - 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 10. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 11. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 15% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 it in Woody.,Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 height, 1, Smilax rotundifolia 15 Y FAC 2. Lonicera japonica 15 Y FAC 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6, Present? Yes ✓ No 30% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WL14 wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features — -7-- (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type loc Texture Remarks 0-3 7.5YR 312 100 S 3-20 1 OYR 311 100 S 'Type: C=Concentrafion,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(At) Dark Surface(S7) 2 cm Muck(A110)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(1719) — Stratified Layers(A5) Depleted Matrix(173) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(176) Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(F8) Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbric Surface(IF13)(MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-342 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 11/19V2014 Applicant/Owner: wcoOT State:NC Sampling Point:WM3 up___ Investigator(s): ESI Section,Township,Range: none Lmmdfonn(hi||dope terrace,mml: Drainage Local relief(conuu,v.convex,nnne): concave Slope(%):%-4% Subregion(LRRwMLFw): mnnr Lat: 34.96470 Long: -79.80600 Datum: VvGSn^ Soil Map Unit Name: Candor and wmxuna soils,8-15%slo Nm4c|ammhcation� m« Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yam °/ wo (If no,explain mRemanm.) Are Vegetation____ Sui| or Hydrology____significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes v' wm_____ Are Vegetation_____ Soil .or Hydrology____naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers inRemadm.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects' important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No_ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No 1( Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators. Seconda[y Indicators(minimum of two reguired) Prima[y Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks(136) — Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(1314) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) — High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) — Drainage Patterns(1310) — Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) — Moss Trim Lines(1316) — Water Marks(131) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) — Sediment Deposits(132) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Crayfish Burrows(C8) — Drift Deposits(133) — Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(Cg) — Algal Mat or Crust(134) — Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(DI) — Iron Deposits(135) Geomorphic Position(D2) — Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Water-Stained Leaves (139) Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(1313) FAC-Neutral Test(05) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes— No Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes No Depth(inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes— No Depth(inches): >20 Welland Hydrology Present? Yes— No 1( (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps ufEngineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.V VEGETATION (Four Strata)—Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WM3 up Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1,-Liquidambar styraciflua 15 Y FAC That Are OBI_,FACK or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Lidodendron tulipifera 15 Y FACU — Total Number of Dominant 3• Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5• That Are OBIL,FACK or FAC: 66.67% (A/B) 6, 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 30% Total Cover OBL species x 1 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 FACW species x 2= 0 1 FAC species x 3= 0 2. FACU species x 4= 0 3, UPIL species x 5= 0 4. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =BIA= 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8. 2-Dominance Test is>50% 9. 3-Prevalence Index is 53.01 10. 4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30x3O 0% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 2, 3. 'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4• Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5, 6. Tree—Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in,(7,6 cm)or more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of 7. height, Sapling/Shrub—Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in,DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 10. 11. Herb—All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 0% =Total Cover Woody vine—All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 height, 1 Smilax rotundifolia 15 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5, Vegetation 6. Present? Yes ✓ No 15% =Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet,) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2,0 SOIL Sampling Point. WM3 up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Tv`o_e [o`c'_ Texture Remarks 0-3 7.5YR 3/2 100 SL 3-8 7.5YR 4/4 100 LS 8-20 10YR 413 100 S ljype-. C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Solis(F19) — Stratified Layers(A5) — Depleted Matrix(173) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(176) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(All 2) — Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbric Surface(1713)(MLRA 136,122) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed)* Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes— No V Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 1111912014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point:WM3 wet Investigator(s): ES](L Roper) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Drainage Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%)-.5-10% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Let: 34.98472 Long: -79.80600 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Candor and Wakulla soils,8-15%slopes NWI classification: PFO Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (if no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation­Soil or Hydrology_naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Sol]Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Welland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two nequired) Primary Indicators{minimum of one is required:check all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks(136) — Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(13114) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) — High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ✓ Drainage Patterns(1310) — Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Moss Trim Lines(1316) — Water Marks(131) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) — Sediment Deposits(132) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Crayfish Burrows(C8) — Drift Deposits(133) — Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(Cg) — Algal Mat or Crust(134) — Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) — Iron Deposits(B5) Geomorphic Position(D2) — Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) Shallow Aquitard(D3) ✓ Water-Stained Leaves(139) Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(B13) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes No f Depth(inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes No f Depth(inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes f No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks-, US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)—Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WM3 wet Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet-. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 %Cover Snecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Acer rubrum 15 Y FAC That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC, 3 (A) 2.-Ilex opaca 10 Y FACU Total Number of Dominant 3• — Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 75% (A/B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 25% =Total Cover OBL species x 1 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3000 FACW species x 2= 0 1 FAC species x3= 0 2. FACU species x4= 0 3• UP L species x5= 0 4. Column Totals; (A) 0 (B) 5. Prevalence Index =B/A= 0 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7. 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2-Dominance Test is>50% 9. 3-Prevalence Index is<3,0' 10. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 0% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. 'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3, be present,unless disturbed or problematic, 4• Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata; 5, Tree—Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in,(7.6 cm)or 6, more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub—Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in.DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 10. Herb—Ali herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 11. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall. 12. 0% =Total Cover Woody vine—All woody vines greater than 3,28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 height. 1. Smilax rotundifolla 15 Y FAC 2, Lonicera japonica 15 Y FAC 3. a. Hydrophytic 5• Vegetation 6. Present? Yes ✓ No 30% =Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point'. WM3 wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type _L�oc Texture Remarks 0-20 10YR 311 100 LS 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) ✓ Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) — Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) — Stratified Layers(A5) — Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(F8) Other(Explain in Remarks) — Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) — Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbric Surface(IF13)(MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and — Sandy Redox(S5) — Piedmont Floodplafn Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, — Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic, Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No — Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: R-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 11/19/2014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point:WN 30 up Investigator(s): ESI(L Roper) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Drainage Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):2-4% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 34.99027 Long: -79.79161 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:­Candor and Wakulla soils,8-15%slopes NWI classification.. NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No— (if no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes V No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology_naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes— No t within a Wetland? Yes No V/ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No V Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators. Seconda[y Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks(136) — Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(1314) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) — High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) Drainage Patterns(1310) — Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Moss Trim Lines(B16) — Water Marks(1311) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) — Sediment Deposits(62) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Crayfish Burrows(C8) — Drift Deposits(133) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(Cg) — Algal Mat or Crust(134) Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Iron Deposits(136) Geomorphic Position(02) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Water-Stained Leaves(139) Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(1313) FAC-Neutral Test(D6) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes— No ✓ Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes— No Depth(inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes— No Depth(inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)—Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WN30 up Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3000 %Cover Si)ecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Quercus alba 15 Y FACU That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2.-Lirlodendron tulipifera 5 Y FACU Total Number of Dominant 3. — Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4, Percent of Dominant Species 5• That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 33.33% (A/B} 6, 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 20% =Total Cover OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3000 FACW species 20 x 2= 40 1.-Ilex opaca 10 Y FACU FAC species 15 x 3= 45 2. Quercus alba 10 Y FACU FACU species 30 x4= 120 3. UPL species 0 X5= 0 4. Column Totals: 65 (A) 205 (B) 5. Prevalence Index =B/A= 3.2 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: I-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2-Dominance Test is>50% 9. 3-Prevalence Index is<3.0' 10. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 201/o Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1.-Arundinaria gigantea 20 Y FACW Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2. — 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitlons of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. Tree—Woody plants,excluding Vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of 7, height, B. — Sapling/Shrub—Woody plants,excluding vines,less S. than 3 in,DBH and greater than 3,28 ft(1 m)tall, 10, Herb—All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 11. of size,and woody plants less than 3,28 ft tall, 12. 20% =Total Cover Woody vine—All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3000 height. 1 Smilax rotundifolia 5 Y FAC 2. 3. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6, Present? Yes No 5% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WN30 up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Tyve' Lac Remarks 0-5 10YR 411 100 S 5-20 1 OYR 311 100 S 'Type:..C=Concentrat(on,D=Deplet(on,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': — Histosol(Al) — Dark Surface(W) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) — Histic Epipedon(A2) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) — Coast Prairie Redox(A16) — Black Histic(A3) ^ Thin Dark Surface(Sg)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) — Stratified Layers(A5) Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) Redox Dark Surface(176) — Red Parent Material(TF2) — Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF1 2) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral(SI)(LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 'Indicators of hyd rophytic vegetation and Sandy Redox(S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes_ No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: 8-3421 City/County: Richmond Sampling Date: 11/19/2014 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State:NC Sampling Point,.WN30 wet Investigator(s): BSI(L Roper) Section,Township,Range: none Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Drainage — Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%):5-10% Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.. 34.99041 Long: -7919136 Datum:WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Candor and Wakulla soils,8-15%slopes NWI classification: PFO Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No_ (if no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology—naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transacts, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks(136) Surface Water(Al) — True Aquatic Plants(B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) Drainage Patterns(13110) ✓ Saturation(A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) Moss Trim Lines(1316) Water Marks(131) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(132) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Crayfish Burrows(C8) Drift Deposits(133) — Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Algal Mat or Crust(134) — Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Iron Deposits(135) Geomorphic Position(D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Water-Stained Leaves(139) Microtopographic Relief(D4) Aquatic Fauna(1313) V FAC-Neutral Test(135) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth(inches): NA Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No_ Depth(inches): 3 Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No Depth(inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WN30 wet Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1,-Ilex opaca 15 Y FACU That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 5 (A) 2. Pinus taeda 10 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 3. - Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 83.33% (AJB) 6. 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 8. Total%Cover of Multiply by: 25% Total Cover OBL species x 1= 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 FACW species x 2= 0 1.-Vaccinlum corymbosurn 10 Y FACW FAC species x3= 0 2,-Magnolia virginiana 10 Y FACW FACU species x4= 0 3. UPL species x5= 0 4. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index =B/A= 0 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 8. 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 9. Y" 2-Dominance Test is>50% 10. - 3-Prevalence Index is:53.01 - 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 20% Total Cover data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1. Arundinarla gigantea 20 Y FACW - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 2.-Vaccinium corymbosum 10 Y FACW 'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. Magnolia virginiana 5 N FACW be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)or 7. more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 8. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 9. than 3 in,DBH and greater than 3.28 ft(I m)tall. 10. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 11. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 12. 35% =Total Cover Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 height. 1. 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes ✓ No 0% =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0 � SOIL Sampling Point*. 30 wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth --- Matrix --- Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Texture Remarks 0-12 1 OYR 211 100 LS 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiW: Histosol(Al) Dark Surface(S7) — 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147) Histic Epipedon(A2) Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(M LRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16) Black Histic(A3) Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Piedmont Floodplain Solis(F19) Stratified Layers(A5) Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147) 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(F6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) — Very Shallow Dark Surface(TIF1 2) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Depressions(F8) — Other(Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral(SI)(LRR N, — Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, MILRA 147,148) MILRA 136) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 31ndicators of hydrophyfic vegetation and Sandy Redox(S5) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) welland hydrology must be present, Stripped Matrix(S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes Y No CNA past 12",too compacted US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont–Version 2.0 NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Fe;;o,Jre_ S A Date, I I ho hy Project/Site: R_ 3 Lid-I Latitude:39,W� Evaluator: I HArbovr County: R,•e_ 010&Aj Longitude-.--7 9 6C?11 Total Points: Stream Determination (circle one) Other Stream is at least intermittent nial if>30* D. 75 E erennial e.g. me: if a 19 orperen c phemeral Quad Na A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = C? Absent Weak Mod-erate Strong 1'Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 C,2 ) _ 3 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 4M 2 3 3. In-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 1 3 ripp le-pool sequence Uj 4.Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 62) 3 5.Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits LOD 1 2 3 8. Headcuts 0 ela 2 3 9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5 10.Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5 11.Second or greater order channel _=0 Yes=3 a artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 -1 ? 72 3 14.Leaf litter 1.5 1 0-5 0 15.Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 0.5 1 1.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles 0 1 0.5 in 1.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 Yes-,3__) C. Bioloav Subtotal= 14- 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 20. Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) -0 p 1 2 3 21.Aquatic Mollusks CT-) 1 2 3 22.Fish (JU 0.5 1 1.5 23.Crayfish U)� 0.5 1 1.5 24.Amphibians tl 0.5 1 1.5 25.Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5 26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW 41,0 J§ 131_= 1.5 Other=0 �perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual. Notes: Sketch: Fa 14re- SA USACE All) DW(I-)= Site= (Indicale onallached map) m STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT NVORKSHEET Pro)ide the follo)N ing information for the stream reach under assessynetil: l.Applicant's name: WE�)0-7 2. 1ENaluator'sname: J,� IoAofr 3J),ueofcNnluniion: 11 bbl IL-1 4. Time of ex aluaflow Am 5.Nzm­tcofslream:-1,AT lo­oee-bead O-Rherbasin: LC't'JdA Pee Dec. Appminiatedrainaje area: S O 04- S. Sit- l In ol der: Q.Lenunh of reach e\aluated: �0 11, Site coordinates(if kno\\n): prefer in decimal degree.-. NA I cjrijjjkie(e\.34 87'1312): V-� .19T�9 1.oneinide(ev-77.54;(,(,111: 1, 'S Cr(a 7 Njelhod location determined(circle): (11"i opo Sheet )rtho(.Aerial) holo Cils 01her G I " 011ICT l3. Location of reach(order evaluation tilote neat• v roads anE am marks and attach illy;l identif7'in�stl'eanl(s)locations: ND.( TnI 1-5. Recem weather conditions: C 16. Site conditions at time of 17. IdentifA, any special waterway-classifications knc,N\n: 'Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat -s -ient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed 0-IV) Trout. Walers 01,11[slandim, ResourceWaiet Null 18. Is there abond or lake located a;�su'eam of the e\aluation;joint? 1'E NO 1f�es.estimate the water surface area: NO 20.Does channel appear oil USDA Soil SurN e-\•`' )'ES NO 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad mapG� 2L Estimated \\atershed land use: °o Residential °o Commercial Do Industrial DoA-riCl.11lural �D Do Forested a0lb Cleared , Logged —%Other( 21 Bankfull width: 3 R 23, Bank height(from bed to top of bank): R% 24. Channel slope down center of Stream: Flat(Oto200) V/Gentle(204"D) --Nloderale(4 to 101,o) _Steep(>10°.0} 25. Channel sinuosity: SII-ai!2lIt /Occasional bends Frequent meander ver\ sinuous Braided channel 1w,"ki-iiet-golis 'IUi- of vlorkshee, (10cated Oil pt-tge 21., Bqin bN detcrinimilu, lflC m(x.,1 appropriaie ecoregion based oil location. terrain-N e-etalioll, stream classification, etc. EN,ej-\ characteristic Must be scored using the same ecore2ion. Assign points to each characteristic xNilhin the range shows for the ecoregion. Page 3 proNides a brief description of how to reNiew the eharacieristics identified ill the N\orks)iieet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the Stream reach under eNalualion. If characteristic cannot be e\aluaied due to Site or weather conditions. enter 0 in the scoring box and proNide an e\planation in the comment Seel ion. Where there are ob\ious change<., in the character of a Stream under reNiew(e.g.. the Stream flows from a p.1,tUre into a forest), the Stream nim, be divided into smaller reaches that di-splay more conti nu Jty-and a separate forin used to e\a luate each reach. The total sco•e assigned to a Stream reach must ranae bemeen 0 and 100. Mih a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quafir\. Total Score (front revei*sc).,— Collilliclits: Evalumor's Signature - 1 4��— Date This channel evalua lot f r i is intended to he used onIN as a guide to assist landowners ant em froulliental professionals in IL -athc-rhi2 ill(. data -ouired b)N the United States Army Corps of Eilgineers to make a Prelimilial.\ assessillent of Stream quality* The total score resulting. from the completion of this fol•111 is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio orrequirement. Forrin subject.ti,J­tan---e-\er-Lion 00 1`13. 1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT NVORKSHEET r C3A RA CTERIST'ICS i ; ; CORGI+C? t�Gl?i1 'LGE soR e �;a . r to tal Ptedtnont 1!l{iu amp ' Presence of now 1 persistent pools!it stream 0-5 0_4 0-5 ^t (no flow or saturation=o:strong flow=max points) r Evidence of past human alteration 9 2 0-6 0-5 0-5 1 (extensive alteration=o;no alteration=max points) g Riparian zone t 3 0-6 0-4 0-5 i (no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points) Evidence of nu t ricut or chemical discharges 0—5 0--4 0--4 4 s: (extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max points) 5 Groundwater disebarge 0-3 0-4 0-4 (no dischar e=0;s ri�tgs,seeps.wetlands,etc.=max points) �. 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain o—4 0-4 0-2 (no floodplain=0;extensive flbodplain=max points) Entrenchment!floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 ^� (deeply entrenched=0• frequent flooding=max points) cap. $ Presence of adjacent��etlands 0-6 0—4 0-2 (no wetlands=0;large adiacent wetlands=max points) 9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 ` (extensive ebannelization=0;natural meander= max Dints} Sediment input. .`: 10 0-5 0-4 0-4 (extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=max points)_ Size&diversity of channel bed substrate NA* ! 0-4 0--5 (fine homogenous=o; Iat e,diverse sizes=m ax points) l2 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0—4 0-5 (deepI incised=0;stable bed&banks=max points) Presence of major bank failures I, 0-5 0-5 0-5 (severe erasion=0;no erosion,stable banks=max points) 14 Boot depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 (no visible roots=0;dense roots tluouaout=tnax points) 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 (substantial impact=0;no evidence=max points) 16 Presence of riffle-poollripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 (no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed=inax points) 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 l (little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats=max points) t 1$ Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 (no shading vegetation=0;continuous canopy=max points) ~. 19 Substrate embeddedness NAB o—4 0—4 (deeply embedded=0;loose structure=max) �0 Presence of stream ins ertebrates(see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 (no evidence=0;common,numerous °pes=max points) Presence of amphibians �. 2l 0-4 0-4 0-4 f✓ fl, (no evidence=0;conunon,numerous apes=max paints} az Presence of fish Cv' 22 0-4 0-4 0-4 (no evidence=0;common,numerous ,pes=max points) Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 ? r 3 (no evidence=0;abundant evidence=tnax paints) Toints Pnssib[e Io0 100 100 ts!Po TOT SCt)RE (also enter on first Iaage} These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 F,,,a_J-V V,.4 'S 8 Date: Project/Site Latitude: Sqqq7g liq '. R 9 Evaluato r: County: Longitude:--7q. WSW) %\4f�wr Total Points: Stream Deter LnIcircle one or erennial ff 2:30 a Z) , Other Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g.Quad Name.- I p * Z�) I I I I Absent Weak Moderate Strong A. Geomorpholo Subtotal =gy ( 10-Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 3.In-channel structure:ex. riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 1 -q"\ 3 ripple-pool se quence Qtj 4.Particle size of stream substrate 0 613) 2 3 5.Activelfrelict floodplain (10-) 1 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 8. Headcuts 4 1 2 3 9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5 10.Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5 11.Second or greater order channel No 0 Yes=3 a artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal 12.Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 13.Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 C_3 14.Leaf litter 1.5 K-l-) 0.5 0 15.Sediment on plants or debris 0 MO5 1 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=O Yes=1_19� C. Biology (Subtotal= 9� 18.Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 Q.) 0 19.Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 C2 1 0 20.Macrobent hos(note diversity and abundance) 0 0_1 2 3 21.Aquatic Mollusks U-) 1 2 3 22. Fish 0.5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 24.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 25.Algae 0 1 1.5 26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0.75; OBL= 1.5 Other *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual. Notes: Sketch: A-eaTt4re_ :SB USAC E -\ID= DWo= 5iie= tindicate on attached niall) I STREAM QUALITY A S- SESSAI ENT WORKSHEET Prop ide the folIONN ing information for•the stream reach under assessment: I.applicant's name: m-00T 2. EN aluator's name: 0 LA 3. Diile oi'eNaluation: to//,-1 4. 1,ime of eN alualion: AM 1. Approximate drainage area: 7 S 3. sil-earil ol,der.. 0 9. Len-oth of reach eN aluated: 10. Count y.—R I L�VvICV4 11, Site coordinate,-,(if lmoNN n): prefer in decinuil depprees. 12. Subdivision name lifaiiv)-- MA I atinide ie\,34 872312): 1 on 2ii tide tea.-77,;;661] A0(Aerial P11010 61� Cipher 6 Ohel' Mohod location delermiried(circle): OPS l po 1�11ee) ( � 13. Location of reach under evaluation mote�,�IeairN reads and landmark's and attach map idernifNim, stream(s)location): o -7 Lf 11 Y\.mA !jA4_ 1i eo_ 844� I J 14. Proposed channel Nx orl, (if any): I U 13. Recent weather conditions: C k&LA 16.Site corlditionsai time of\isit:_kk v\A,,<,A-m,-W_ 17. IdentifY any special waterway classifications I%nowl: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat Trout Waters Outstandim, Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (MV) 18. Is there. apond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES(2)If\es.estimate the water surface area-. 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NIO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Su ey? NO pp n 0) 21. Estimated xNatersbed land use: Oo Residential 00 Commercial Oo Industrial Oo Agricultural q 0 11 o Forested 49 %Cleared , Lo,22ed °0 Other 21 Binkfull width: c 21 Bank height{from bed to top of bank): 24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat(0 to 21o) �enlle (2 to 41o) _-Yoderaie(4 to 10°o) _sleep(.,-100.o) 25. Channel sinuosil:\: Straialit occasional bends —Frequent meander Vel-v Sinuous Braided channel Y,orksheet (lontvtd on page 2): Be�irj b,\, dctermillillu, tile must appropriate ecoret-port based on location. terrain. N-eeetalion. stream classification. etc. Bel-\ characteristic must be scored using the same ecore6om Assifull points to each characteristic «iiliin the range shows for the ecoreeiom Pq:ge 3 pro\ides a brief description of bow to renew the characteristics identified in the \\orksheet. Scores should rtfle-d an o,,erall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. if characteristic cannot be eNaluaied due to site or weather conditions. enter 0 in the scorine box and provide all explanation in the cOrnilleill sc-Cliom Where there are obvious chain es in the character of a stream under re\iexy the stream fi-orri 3 pasture into a foresi), the stream mad be divided into smaller re-aches that display more continuity. and a separate f6mi used to e%aluate each reach. The weal score assianed to a stream reach must, ringe bete een 0 and 100, \N iih a score of 100 representirig i stream of the hi!-iliesi quality. Total Store (from reverse): Comments: Evaluator's Sialln lu"e IdAa� Date ded to be used onIN as a guide to assist landownet-s and c-mirou'mental Iwofessionals ill This channel evaluatio i n i intell si c) 0 Cratherincr the data rc4qq 'red b-\ ill(- United States Army Corps of Engineers to male a pi-eliminar, assessinem of stream L quality. Tile total score resulting fi-olli the Completion of this for•ill is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio orrequirement. Form Slit-]eel to cnall,,!e-\ers kin()o CG, To Cc,jnmem. pinse call \26. STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET CHARACTRISTICSa - EC4T: GI+ li +OZI`�'? GEC} E F „ 4" r Coal P�edmon� , I4'fottntai 1 Presence of flow!persistent pools in stream 0-5 0_4 0-5 n7 L (no flow or saturation=0;strong flow= ax points) 1 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 (extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points) Riparian zone ' (no buffer=0;contiguous.wide buffer=max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5 { E vidence of nutrient or chem ical discharges ( y 0-5 0 -4 0-4 {extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max points) l 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 (no discharge=0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points) 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 (no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max.points) ,! Entrenchment!f€oodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 (deeply entrenched=0;frequent flooding=max points) Presence of adjacent wetlands 0_6 0-4 0-2 p (no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands=max points) Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 , {extensive ebannelization=0;natural meander=max poi nts) I0 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 (extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=max points) c l l Size&diversity of channel bed substrate NAB 0-4 0-5 (fine,homogenous=0;large,diverse sizes=max points) Evidence of channel incision or Nvidening 12 0-5 0- 0-5 , . incised=0;stable bed&banks=max points) l3 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 (severe erosion=0;no erosion;stable banks=max points 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 (no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout=max points) I5 Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 (substantial impact=0;no evidence=max points) l6 Presence of riffle-pool(ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 (no riffleslripples or pools=0;\e°elI-developed=max points) d, Habitat complexity 17 0-6 0-6 0-6 " (little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats=max points) I Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 (no shading,vegetation=0;continuous canopy=rnax points) l9 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 (deeply embedded=0;loose structure=max) 20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 (no evidence=0;common,numerous qpes=max points) " Presence of amphibians 2l (no evidence=0;aatnrnon,numerous apes=max poita#s) 0-4 0-4 0-4 Presence of fish { 22 0-4 0-4 0-4 { (no evidence=0;common,nunleraus °pes=max paints) n �3 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 (no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points) Total Points Posszbie - l00 100 ]00" TOTAL SCC3I�t (also on� first page) � t These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. 2 NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Fralts fa :S b Date: o hlb� ProjectJSite: P_" I-Aa Latitude: 3 t - 9 Evaluator: � c County: ' Longitude: Ll a V 3� �AAOVV- 1 � kh'" Total Points: Stream Determinatina.(circle one) Other 'Intermittent Stream is at least intermittent 5S Ephemeral=niennt7erennial e.g.Quad Name: ff;�19 or perennial if zt 30* . I I I A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1'Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 ( 1 2 3 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 3. In-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 1 / 2 3 ripple-pool sequence 4. Particle size of stream substrate 1 2 3 5.Active/relict floodplain C90 1 2 3 6, Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 8. Headcuts 0 (L-) 2 3 9. Grade control 0 0.5 C1 .5 10.Natural valley 0.5 1 1.5 11.Second or greater order channel No/'no Yes 3 a artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal =�-7 12, Presence of Baseflow 0 1 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 2 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 0.5 0 15.Sediment on plants or debris (2.) 1 0.-_5 1 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles -0 1 �U.) 1 1.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No 0 Ye =jp C. Biology (Subtotal = 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 0 ZEE:] 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 20.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) (,Q) 1 2 3 21.Aquatic Mollusks (90) 1 2 3 22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish r-6) 015 1 1.5 24.Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5 25.Algae Ca 015 1 1.5 26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0,75; OBL= 1,5 Other(2) .perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual. Notes: 1 Sketch: 4e US Jr IL) USACE AIN DWQ 4 Site 4 -5P (indicate uo attached map) STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Pn»vidctbc<o{bondmgiuD»cmoxiou{b,t&osomomoucUnodor�sesmoum =°�r K. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name: 3. Date ofevaluation: 11111A 1L Time ufevaluation: 5.Name o[stream: 6. River basin: 7. Approximate drainugc area: /n 8. Stream order: 9. Length o[reach evuuatcd: /00, 10. County: I I. Site coordinates(if knono): p,ferixdocimu|dn-g-rccs. K2. Subdivision name(if uny) Latitude(*~;;X723|z): Method location dmem`ioed(circ|e): OPS LIia��12 Other 0S OU`u 13. Location of reach undcr evaluation(note nearby roads and7landinarks and attach inap identifying stmum(a)|uou(iun):________ 14. Proposed channel work(iyony) 7 l5. Recent weather conditions: 16. Site conditions Ndmcofviui1: ' {?. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat Trout Waters Outstanding Resource YYmem Nutrient Sensitive 9/o1zrs —Water Supply Watershed___(\-|\/) /�t I8. luzhemopooJur lake|oca�dup�rxamof0iceva|um�oupoint? YCS`��x |[yza`csthnmc the water surface area: ________ 6 19. Does channel appeorun0SGS quad map? YB 2O. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE3��~���� 2/. Estimated watershed land use: Y6Residential y6Commercial %Industhu| %Agriuu|1uru| /OmForested %Cleared/Logged -q(1-1./ Other - / 22. 8onkfu||width: 23. Bank height(from bed m top u[bank 24. Channel slope down center oCotream: F|e$(0tu296) _a,:�cndc(2to4%) _Moderate(4m 1096) ___Stccp (>\0%) 25. Channel sinuosity: ____Straight _Occasional bends L­'-Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel [ny,r*x,iovs for completion of worksheet (located on page 2). Bo-in by determining &e most appropriate zcupcgioo based on |ocadon, terrain,vegetation,stream c|amsiGca1ioo`ctc. Every characteristic must be scored using the omne eoorcgion. Assign points 0o each dhome0crimho within the range shown for the eoomgioo. Page ] provides u brief description of how to review the chamcozri sties identified in the om,kshcct. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the ourum reach under evaluation. If characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter O in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. YVheoc there are obvious changes in the character ofastream Linder review(z.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 mo $oom reach must range between Oaud |OO. with u score oy |O0reprcuemin� o �pcao� of the highest quality. Total Score (from reverse): Comments: Evaluator's Signature Date This channel evaluation D,,m is intended to be used only as n guide to ummimt landowners and environmental professionals in �nrbcdo� {� rbc data required �� d�c 0oltcJ States Army or m /n po ny Engineers make a preliminary assessment of quality. The total score resulting from the cumpKct|nu of this fbrm is subject to 03&CE approval and does not imply o particular mitigation ratio urrequirement. Form subject 0o change-version 0603. To Comment,please call 9!9-876-X44| x26. STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE SCORE # I Coastal Piedmont Mountain I Presence of now/persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 3 (no flow or saturation=0;strong flow=max points) 2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 "- (extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points) 3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points) 4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 (extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max points) 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 no discharge=0;springs,seps,wetlands,etc.=max points) Presence of adjacent flood plain 6 no flood lain=0;extensive flood lain=max points)_ 0-4 0-4 0-2 7 Entrenchment/floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 (deeply entrenched=0;frequent flooding=max points) 8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 0 no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands=max points) 9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 (extensive channel izati on=0;natural meander=max points) 3 to Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 -3 (extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=max points) Size&diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 1 (fine,homogenous=0;large,diverse sizes=max point 12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 1-f >( (deeply incised=0;stable bed& banks=max points) Presence of major bank failures 13 0-5 0-5 0-5 (severe erosion=0;no erosion,stable banks=max points) Root depth and density on banks < 14 0-3 0-4 0-5 (no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout=max points) F* 00 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 (substantial impact=0;no evidence=max points) 16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 tf (no riffleshipples or pools=0;well-developed=max pints 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 14 (little or no habitat=0,frequent,varied habitats=max points) P� 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 (no shading vegetation=0;continuous canopy=max points) 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 (degly embedded=0;loose structure=max) 20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 >( (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points 21 Presence of amphibians _M�x oints) 0-4 0-4 i 0-4 (no evidence=0;common,numerous types= Presence of fish 22 0-4 0-4 0-4 (no evidence=0,common,numerous types=max po nts) 23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 (no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points) Total Points Possible 100 100 100 TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. 2 NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 5F Project/Site: Latitude: -z; Date: Jqldfy � , CJ39(73 Evaluator: L_ �->o EST) County: ;Lk\yy-� Longitude: -77,8�171, Total Points: Stream Determia"'efKtrcle one) Other "�_Ipqhmn Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral lj:!�er ift ' erennial e.g.Quad Name: ifal9orperennlallf2t30- A. Geomorphology (Subtotal ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1",Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 4_0 3 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 3 3. In-channel structure:ex. riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 1 3 ripple-pool sequence 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 0) 2 3 5.Active/relict floodplain 0 (1) 2 3 6.Depositional bars or benches Q) 1 2 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 0 2 3 S. Headcuts (P 1 2 3 9. Grade control 0 @5) 1 1.5 10. Natural valley 0 1 1.5 11.Second or greater order channel 60=2 Yes=3 a artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual B. Hvdroloqy (Subtota[ 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 13.Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 14.Leaf litter 1.5 1 op 0 15.Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles 0 1 1 1.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 :Kes.=3 C. Biology (Subtotal = - 18.Fibrous roots in streambed . Q 2 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0 20. M acrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 1 2 3 21.Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3 22.Fish 0.5 1 1.5 23.Crayfish 62 0.5 1 1.5 24,Amphibians 69 0.5 1 1.5 25.Algae E2 0-5 1 1.5 26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0.75; OBL,=1.5 they;,,� *Perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual. Notes*. Sketch: USACE Al DW0 4 Skc����_ (indicate onuttacbednmp) S7�RD�f�P� ��UALI���/ ��SSD�SSME��7� ����RKS��EEl� ==� 5F Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: l.Applirant`somue 2. Evaluator's name: 3. Uaieo[mvu|uo1i 4.Thueofevaluo1ion 5. Name o[stroun 6. Riverbosin: 7. Approximate drainage area: 0.Stream order: 9. Length oF reach evaluated: lO.Couoty p- {{. Sitcruundinatcs(iftnovnn)� prefer iu decimal degrees. 12. Subdiviaimnnome(i[any) Latitude(cx.a4.x7za2): Longitude(ez.77.556610 —'39 13q t10 NcUmd location determined(cio|u): GIIS Topo Sbou S Dder0|8 Other 13. Location Of TC36 under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying strearn(s)location): 14. Proposed channel,%vork(if ) 15. Recent h dbi 16. Site conditions o{time ofvisit: 17. |donlify any special waterway classifications knoxn : Scc<iun |O Tidal Waters lEosc |FiderNrBabitg Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed {i-iY) 18. b there m pond orlake located upstremmof the evaluation point? YES� l�0 |f�us,a�immteU�cvatcrour[occ , area: l9. Does channel appear oil USGB quad map? YES 2K Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES 2{. Estimated watershed land use: 2-0",o Residential y6Commercial %|ndostrial 96 Agricultural - -570% Forested �2-0xCleaod/Logged %Other ' 22. 8ankfbDwidth 23,Bank height(fi-oo bed to top ufbunk) 24.Channel slope down center ufstream: Flat(Oho2Y ) ZGedle (2kz49 ) Moderate(4tu 10%) ____S1ecp(>|OY6 25.Channel sinuosity: —Straight .,/Occasional bends Frequent meander _Very sinuous Braided channel Instructions for completion of worksheet (located uu page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ncorcgioo based ml |ocadon, terrain, ve8et*ion, stream c\uoaificohmn, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same oco/egion. Assign points to emrh characteristic xi\bio the mnDc shown for the ecooegion. Page 3 provides a brief description of ]low 10 review the characteristics identified in the worksbcet Scores oboa\d rcOcc< an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. )fu characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 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 cmntioui1I, and separate /boo used to evaluate each reach. The total aoo# nssianed to u stream reach mug ranee hc\n/cun 0 and 100. with u score of 100 representing o stream of the biabcstgum)i?y. Total Score (Omxw reverse) Cooumru1o: Evaluator's Signature 11-'Z�A A-1�� Date d only as a auide to assist landowners and �nvirofiinental professionals in ,gathering the data required by the United States Arm),, Corps of Engineers to make -,a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score nsm)zbnQ from the completion of this form is subject to DSACE approval and does not imply u por1iom/ar mitigation ratio orrequirement. Form su[jcuto change-rorc[mo0603. ToCmmncn1. please call Pl4-Q78-844| x28. l STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET {" 11 as0� ..w. 'Y ! �' },r F{ p '�,y"EP €? ' r`K e�3s+t..•QJ�tl3 7371 f @ �4. }>„.�S ��-.�t)vk 8'tll... # r Ai.+1'3:J�1.7-T�li ra Y' r.- f^. 3 # b � � -,x a3"t 2'P', k• y, �°7���.�.�I Presence of flow 1 persistent pools in stream `” " ,;r 1 0-5 0-4 0-5 g" (no flow or saturation=0;strop flow=max points} Evidence of past human alteration 0_ 0-5 0—5 � {extensive alteration 0;no alteration=max Dints} . :# Riparian zone 3 0-6 0-4 ,', 0 5 (no buffer°0,.conti uous,wide buffer=max points) s' Evidence of nutrient or cuemical d scbarges 4 0-5 0 4 0 4 " (extensive daschai'g's 0;no disci ax es=max 'oirits} Ground Ater diseliarge �. 5 0-3 0 4 (no dischar a 0,s ran , seeps,wetlands,etc, . max amts m Pa escnce of adjacent ftoodptain 0-4 .'. 0—4 0—2 (no flood lain=.0;extensive flood lain=max points) K { r Entrenchment/floodplain access " 0-5 0 -4 R�ti (deeply entrenched=0;fre cent floodin inax points) Presence of adjacent wetlands " 0-6 0-4 0-2 (no wetlands=0 lar e adjacent wetlands=max "obits) 9 Channel sinuosity 0-,-5 0-4 0-3 (extensive chaamelizafion=0;natural meander.—max Dints) , .0 Sediment%npuf 0-5 0-4 0-4 x (extensive deposition-7 0•little or no sediment=max oints) �-- ' Size&diversity of channel bet]substrate � II x 0-4 0-5 fine,homo emus 0;'lar e,diverse sizes=max points) ry Evidence of ebannel incision or widen! ng I2 0-5 0-4 0-5 " (dee l incised=0;stable bed&,banks=max points) Presence of major bank failures l 0--5 0-5 0-5 s (severe erosion=0;no erosion,stable banks=max points) Root deptb and density on banks 14 0-3 0-4 0-5 (no visible roots=0;dense roots tlu-oikg hoiit=max points) I S Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 (substantial impact=0;no evidence=max dints) l6 , Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0—3 0—5 'r 0—6 (no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed=max points) Habitat complexity 17 0-6 0--6 0�6 (little or no habitat=0;fre cent,varied habitats=max points) 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 (no shading vegetation—0;continuous canopy max points) t}} 19 Substrate embeddednessA 0-4 0—4 (deeply embedded=0;loose structure=max Y. Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4) 20 (no evidence=.0;common,numerous es=max points) 0 4 0-5 0-5 € _ Presence of amphibians o-4 0—4 0-4 (� 21 Q" (no evidence—0;common,numerous pes=inax points Presenceoffis h C 22 0-4" 0 74 ." 0-4 ' 0 a� (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) Evidence wildlife use ` R 23 0-6 0-.-.5 0--5 (no evidence 0,abundant evidence max points) a Total 'arits Possible ` I00 % _ 100 100 TOTAL SCOREry(aisci entern first`page} �' r e These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. 2 NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 U _9_�) Date: n hkh � Project/Site: Latitude- -3'1. 74f c1c>3 Evaluator: I �-o�2e� [E6T_) County: Longitude: be/709 Total Points: Stream Determination(citoe-wXe Other Stream is at least intermittent 3C) eral IntermittentP if 2�19 or perennial if a:30* Ephern ,�nni' e.g.Quad Name: A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1'Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 3 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 3 3. In-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 2 3 ripple-pool sequence 4.Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 (D 5.Active/relict floodplain 0 1 0 3 6.Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3 7.Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3 8. Headcuts 2 3 9. Grade control 0.5 1 1.5 10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1.5 11.Second or greater order channel No=O a -(_yes 3 artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal 12.Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 Q3 13.Iron oxidizing bacteria 1 2 3 14.Leaf litter 1.5 1 <9> 0 15.Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 0.5 1 1.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles 0 1 49) 1 -4, 1.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No 0 s 3,) C. Biology (Subtotal =-2-) 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 0 2 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0 20.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 1 2 3 21.Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3 22. Fish 0.5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5 24.Amphibians 0 0.5 0 1.5 25.Algae 7047-3 0.5 1 1.5 26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW 0.75; OBL 1.5 �qther 1192 *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual. Notes: ew 'k yN ,nA2(�� &LAn, fat, /,1�5 Sketch: t,3 USACE AID-` DWQ:#! Site 4 S k (indicate on attached inap) STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach tinder assessment: 1.Applicant's name: bt(g)O T 2. Evaluator's name: 3. Date of evaluation: k� 11 t I I �J 4. Time of evaluation: 6. River basin: 5.Name of strearn:_0 T C19A., 7.Approximate drainage area:- loo q QV6 S. n 9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. County:_ il 11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name(if any): jaJ)W Lifitude(ex,34.872312): C1 Longitude(ex,-77.556611): -:7!R , 25�-7 Method location deiennined(circle): GPS Topo Sheet Or(4!.< 1�'erial)l)�hoto/Gl Other GIS Other 13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying strearn(s)location): US -79 Gyp I Av 71 14.Proposed channel work(if ally): 15. Recent weather conditions: CM� d,' 16.Site conditions at time of visitJAPAXlPA(_�Axl[ oo A\tw-N I 17. ldenti6,any special Nvateiivay classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters --Water Supply Watershed_(I-IV) 18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES elf yes,estimate the water surface area: 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad snap? G) NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? K-ED" NO 21. Estimated watershed land use: to %Residential %Commercial %Industrial 10 %Agricultural -70%Forested 10 %Cleared/Logged %Other 22. Bankfull width:- Lam . 23. Bank height(front bed to top of bank): 3 A 24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _ Gentle(2 to 4%) Moderate(4 to 10%) __,Steep(>I 0%) 25.Channel sinuosity: Straight- 11 Occasional bends rTrequent meander -Very sinuous Braided channel Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2). Begin by detennining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location. terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the saute 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 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 front a pasture into a forest). the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity,and a separate fonts 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 (front reverse): -7 Comments: !6e::a_0eV' Evahiator's Signature Date This channel evaluatiouNriv, is intended to be Aed ky as a guide to assist landowners and envirounient'al professionals in Z� gathering the data requffed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to snake a preliminary assessment of stream 5 - Im quality. The total score resulting front the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-\ersion 06'03. To Comment. please call 919-876-8441 x�'6. STREAK QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET + u.. ' �.. £ a 'bf 6 ✓ ''' i' r , ,. zvs.d 4'.5,1 .X '{� {^" ,[ r >`x; i1+=�43 „`.'u' '. '�.4�+.�aCr �.'�+ lro Presence of flow 1 persistent pools in strcarn (no flow or saturation=0;strong flour=max paints) 0-5 0--4 0-5 2 Evidencc of past human alteration 0—6 0—5 0- 5 ;i (extensive alteration 0;no alteration=max oints) Riparian zone . " 3 0-6 0-4 , 0 5 (no buffer.=0,Conti uous,wide buffer=max oints l�vidence ofn ztrzeut or chcxnzcal discharges 4 0—5 0 4 0 4:,, , h (extensive dischar es-0;no disci ar es=max points) 5 Groundt{titer dxscbarge 0—3 0 " 4 " 0, 4 ( (na dzsehar e=0,s rip" s,see s,wetlands,etc 'max points) - r Presence of adjacent"floodpiain 0 4 0—4 0-2 6 (no flood lain=0;extensive flood lain max points) ' �? Entrenchment/floodplain acccss . 0-5 - 0-4 0-2 7 (deeply. entrenched=0;frequent floodin max oints) ; k Presence of"adjacent wctlan`ds ` g 0-6 0-4 0-2 r (no wetlands=0 large adjacent wetlands,-max points) Channel sinuosity r (extensive channe'lization=0;natural meander.—max points) WO Sediment'input 0 5 0—4 0—4 << 10 (extensive.d osition—0;little or no sediment=max oints " l l Size&diversity of channel bed substrate 0-4 0-5 r NA* fine,homogenous-0;"Iai e,diverse sizes-max po ints) f E °# 12 Evidence of channel incision or widening " 0-5 0-4 0-5 2, (deepl incised 0;stable bed&banks max points). �J y , 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 (severe erasion=0;no erasion,stable banks=max points) 14 Root depth"and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 (no visible rants=0;dense mats throughout=in' ax paints) Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production 0-5 0—4 0-5 l5 (substantial impact"-0;no evidence= pax paints 16 Presence of riffle-=p�oollripple-pool complexes 0-3 0- 5 0-6 �. iu- (no riffles/rip les or pools-0;well-developed=max points) Habitat complexity 17 0-6 0-6 0 6 ? (little or no habitat=0;fre"cent,varied habitats w max points) 1 Canopy coverage over streambed 0—5 0—5 0-5 J (no shading ve etation=0;continuous canopy=max paints) 19 S"abstrate embeddedness i ZtiIA 0-4 0 -4 (deeply embedded=0;loose structure=max) 20 Presence of stream invertebrates(seepage 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max paints) Presence of amphibians 21 0-4 0-4 0-4 O,. (no evidence—0;common,numerous types—max points,) 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 (no"evidence=0;common,nuii2eraus es=max amts) Evtdenee"of 'wildlife use' 23 0— 0 5 0 5 , r (no evidence 0,abundant evidence max points) , ,„K,.?.a.•° " _s � Sex v r a.�:.,� u, �,�' *� r: , p. 4 .., ; '_.rr } } < 5 Total Pbin#s Poss�bie l00 100 d 4 F ✓rS: F f. l ''y{ ■/'y; ^* s 1 ":�` �.,. 'R-g x� 'r ? '��r..� TOTAL SCARE (alss�enter on f rst pae These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. 2 NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 ST Date: I k /I o I I Lj ProjectlSite: LatItude: 3 c!, qc -o 7 Evaluator: L Pq County: eCC'(NVY--'C)r-'d Longitude: _ _n' �3q(D Total Points: Stream Deter2 cle one) Other 90_(�inq��M Stream is at least intermittent T-, I If?19 or perennial if?30* Ephemeral IqjjLg#tMat-PerenniaI e.g.Quad Name: A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a'Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 0 3 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 3. In-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 1 3 ripple-pool seguence 4.Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 3 5.Active/relict floodplain 0 (D 2 3 6.Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3 8. Headcuts 1 2 3 9. Grade control 0 0.5 cD 1.5 10.Natural valley 0 0.5 1.5 11.Second or greater order channel Na a artifidlat ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual B. Hydrology {Subtotal=--AD 'L 12,Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0 15. Sediment on plants or debris iv 0.5 1 1.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 <0' 1,5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 es=31/ C. Biology (Subtotal= _le_) - 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 2 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 20.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 21.Aquatic Mollusks CO) 1 2 3 22. Fish 00 015 1 1.5 23. Crayfish 0.5 1 115 24,Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5 25.Algae 0.5 1 1.5 26.Welland plants in streambed FACW=0.75, OBL= 1.5 *Perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.36 of manual. Notes: Sketch: -7 �� OS/\CE4| \f DO Site-f,3­1­ (ind|cmeonm|achedmop)STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET M Provide the following information for 1bestream reach under assessment: ]. Aoplicmg`wumne 2. Eva lun1m'nnam 3. Date of evaluation: D 4. Time ofevaluation: 5. Nomcofwtream {i River basin: � 7.Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: 9. Length nf reach evaluated: 0. County: ]]. Site coordinates(if knovan): prefer io decimal degrees. 12,Su8divinionnome(ifnny): Lalitvd,(u,.34.872o}z): �un�kodc(rx�-7z�oa6\/) -- Method location dunnnin«d(dok): GyG TnpuShem OtherGIS Other 13, Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roadsand landmarks and attach map identifying- greom(s) locoiou). ________ 14. Proposed channel work(if any): J':)� I �Lu 16. Site conditions at time of visit:_,.�&-64L< ]7. ldoSifv any special waterway classifications known: Scdioo |U Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed____/l-|`Y) �� |8, lo there o pond or lake located ops� �l�� �mno[tb��v�|uo1im�poi/�? NO |f yes,estimate the water surface area: 89, Does channel appear onOSGS quad mxp? G Y4O 20.DoendhanoelappeoronUSD�\ SoilSurvoy? YES NU 21. Estimated watershed land use: 00,,o Residential %Cnmmcroia| %|odostriol «A�-]-!ou|tunJ' �0%Forested _�t 96C|corcd/Logged Y6Other 22. BmukfoU width: Xk 5,R, 23. Bank height(from bed to top ofbook): 24. Channel slope down center nf stream: Flat(0 tu2%) 16cntle(2 to 4%) Moderate(4Nl0%) —Steep(r|0%) � 2G. Channel sinuosity: --v_/Straight —Occasional bends i:rcguen<mcnnder Very sinuous Braided channel Instructions for completion ofnm/ksbod (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ccor gion based oil |ocoxion, terrain, vegetation, stream classification.. etc. Every dhmno<c,isdc must be scored using the same ecorrQion. Assign points in each characteristic within the mn2e shown for the ccore 'ou. Page 3 provides o brief description of hmv 10 review- the characteristics identified in thep/orkahccC Scores should reflect on overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. |fa chomoicrisdo cannot be evaluated due |m site cv weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide all explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review(e.g., the stream flows fi-om a pasture into u xorcod` the n1rcom may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and separate Onno used 10 evaluate each remch. The total score assigned 10 a stream reach must range between 0 and 100. with o score of 100 representing n stream of the highest quality. � � Total Score (8roo�rexerae)/__ ���� Comments.. Evaluator's Signature Date This channel evaluatioi(fi�rut �s_intended 0 be usVd only as a guide to assist landowners andellv�ronnie4ltal jw0fessionals in crathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of streain quality. The total score resulting Yrmn the completion of this form is subject 1* OSACII approval and does not imply u particular mitigation ratio orrequirement. Form sub icu\o change-version 0603. To Comment. please call 4lg-876-844l x]6. i STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET + -.$ �t <_"'� ��� `pv ^•z iz .��, t.l,y'rj� x*'a�1��.a a -� �.t�,r, � k- � � f�r l:.t[..O�L't� Lr7i�l��i�f���`�.��°���^.� r. m'�„ Y^t x �?�° s77"� �i-� "� lf�" �#C.,CH.��2A.0 Y:1J�i7�l4C .a �"' £s,xj i •`''y�s�,- a +r,- .,°r *;� s.�n. x ,acx '3,`3°,.<,� ��� , �� 2 s..v $ Piem4llt l� .trnstinr ,S presence of floe /persistent pools in stream v ~ l 0-5 0-4 0-5 ` z,r (no f]o or saturation=0;strong flow=max points Evidence of past human alteration shy' 2 0-6 0-5 0-5 (extensive alteration " 0,no alteration=max oints) Itrparian zone Z (no buffer 0,contr uous,',vide.bufl'er=max oints 0-6 0 4 0 5 E�rd'encc of nutrient or cbc pical diseli:i ges 4 (extensive clrschar "es 0;no drscliar es=rrrax' omts) 0-5 0 0 4 RX �l 5 Groundivatei dlselrarge 0—3 0—4 0= 4 " no dischar e 0 s rip,.s;'seeps,wetlands,etc ,.max points) Presence of adjacent flaodplain 0 4 0-2 l r!2 - (no' flood lain=0;extensive flood lain=max oints) Entrenchment 1 flobdplain access (deeply entrenched=0;frequent floodin .=max x " } Dints 0-5 0` 0-2 Presence of adjacent wetlands" £ 8 0-0 0-4 : 0-2 (no wetlands=0 large adiacent wetlands=max points) { r Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0—3 (extensive channe'lization—_0;natural meander=max points) x Sediment input (extensive deposition-7 0;little or no sediment-max oints) Vili Size&diversity of channel bed substrate k �A 0-4 0-5 " W (fine,homogenous=0;large,diverse sizes=max points) ' << a ; Evidence of ebannel incision or widening " N 12 0-5 0-4 0-5 (deeply incised=0;stable bed 'r banks=max points) Presence of major bank failures 13 0-5 ? 0-5 0-5 (severe erosion=0;no erosion,stable banks max points) Root depth aid density on banks, 0-3 0-4 0-5 (no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout=niax points) Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production 15 0-5 0-4 0--5 (substantial.impact=0;no evidence=max points) 3 Presence of riffle-poollripple-pool complexes 16 0—3 0—5 0—6 z (no riffles/ripples les or pools=0;well-developed=max points) 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 HS` (little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats=max points) Canopy coverage over streamlied 18 (no shading vegetation 0;continuous canopy max points) 0 5 0 5 0-5 19 Substrate embeddedness r lrlA' :. 0—4 0-4 f (deep Jy.embedded=0;loose structure=max) # ; Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4) 20 0-4 0-5 0-5 (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) Presence of amphibians 21 0-4 0-4 0-4 Q'- (no evidence 0;common,numerous types max points) Presence offish 22 0-4 0-4 ., 0-4 (no evidence. 0;common,numerous types—max omts 23 Evidence"of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 (no evidence=0;abundant evidence max points) Total 'ornts 'ossible ;, t l00 100 l04 'Y . , ,.. ,. ." ; TOTAL SCOT: *These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. 2 NC DWQ Stream Identiflcation Form Version 4.11 Date: Proiect/Site: -3 Latitude: Longitude, Evaluator: L- E,,-ST) County: ry-,CwN6 Total Points: Stream Determliaatuialcircle one) Other V)O.-v Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral I<j��n Perennial e.g.Quad Name: if'a 19 or perennial if>30* A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1"Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 -0 3 .2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 62 2 3 3. In-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 1 3 ripple-pool sequence 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 5.Active/relict floodplain 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 2 3 7.Recent alluvial deposits 2 3 8. Headcuts 0 1 3 9.Grade control 0 1 1.5 10.Natural valley 0 1 1.5 11.Second or greater order channel (No Yes 3 a artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal 12.Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0 15.Sediment on plants or debris 6) 0.5 1 1.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 (D- 1.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No 0 )l C. Biology (Subtotal JQ-) 18.Fibrous roots in streambed 2 1 0 19.Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0 20.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 1 2 3 21.Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3 22.Fish 0.5 1 1.5 23.Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5 24.Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5 25.Algae 0.5 1 1.5 26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0.75; OBL=15 .perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual. Notes: Sketch: Qb Kw I V__ U',A{6 AlDr D\(0� �hc - 5 k' /inJicnewnnxochcdmxyl STREAM ��0��lIT�7 ASSESSAYE���� ���AR�JS��EET EM211 ���� Pm)iJe dn{oOonin�io6/rn/uMnu &o/'the s1,mu/ roncb nxdn'u»axss/ooU: -�,— 7.App|icx 1 2`n|omurinxmc: 3. Dale 4.Time ofe`Moat iom 5 Name of,stream: kKkcrbasin: 7. Apprv-,immedminu.4cooa S. 0/emnorder: 0 Y. ionL\h o/reach no/omrd )U.CnuoI>: }L She coordinates(if knon/n: prefer in decimo|dcpivr� |2. Subdivision oomc(/fony) 13 LOCZ11[it'll Of I-eaCh Under eNalumion(note neartiv roads and landmarks and altacli map identif\in!2 stream(s)locationi: 16 Site lT NcohAlooy special na1crvay classifications knonn: Seel ion 10 Tida( YYaico 1Essential Fisheries Habim\ TouI \fulms Ouloandino Resource Waters Nutrient 3olyhi`eWafers Y/mcr Supply YYu\ersbedl-/\/) ]8. |sdboeo pond ur|ahe located opsircmmof1hecxalnu1ionpoirx? YES Of Ne�estimate the water surface area:____________ }0. Does channel appear oil USGS quad mup�? YES 2U. Does channel oppcorwnUSDA SuUSunc>? YES 2l. Est bnu{edonrc/dbcd |onduse: _V2__1vRcaidrntia) 00 Connnocio| ^^|udostriul J U0vvAgricultural -7U1oFmrgad W^oC|earrd' Loe�!cd ____'b0Ulcr( ) 22. BunkfhU nkkh: 23. Bank height(from bed to lop o{6uot) 24. Channel slope down conterofgrmnr Flat (0to2^") v,'`Gentle(2 to 40o) ___Tvlodcmle(4\m 10"0) ___5ieep(:�|L0v) 25. 0mnnrlsinocph}: ____Snnighl _yZocmsionxlbo`da —Frequent meander ____\4ervsinuoos Braided channel |a�cnc�ans �r ca�u�k��n afnurlk'zlhe1 (XotuteJ ou yu8� �)� Beg-in d���oh'ing 0zo/vu upproprn(euzm�gim` based oil location. terrain. �ccamimn. mrenm classification, etc, E`'er> characteristic must be scored using the same ecoegimn. Assign points to each chumcoigic xhhin the range obuvn for lhe ccorcg(on. Page 3 yro\idrs u bhi desoilnion of how to rexi*w the dmmocrixicy identified in dfie xorksbro. Scores should oDco on nrera|l uusesoncn| oF the stream reach under mx|umimn. lfn chmnuoinic cannot be c^alumcd due 10 she of- weather cmrtdhions enter 0 in the scoring bus mndprn\idc all e\mlonmimn in the cmomoxpeuimn. Where there are obvious cbmn-_,cs /n the character mFusi/eum under reiry the stream OoxsSom upoourc into u6}om|. tkc tream rim be divided into smaller reaches that display more conlimmV. and a separate forin used 10 e\a]Uale COCII reach. The total score nsianod lo a stream reach mum range ho»eon 0 and l00. ni/h u score of 100 reprcsoning n grcmn n{ihc NgJheoqouli�. Evaluator*sSignature Dale This channel evaluation fo - i is intended e I d oill as a guide to assi,,l landowncrs and 411A ii.0111hellial professiollals ill aallierima thc data require b the Unitle sta Arim Corps of Engineers to mahe a preliminar\ assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting from I riccot 10ion of this form is, subject to USACE approvail and does uot imply .1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ARAC sJI..VR.G y , Coastal Ma�untam Piedmont ., s. ? 5, } P h Presencc of flow I persistent pools in strealu 0-5 0-4 0-5 f� (no floe!or satttration=0;strop flow=max points) ! Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 (extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points) 3 Riazianzone 0-6 0--4 0-5 (,no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=zuax points) h 4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 4 (extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max po ints) 5 Gioundwaterdischarge 0-3 0-4 0=4 (no discharge=0;s rugs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points Presence of adjacent floodplain 0—4 0-4 0-2 6 (no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max points) . 7 Entrenchment 1 floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 (deeply entrenched=0;frequent flooding=max oints $ Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0—4 0-2 - (no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands=max points) Channel siziuositT 0-5 0-4 0-3 (extensive channeIization=0;natural meander=max points) Sediment input 13 .� 10 0--5 0-4 0-4 ea ; (extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=inax points) 11 Size&diversity of channel Iced substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 Ll (fate,homogenous=0;large,diverse sizes=max points) 12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 4-4 0-5 (deeply incised.,=0;stable bed&banks=znax points) Presence of major bank failures 13 0-5 0-5 0-5 (severe erosion=0;no erosion;stable banks=max points) 14 hoot depth and density on banlcs 0-3 0-4 0-5 H (no visible roots=0;dense roots thxmu out=max points) V), 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 (substantial impact=0;no evidence=max oints) 16 Presence of riffle-pooltripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 (no riffles/ripples or pools=0;w-ell-developed=znax points) 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 (little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats=max points) I 1 Canopy co%,erage over streambed 0-5 0—5 0-5 (no shadin vegetation=0;continuous =max points) ' Substrate embeddedness 19 NA* 0-4 0-4 (deeply embedded=0;loose structure=inax) y �0 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4) 0-4 4 0—5 0-2) � (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=inax points) Presence of amphibians 21 0-4 0-4 0-4 � C� (no evidence=1 coznznon,numerous types=rnax points) pan= ? Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 {� 2 (no evidence=0-common,nm nerous types=m ax points) Evidence of wildlife use 23 0-6 0-5 0-0 :. (zzo evtdezice=0;abundant evidence=max points To#al Poin#s Possible 100 I00 100 TtJTrL SCOT (also enter oz�fistaae f ;yx These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. t0 2 NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 6L„ Date: o j di q ProjectlSite: Latitude: S�,96_t `tL_ Evaluator: L_ County: �%*Lk Longitude: I, &'/7-4:6- Total Points: Stream Deter ircle one) Other Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Perennial e.g.Quad Name: if a Igor perennial if:?30* A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong ,a.Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 3 3. In-channel structure:ex. riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 2 3 ripple-pool sequence 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 2 3 5.Activelrelict floodplain 6) 1 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits (P 2 3 8. Headcuts 0 1 2 (D 9.Grade control 0 1 1.5 10.Natural valley 0 1 1.5 11.Second or greater order channel = Yes=3 a artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 1 2 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 05 <&) 15.Sediment on plants or debris (D 1 0,5 1 1.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles 0 1 0.5 1 1.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 3 C. Biology (Subtotal= �D ) 18. Fibrous roots in streambed (1) 2 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0 20.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 1 2 3 21.Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3 22. Fish 0 0,5 1 1.5 23.Crayfish 00 0.5 1 1,5 24.Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5 25.Algae 0.5 1 1.5 26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0,75; OBL= 1.5 ' then=r1l .perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual. Notes: Sketch: US,ACE AID= D W CI)= Site= S L (indiC,1le On 1112CIled 111,11)) EMM STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET —AQO-'. �L ProN ide the folloii ing information for the streall) reach 1111(ler assessillem: l-Applicant's name: Nu fl-'s OT 3. Date 4. 11fincofexaltiatiow, kle_y)C, .1; 6. RiN el,ba"'ill: P--U-, ApproNimate drainage area: order: 0 9. Lenuih of reach e\alualed: 12a' 1O.Count-\: Lc t rv-,OYNJ 11. Site coordinate,-,(if know)): prefer in dechmil decrees. 12. Subdivision name(if in-\.): VA C)V-1. I alifude(m 3 4 P2312): (ex.-,.1.5,;6611): Nleffiod hwaflon detennined i circle): UIS 1'opo�,heet ()rtho(Acrial)Photo 61 }iher(5) Other -s a 'it, 13. LOCZ-fliOn OfreaCh under eNiluation mole nearby roads am I lar-,-mid attach 111"11)identifNin-2 streams) location): at}tsh (TP us -7 U-S -ILI / U 6v6 vAZ&-(ba�nr4j2 14. Proposed channel worn (if ail\,): 0,g-A-12 1�)Sow I 15, Recent weather conditions, (\ tn�� A, 16. Site conditions at lime of,,isit: M Idenlif-Y any special -,\alerway classifications hicmm: Section 10 1 idal Waters, Essential Fisheries Habitat Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed O-IV) 1S. 1s there a pond or la1:e located tipstreanl of tie evahratiorl 17oint'Trout Waiers Outstandin- Resoui Nutt YES lf�es.estimate rile\\'ater surface area: 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appeal-oil USDA Soil Sur\e •? YES X-0) 21. Estimated NNalershed land use: t U °o Residential 00 Commercial Oo Industrial (0 "oA-ricuhural 70 0 o Forested 10 °-0 Cleared, Logged —'o Other 22. BanKfull \vidffi: 01 23. Bank height(ftom bed to lop of bank): 24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat(Oio200 -ZGen1le(2to411o) Moderate 0 to 10" _Sleep(:-10° 25. Channel Mnuosir\: —Straight Occasional bends -/Frequent meander Very Sinuous Braided channel E .4j (Irjcrttted oil pag ": Begin b\ Jocrinining, Int: must appropri-aie ecorcuion based oil L� . U location. terrain. \eaelalioll. stream classification, eic. Ever-\ characteristic must be scored usirw,the same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic \\)thin the ran-e shomn for the ecoreLnon. Pace ') prof ides a brief description of how to re-\iew the characteristics identified in the \NOrk'-,hOe1, SCOTeS should reflect an Overall assessinew of the stream reach under e\alualiori. Ifn characteristic cannot be e\aluated due to site or weather conditions. enter 0 in the scorinQ bo% and pro\ide an explanation in the C011111lent section. Where there are ob\ious cllallLes in the character of a stream under re\iew (e,g­the stream flo\\s from a pasture into a foresi), the stream ma-N be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuit •. and a separate form used to e\aluaie each reach. The tonal score assiLmed to a stream reach 111LISt I-AnLe between 0 and 100, \\iih a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest qualiry. Total Score (from reverse): Commenis* Evaluator's Signature Date V t 7 This cliannel evaluation f o Y n i is intended to he Vsed Qnly as a guide to assist landoiA ners and Im irotillieli'lal professionals in cratbering the data required bi the United States Arm' Corps of Engineers to make a preliminar\ assessment of stream qualit,*v. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject: to USACE approval acid does not imply a STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET wX,V` dS.3'L:a r CHARACTEItI x S �r Sy, {�.`oastal 1'�edmont:, Motlntarn' TkC 5 j n _1 Presence of flow 1 persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 (no flow or saturation=0;strong flow=Inax points) Evidence of past human alteration 2 0-6 0-5 0-5 (extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max, Dints) 3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 (no buffer=0;contiguous,wide bnfi'er=max points) Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges ¢ 0_5 0-4 0-4 (extensive discharges=0;no dischar es=max points) 5 Groundwater discharge 0_3 0-4 0=4 (no disebar e=0;s rings,seeps,wetlands,etc.°max ohits) Qs Presence of adjacent floodplain 6 (no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max points) 0— 0— 0-2 w Entrenchment 1 floodplain access 7 0-5 0-4 0-2 (deeply entrenched=0- frequent flooding=max points) Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 l (no wetlands=0;lar e adjacent wetlands=max ports) g Channel sinuosity 0-5 0—4 0-3 (extensive channelization=0;natural meander=max onus) Sediment input 10 0-5 0--4 0-4 (extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=Inax points) Size&diversity of channel bed substrate NAB ' 0-4 0—5 (fine,homo enons=0-,lar e,diverse sizes=max points) 12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 (deepI 1 incised=0;stable bed&banks=Inax paints) Presence of major bank failures 13 0-5 0-5 0-5 {severe erosion=0;no erosion,stable banks=max points} .;A Root depth and density on banks 0—3 0—4 0—5 14 H (no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout=Inax points) 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 (substantial impact=0;no evidence=Inax points) 16 Presence of riffle complexes 0—3 0—5 0--6 (no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed=mlax points) ys 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 ` (little or no habitat=0;f-e cent,varied habitats=max points) 1 Canopy coverage over streambed 0—5 0—5 0—5 (no shading vegetation=0;continuous canopy=max points) 1 R Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 (deeply embedded=0;loose structure=max) 20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4) 0-4 0— 0-5 f (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=Inax points) Presence of amphibians � 2I 0-4 0-4 0-4 4- (no evidence=0;coinrrnon,numerous pes=Inax points) Presence of fish {pY 22 0-4 0-4 0-4 0 (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) :ry 73 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 , j w, (no evidence=0-abundant evidence=max points) Total Paints Possible 100 100 100 TOTAL SCORE (also enter pan first page l These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 ^�^ } Date: Project/Site: Latitude:3 IV.9��S 5 Evaluator- County: Longitud Total Points: Stream Determination(circle one) Other Rcyl Stream is at least intermittent riNVIOCYN I ff;-, 19 orperenniat ff?:30* Ephemeral���Perennlal e.g.Quad Name: A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= I Ab sent Weak Moderate trong 18*Continuity of channel bed and bank 0— 1 2 3 7! 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 2 3.In-channel structure:ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 ('3 6. Depositional bars or benches 2 3 9.Grade control 0 1.5 10.Natural valley 0 11.Second or greater order channel No Yes 3 a artificial ditches are not rated;pee discussions in i�a_nual B. Hydrology (Subtotal 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 14.Leaf litter 1 0.5 15.Sediment on plants or debris 0— 0.5 1— 04) 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0.5 1 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No 0 C. Biology (Subtotal= 18.Fibrous roots in streambed C2_)——1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed C3_) 2 7__ 21.Aquatic Mollusks (2) 1 2 3 23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 24.Amphibians W) N5— 1 1.5 *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual. USACE AID# DWQ# site#-5N (indicate on attached map) STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the&ollowbz�bz&»o�ut�nQortbemt��mm �emx& mmd*r�a��mo*m� ~=�� - 1.Applicant's 2.Evaluator's name: 3. Date of evaluation: 4.Time ufevaluubuu 5.Name of stream: 6. Bjvorbmoin 7. Approximate drainage area: - 0.Stream order: 9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. [buuh/: AA. Site coordinates(if koon/n): prefer im decimal degrees, 12. Subdivision name(if Latitude(ex.3*.872312): Longitude(ex.-77.55as/0: -- Method location determined(oirdc : Gy8 Topo Sheet Oobu(Acba0PbmoK]lB Othe,G[B Other 13. Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying cabuu):________ 14. Proposed channel work(if any): 16. Site conditions at time of visit:-Unk a-&-ffleKd 17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Soc<ioo |U _TldoJ Waters _Emsendu|Fisheries Habitat Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Water Supply Watershed ___.(I-IV) 18. Ia there a pond or lake located upstream o{the evaluation point? l!88 D f yes,estimate the water surface area: ___________ n--, �� K9. Does channel appear ooDSGS quad nzup7 YES NW %O. Does channel appear onD8}]A Soil 8uneyY YES G-0) 21. Estimated watershed land use: %Residential Commercial y6Industrial k0»%Agricultural ��' �um�� An� �\cu�d/l�0�d %Oder � 22. 8unbfullwid<b: 3 23 Bank height(from bed tu top ufbuok): 24.Channel slope down center of stream: to 2%) _�.{}ent|e(2<o4%) Moderate(40o |0Y6) _Steep(>iO%) %5. Channel sinuosity: _Straight _^"{]ucaaionalbends Frequent meander —Very sinuous —Braided channel Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page %): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecopugiuo based on location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must bc scored using the soneacoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the ac 'on. page 3 provides u brief description of how to review the characteristics identified iu the worksheet. Scores should reflect uu overall assessment uf the stream reach under evaluation, [fu characteristic oauuut be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter in the scoring box and provide an axp|onudoo in the cunznzeot section. \9berc there are obvious changes in the character ofa stream under review(e.g., the skomn Duvvm from o pasture into a forest),the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each u:aob. 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 revexse): Comments: Evaluator's Signature - ate This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only umm guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make u preliminary assessment eystream quality. The total mxume resulting from the xuomp]*tium of this 0mom is subject to lD3ACE approval and does not imply u particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject tu change-version O6/O3. ?u Comment,please call 9l9-O7d-844lu26. STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET T T r ,ECOREGI( N P( TNT P.ANGE 3 �°+ R ARA CTERISI+CS r SCC?RE .: Coastal mont Moiintacn, Presence of flow t persistent pools in stream 1 0-5 0-4 0-5 no flow or saturation=0;strong flaw=max oints Evidence of ast human alteration RM Fit 2 extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points) 0-6 0—5 0-5 Riparian zone 0-6 0 -4 0-5 OR no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max Dints Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 4 0-5 0-4 0-4 k f extensive discharges=0• no discharges=max points) Groundwater discharge 5 no discharge=0;s rings,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max oints 0-3 0-4 0—4 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0—4 0—4 0—2 =r < no floodplain=0•extensive floodplain=max points) Entrenchment J floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0—2 ?' (deeply entrenched=0; frequent flooding=max points) Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0 -2 CD R $ no wetlands=0• large adjacent wetlands=max points) Channel sinuosity g 0-5 0-4 0-3 a d extensive channelization=0;natural meander=max points) :wa Sediment input 0—5 0-4 0—4 10 extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=max points) Size&diversity of channel bed substrate 0- 4 0—5 fine homogenous=0;large,diverse sizes=max points) x 12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0—4 0-5 We eply incised=0•stable bed&banks=max points) ( Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0- 5 0-5 v 13 severe erosion=0;no erasion,stable banks=max points) s. Root depth and density on banks 14 0-3 0-4 0-5 a ;,s no visible roots=0• dense roots throughout=max points) ua Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production 15 0-5 0_4 0-5 substantial im act=0•no evidence=max points) Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 230 1 ffles/ri les or Dols=0 well-develo ed=max amts 0-3 0—5 0-6 no ri Habitat complexity 17 0-6 0-6 0-6 little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied.habitats=max points) -- q Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 18 no shading vegetation=0•continuous canopy max points) 19 Substrate embeddedness 0-4 o-4 (deeply embedded=0;loose structure=max DRINK, Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4) f 0-4 0-5 0-5 w 20 no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0—4 © no evidence=0•common,numerous types=max points) `�01 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 O;kll no evidence=0;common,numerous es=max points) Evidence of wildlife use 2 23 0-6 0-5 0-5 no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points) "`>"`..... "� ^° •-" �^z"' .r'"`,,%^y"%��'` ..,±r-:Ct sx,^ .i"",z.",, "r Vii",^�:.: '„ ti T r ,G,. _ , ' ✓ c �P � � �� � 00,1­11-11"'10 100 r 1UU .: "'„eu ,,� falc'' Unt5 L ,�slble .d , .""" ",.. ' "`."pr✓>C ^:'"/y �, r� r OF ON.✓�"`"' .mac r.' ' ✓ a . F'^,x.� r' :.� ",r/,,; M ,c'y✓9sa �,� v°. ors � *These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. 2 NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 �40 Date: cglf'i Project/Site: Latitude: Evaluator: County: Longitude: ST-K.N1 iv W h Total Points: Stream Determi!nat' circle one Other Stream is at least Intermittent rmit I ff a 19 orpetennial if 2t 30* Ephemera! Intermitter Perennial e.g. Quad Afame: A. Geomorphology (Subtotal_= J Absent Weak Weak Moderate Strong la-Continuityof channel bed and bank 0 1 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3. In-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple-pool sequence 00 1 2 3 4. Particle size of Stream substrate 0 1 2 3 5.Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches -0, 1 2 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits L�Ul) 1 2 3 8. Headcuts 0 2 3 9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5 10.Natural valley 0 (0-5) 1 1,5 11.Second or greater order channel N)4 0 Yes 3 ) artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 2 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria U 1 2 3 14.Leaf lifter 1.5 1 0.5 (0') 15.Sediment on plants or debris Cd) 0.5 1 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0.5 1 1.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No =0 Yes C. Biology (Subtotal= 18.Fibrous roots in streambed 2 1 0 19.Rooted upland plants in streambed (3 2 1 0 20. Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 21.Aquatic Mollusks .0) 1 2 3 22.Fish (0) 0.5 - 1.5 23.Crayfish LO) 0.5 1 1.5 24.Amphibians t 0) 0.5 1 1.5 25.Algae 0.5 1 1.5 26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0.75; OBL 1.5 Other 0 *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual. Notes: e_VC i Wa > Al- T r Sketch: 0 so Si t S. USACE AID9 DWQ Site# '56 (indicate on attached map) STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 1. Applicant's l Evaluator's name: 3. Date of evaluation: 4.Time o[evaluation: 5.Name ofsbeam @i River basin: 7. Approximate drainage area 0.Stream order: 9. Length of reach evaluated: 1�� 10. County: � Site coordinates{if known): prefer in decimal degrees, 12. Subdivision name(if any): Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3 Longitude(ex.-77.556611): (11 Method location determined(circle): Topo Sheet Ortho, Aerial) oto/GIS Other GIS Other 13. Location of reach under evaluati6ll-(note nearby roads anhlQ�aar�s and attach map identifying stream(s)location): 14. Proposed channel work(if any): 16. Site conditions at time of visit:-[A 6 A I ls-vcx Y,tac A, 17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters YVukimnt Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed___/I-IV) 18. ls there u pond ox lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES Ulfyes,estimate imatotbcnu� oorfaceurea: ________ '�Z�� l9. Does chunndappo�onDS83 quad munY YES ) 2O.[)omuc6omm:| uppuuron USDA SuUSurvcy? YES �NV� ^ ~�-~~ 21. Estimated watershed land use: k) " Goudeudmd 96Commercial %ludust6o| /C) w'Agricultural -70mForested IL /Cleared/Logged %Other 22. Bank§d\widdh: - / 23 height(from bed ho top ufbunk): 24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat(0to2%) v/Gentle(2 to 4%) _Moderate(4tolO%) _Steep[plOY6) 25. Channel sinuosity: _Straight Occasional bends �Fueqoeutmeander l/ory sinuous Braided channel Imstomnd*ms for completion of w*nAmhoet (located on page 2\: Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must ho scored using the same ecooegion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the e000egioo. Page 3 provides o brief description of how to review the characteristics identified io the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 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 utbn:s0, the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and u separate form used 1oevaluate each reach. The total muono assigned to u stream reach mom* mnQc hchxmen O and lOO, with u score of iOO representing u stream of the highest quality. STotal Score (from reverse): I Comments: V, A This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make m preliminary muuemaomeat of stream quality The total score resulting from the cumupAa1ium of this form is subject to lJSACE approval and does not imply m particular mitigation rad**nnegmimommemt. Form subject ho change-version O603. To Comment,please call 9l9-O76-844lx20. 1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ECOREGION POINT RANGE #. CHARACTERISTICS SCORE Coastal Piedmont Mountain 1 Presence of flow t persistent pools in stream 0-5 p-4 0-5 no flow or saturation=4;strong flow=max points) _ 2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 4—5 0-5 extensive alteration=0•no alteration=max poin 3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points) 4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0—4 0-4 �. extensive discharges=0• no discharges=max points) S Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 �C (no discharge=0•springs,sees wetlands,etc.=max points) Presence of adjacent floodplain 6 no flood lain=0;extensive floodplain=max points) 0-4 0-4 0-2 Entrenchment/floodplain access 7 0—5 0—4 0—2 !' (deeply entrenched=0; frequent =max points) 8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0—4 0-2 (no wetlands=0•large adjacent wetlands=max points) 9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 extensive channelization=0;natural meander=max points) 10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 extensive de osition=0•little or no sediment=max oints 11 Size&diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 fine,homogenous=0• large,diverse sizes=max points)t 12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0—S 0-4 0-5 �C (deeply incised=0•stable bed&banks=max points) 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0—S 0-5 severe erosion=0;no erosion,stable banks=max points 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0—4 0-5 no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout=max points) 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 substantial impact=0•no evidence=max oints 16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 H no riffles/ripples or pools=0•well-developed=max oints 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 little or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats=max points) Canopy coverage over streambed 1 no shading vegetation=0;continuous canopy=max points) 0-5 0—S 0-5 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 (deeply embedded=0;loose structure=max 20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0—S no evidence=0;common numerous types=max points) �} 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 Q no evidence=0;common numerous types=max points) a Presence of fish 22 0-4 0-4 0-4 no evidence=0; common numerous types=max points) 23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points) Total Faints Possible " 100 100 100 TOTAL SCORE',(also enter on first page) *These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. 2 NC D)YQStream Identification Form Version 4.11 'S Q, Date: Vlq/14 Project/Site: K-31Q Latitude.3q,q 3-3,9 Evaluator:E�T_-K A w(N Countr. R*t cwt)6 - Longitude:_-7qjt��jo Total Points: Stream Dete mination(circle one) Other Stream is at least intermittent if a 19 or perennial if;t 30* Ephemeral�5�erennlal e.g.Quad Name: A, Geomorphology (Subtotal 10, Absent Weak Moderate Strong I a,Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 2 3 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 2 3 3. In-channel structure:ex.rifhe-pool,step-po�,_, - ripple-pool sequence 0 2 3 4, Particle size of stream substrate 0 2 3 5.Active/relict floodplain 2 3 6.Depositional bars or benches 2 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3 8. Headcuts 0 2 3 9.Grade control (0) 0.5 1 1.5 10. Natural valley (0.5 1 1.5 11. Second or greater order channel No a Yes 3 artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 3 --------- - 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 U) 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0 15.Sediment on plants or debris 0 .5 (� 1) 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 1.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No 0 Yes C Biology (Subtotal = 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 (2-) - 1 0 19,Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0 20.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 21.Aquatic Mollusks (-0) 1 2 3 22. Fish (0 U 1 1.5 23.Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5 24.Amphibians 0.5 145 25.Algae SO 0.5 1.5 26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW 0.75; OBL 1.5 Ot-her=�O ) *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.-See p.35 of manual. -------------- Notes., Sketch: 01 �Ipo( A DWQ# Site#—'50- (indicate on attached map) STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: AQP 1. Applicant's 2.Evaluator's name: 3. Date uf eva|uat|un 4.Time ufevaluation: S. Name uf stream: 6. River basin: 7. Approximate drainage area: //) C mn� & Stream order: ' ' | 9L Length of reach evaluated: lO.Cuonty 11. Site coordinates(if k 12.Subdivision name(if Latitude(ex.34.872312): q,41 Longitude(ex.-77.o5oo/0 Method location determined(circle): QP8 TopoSlicca 8 O�rGlS Other DI Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and l�[���rko and attach map identifying utream( )lucation): _______ 14. Proposed channel work(if any): Ne Lii k, i:�,�Ivjoc-, 15. Recent weather conditions: l6. Site conditions at time ofvisit: 17. Identify any special waterway o3auoifiogiunuknown: Section 10 TidoJ Waters Eoaontia\ Fisheries Habitat Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed___(I-IV) 1&. ln there u pond ur lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes,estimate the water surface aoa: __________ D9. Does channel appear unDSGS quad�map? YES (R) 2(l Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? L9 NO 21. Estimated watershed land oa�� 10 %Residential 96Commercial 96Industrial \L */o Agricultural 78%Forested 10,%Cleared/Logged %Dth 22. Baukful|width: 23 khcig|t(Gomhedtotupufbunk) 24. Channel slope down of | (0 0m2%) ZGeude(2to4Y6) _Moderate(41ulO%) _Steep(>)O%) 25. Channel sinuosity: _Straight Occaoiunu|bencb Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel 3matrmctiumn for completion of worksheet (located on page 3): Begin by determining the most appropriate cuorn8ion based on \uuuduu, terrain,vegetation,stream classification,etc. Every characteristic must he scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range ubunm for the ccunegiuu. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the cbumotedotion identified in the worksheet. Scores should nnOoct an overall aoaooanent of the stream reach under evaluation. If characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter O in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Wbnm tbnm are obvious changes in the character ufu stream under review (o.&., the stream flows from pasture into a forest),the stream may he divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity,and separate fbnn used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream mach must omgp between O and lOO, with u more of IOO representing u stream of the highest quality. Total Score (from reverse): Comments: Evaluator's Signature Date 0-/ 3 Wt This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment,please call 919-876-8441 x 26. STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET m -0111-1 WHO -0 WON rya oastal ant Mdttntam , NEW- l Presence''of flow,/persistent pools in stream - - no flow or saturation 0;strop .flow max Dints Evidence of past human alteration ON o-6 0-5 0-5 extensive alteration"=0;.no'alteration=max points) BEER 10 3 Riparian zone 0--6 0- 4 0 -5 Me no"buffer=0,Conti' ous wide buffer.=max points), 1; 4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0'-4 0-4 SIMON a extensive dischar es'—O,no dischar es=max Loin ,.Groundwater`.discharge 0-3 0- 4, 0—4 5 no discharge .0 i s n `s;see s;wetlands etc.`--max oints luf 5 Presencc:of adjacent flaodplain; 0-4 0-4 0-2 n o tTOod lain 0 extensive.flood lain=max oints EntrenchmentJfloodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 l dee 1 entrenched=0;fre uent"floodin =max Dints s� Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 $ no wetlands`=0•large adjacent wetlands=max Dints `. Channel sinuosity b 9 extensive channelization=0;natural meander-max� oints 0 5 0-4 0 3 ry Sediment input 10 ''extensive d osition—0•"little or"no sediment=inax' oints 0-5 0-4 1`1 Size:&diversity„of.channelhedsuhsfrafe,: .; 0=4 0-5 F5 ”. fine,homogenous=0•lag e,'diverse sizes='max points) .. . Evidence of channel ineision'or widening 12 0---5 0-4 .0-5 dee'i incised=0;.stablc bed&banks=max oints Presence of major hank failures 0—5 0-5 0--5 13 ' severe erosion-0 no erosion;stable'banks—max,points) Root depth'and density.on hanks_.'.-,,," 14 < no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout max oints 0 -3 0-4 0 -5 "� fmpact'hyagriculture, livestock,or timber'production „15 substantial,im act=0•no evidence=max points), —5 0—4 0- 5 Presence,;of,riffle-pooltripple-pool complexes 0-3, 0-5 0-6 16 no nfflesln les or Dols"=0 well-develo ed'=max olnts r Hahitat complexity . little or'no habitat- 0•:fie uen "varied habitats max.Dints t Canopy.coverage over streamhed 0'-5 0-5' 0`—5 18 , no shadm 'vegetation canopy,=max, Dints)' �Suhstrate�emheddedness _4 0—4 19 dee 1 .embedded=:0;loose sbruct�ue=max7A 20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4) 0'-4 . 0—`5 0 5 � 11.1 4no ev idence='0;common,'numerous`types—max, omts Presence of amphihians �' 21 0--4 0-4 0-4 no evidence--`0 common numerous es=max points) Presence offish p G 22 0-4 0-4 0--4 no evidence=0•common;numerous es max points) Evidence'of.wildlife use 0 ,23 6 fl_5 0 5 no'evrdence 0,abundant evidence max points), y,✓✓�.ri d'^�.*.�;�t"r,w'� ,,;✓.°"""'��",w,+s ��,"A'� �"�f y .r""'", �h cr-C�`���""w�"'„C.rl '"„ ^""x,✓.:.�..✓/T.�,,.✓`�a.✓1'r,.1/'i"`"" �`�\i� �""'"` "'"i^y/�y/y `"'< .✓:: „���- . �, p��r �tiv-^°''" ,. ,/�'�, �^,::,�.„� y", � p ,,¢.x°r r.,��r�r-•���,..=�” ���V;a:°�✓'`x'"�"x: �O�°�.:..^ �''�..," �V V'":.�j�. *a.`N"" y r% y:_ � ���. �M� �."a'"� c�ta� .ctin W"���f� � ✓...c., ✓' �,./ .;,,✓ i^ y� u.. .[^i r? �, „s,:-.^.. �.,,��,,�..;a,``""\°a." �,�...r<���^ �' o.✓/"�'�.;°-�"x._,..^,,,„,."�.,..".��,.^*...��..,�'fix:.�,.,�.,.c "Ar' �.,.,a„�.�""��r"���„i`�,.:r- '�^.�i*i;'',.,"`'<'„�;a r P��'",�?:��^.r ryu.^,�✓� „��..�-'F�..�.. �..,.,.;r :a.=:a ,; w,,?y r^;;:.a^ � ,�*�.,.,'�'* v` ,�� `'-�`"F` "J� rr�°;: ':Ty.;ti.W,✓ ra'-^ r✓ha ,a .. ,,, ..: „^^' ^°. ,^.. ...7" ."`�"��„./,°,�'�.r'"°�,,.v'�.:��� .a%.r.."ee�,.„Ylx'" �.,rr��G-..r��.a�;r �,a"t�,:�,'^��„✓•� G.y�,�^���c�.���, ,,��. � u �,... "x. :.,,..- .. '�� ���:� f7�. .�".1.�.�f.�[31.�� �+�.4�r �.., �.��a���'""✓�'��`." ..�� "..Y^a r, .• '`as. ��:e':�..,..,?'"r^..,...�.. ,,5:.«.,»:�' ' .rat":. C,:�w.k.r��,r' ......'r..*'✓it 2 0".:�`.�.: iS..::a�''✓s��':�,ss'�l"=a.7.`>'%,,,',. .r�...c,r.,;......,,.�,��," � "r:.��w" .l;L�z^��i'a'�,�yy-,�r *These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. 2 NC DWQ_Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date:_ I L/q/ ft ProjectlSite: Latitude: Longitude: Evaluator ST County: --79 W A Total Points: Stream is at least intermittent Stream Determination(circle one) Other I if 2t 19 or perennial if?30* Ephemeral(�int4�r�mitte��Perennial e.g.Quad Name: A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= Absent Weak Moderate Strong I O'Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 3. In-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple-pool sequence 00 1 2 4.Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 5.Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 0) 2 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 9. Grade control -UO 0.5 1 1.5 10.Natural valley 0 , (0,5 1 1.5 11.Second or greater order channel No 0 Yes=3 .artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 13. iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 5 14.Leaf lifter 1.5 1 .5 0 15.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1 5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 . ............................. Yes C. Biology (Subtotal=--5-) - 18.Fibrous roots in streambed 3 W 1 0 19.Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 20.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance)_ 0 1 2 3 21.Aquatic Mollusks P-) 1 2 3 22. Fish (0) 0.5 1 1.5 23.Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 24.Amphibians 0,5 1 1.5 25.Algae 0.5 1 1.5 26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0.75; OBL= 1.5 OtherHE_ *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual, Notes: Sketch: USAGE A1D# DWQ# Site#55 (indicate on attached map) STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 1. Applicant's name: N(-VM 2. Evaluator's name: J' J vi A-wre(-7 3. Date of evaluation: z 4.Time of evaluation: 5.Name of stream: K 6. River basin:-Y5 6 7. Approximate drainage area: /o 6 c�c 8.Stream order: 0 9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. County: L(---v(VA S),/-I 11. Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name(if any): N'Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3Lk.C1 5, Longitude(ex.-77.556611):--79• CRI Method location determined(circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho keria,)Photo/GIS Other GIS Other 13. Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads an("Iatrdffiarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location): 14. Proposed channel work(if any): CVC'k'Q �\"11A G-1 15. Recent weather conditions: 16. Site conditions at time of visit:-CA(\ uif V,-CrA 17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters —Water Supply Watershed—(I-IV) 18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 00 If yes,estimate the water surface area: 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES & 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES 00 21. Estimated watershed land use: _5 O/o Residential %Commercial %Industrial 0%Agricultural Ss%Forested %Cleared/Logged _O/o Other( 22. Bankfull width:- I ,23. •• height(from bed to top of bank): 24. Channel slope down center of stream: (0 to 2%) ZGentle(2 to 4%) ,Moderate(4 to 10%) Steep(>10%) 25. Channel sinuosity: _Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander —Very sinuous Braided channel Instructions for completion of workshect (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location,terrain,vegetation, stream classification,etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity,and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality. Total Score (from reverse): Comments: Evaluator's Signature Date This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment,please call 919-876-8441 x 26. 1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ECC}REGIUN PUINT P:ANGE h c AR c�ERIsT cs-� 1- a � f seoRE`. Cou�tal 92 F'i elimont y; ..`ouhtam,. 1 Presence of now/persistent pools in stream 0-5 0—4 0-5 ` <. no flow or saturation=0• strong flow=max points) 2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 extensive alteration=0' no alteration=max points) Riparian zone E 3 no buffer=0; conti ous wide buffer=max points) 0-6 0—4 0-5 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0—5 0-4 0-4 extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max poi nts Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 x 5 no discharge=0•springs,sees wetlands,etc.=max poi nts Presence of adjacent floodplain 6 no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max oints 0-4 0-4 0-2 Entrenchment/floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 7 (deeply entrenched=0;frequent flooding=max points) H'. , Presence of adjacent wetlands $ no wetlands=0•lar a adjacent wetlands=max points) 4_6 0—4 0—2 Bill! Channel sinuosity extensive channelization=0•natural meander=max points) 0-5 0—4 0-3 Sediment input 10 0-5 0-4 0-4 , extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=max points 11 Size&diversity of channel bed substrate NA* fine homogenous=0;In e,diverse sizes=max Dints 0—4 0—5 5. 12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0--5 0-4 0-5 (deeply incised=0•stable bed&banks=max points) 13 Presence of major bank failures 0—5 0—5 0—5 severe erosion=0•no erosion stable banks=max points) 14 Root depth and density on banks :]OE—:3 0-4 0-5 no visible roots=0•dense roots throughout=max r". Impact by 15 agriculture, livestock,or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 {� substantial impact=0;no evidence=max Dints , Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 16 0-3 0-5 0-6 no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed=max points)�a Habitat complexity z�9 17 0-6 0-6 0-6 TES little or no habitat=0• frequent,varied habitats=max p Dints "g;. jai' 1$ Canopy coverage over streambed 0 5 0—5 0—5 no shadin g vegetation=0• continuous canopy=max points) 19 Substrate embeddedness 0-4 0-4 (deeply embedded=0, loose structure=max) Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 " 0 no evidence=0• common numerous types=max points) Fm °" Presence of amphibians , 0-4 0-4 0-4 ( r 3c)'-, 21 no evidence=0; common,numerous es=max Dints t r 0", 22 Presence of fish 4t, no evidence=0;common numerous es=max points) 0— 0—4 0—4 _a0l Evidence of wildlife use 23 0-6 0-5 0-5 ;T no evidence=0;abtmdant evidence=max points) id z wr : v p c NOUN TOtaI F'Oints Possabl@ l04 100 100 Irv°t x`S "( ' .'/"'..r� """ ,., ;?-',e ..� ✓ ,Fr: ^r f *These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. 2 NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 5-r Date: I I / 19 Z I L� I ProjecttSite: K-2ora\ Latitude: <6 Evaluator:EST-K,ffi(A?M County: 9,IC'k0jC)(-)C\ Longitude:-- s' Total Points: Stream Determination(circle one Other gr__)c(��\,JAC al Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Perennial e.g.QU8d Name: if 2:19 orperennial If 2:30* A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1 a,Continuity of channel bed and bank Q 1 2 (3 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 (3 ) 3. In-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool,step-pool, ripple-pool seguence (D 0 4.Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 Q3 5.Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits (.0 2 3 8. Headcuts r 1) 2- 3 9. Grade control 0 0.6� 1 1.5 10.Natural valley 0 (0.5) 1 1.5 11. Second or greater order channel No Q Yes=3 12 artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal 12. Presence of Baseflow 00 1 2 3 13.Iron oxidizing bacteria (0 2 3 14, Leaf litter 1, . 1 0.5 22 15.Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles (0j 0.5 1 (� 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No 0 Yes '3 C. Biology (Subtotal = 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed C-37- 2 1 0 20.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) (g) 1 2 3 21.Aquatic Mollusks p 1 2 3 22, Fish (0) 0,5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish 3 0.5 1 1.5 24.Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5 25.Algae (67- 6.5 -1 1.5 26.Welland plants in streambed FACW=0,75; OBL= 1.5 Other.,o *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual. Notes: Sketch: "T (indicate on attached map) STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 1 Applicant's 2. Evaluator's I Date of evaluation: 4.Time orevaluation: 5.Name orstream --~6.River basin: PC< 21C-S- 7. Approximate drainage area: 0.Stream order: 9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. [bumty (:��I KK. Site coordinates(if komvo): prefer im decimal degrees, 12. Subdivision name(if aoy): Latitude(ex.34.872312): Longitude(ex.-77.556611):-2 9,� Method location determined(circle): opo Sheet Ortho 13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads andICfain-d-maiks and attach map identifying stream(s)location): 14. Proposed u6uone|work(if ooy) � 15. Recent weather uoodidoo a 16. Site conditions at time ofvimit 1l Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Ngricmt Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (l-D/) 18. 7m there o pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ?AO\lryc��ai)mot tbc�o�rour�c�meo: __________ � '��� 1� Does channel app�nooUSGS quad map? h��)ND 20. Does��� `� 21. Estimated watershed land use: %Rosklcodol %Com/nencio| %loduubia| %Agricultural ��� �0m _�_,"�m���d � ,"Cleared/Logged %0ther 22. Baok-DaU width:- 23 k height(from bed to top of bank): -� 24.Channel slope down center or stream: | (}0o2Y6) ZGcndc(2to4%) ___k8oderate(4ho 10Y6) —Steep(>|0%) 25.Channel sinuosity: _Straight Occasional bends _ Frequent meander _ Very sinuous Braided channel Instructions for completion of worksheet (located ou page 2). Begin bv determining the most appropriate econ:gioo based on location, <eomio' vegetation,stream u|mmifivadoo, etc. Every characteristic must bescored using the same ccmregioo Assign points 0m each characteristic within the mnAc shown for the ccorcgioo. Page 3 provides a brief description of bmv to review the characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall nsuosmucmt of the stream reach under evo|un*ion. If cburootergbo cannot be evaluated duo 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 ofu stream under review(e.g., the stream flows from pasture into forest)' the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity,and o separate forin 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 rcvexnc): Comments: Evaluator's Signatur Date This channel evaluation form is I intended to Wused only as a guide to assist landowners"d environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Fon-n subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment,please call 919-876-8441 x 26. STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET NNOMINEE"�✓,e`�: %'.."^'e.,N,':.. ti �,,z"'""x v*'^,,,. .rs F3r.../ ,'a.. ✓ "y', " `` O c r a we GO`d5ta� �1Ctm{0nallntaI2 r Presence of flow/persisteot'pools'in"stream ~� 1:' O'_5 0--4 0 S ,! INNER no flow orsaturatian 0"-strop -flow.=max points) " Evideoce ofpast"humao alteratioo .2 0-6 - o-$ �-5 (extensive alteration alteration=-0 no alteration=m ax Dints O Riparian zoos" . 3 0-6.. 0 4 0 S 121 no buffer=�0;Conti ous"wide buffer=max Dints Evidcoce'ofoutrient or chemical discharges `-° f j extensive dischar es 0,no`dischar es="max Dints 0=S 0 4 0 4 I t a S 'Grodndwatcr;disehargc _ 0 "3 0- , 0-4 rio dischar e.. .0's rip s see"s etc.—max Points) . Presence of adjacent,floodplain e no flood"lain=0•'extensive`.fload lain=max oints 0—4 0-4 0-2 ,V7 Entreochmeotl."floodplain'access _ _ dee "1° entrenched"=0 fre ent"fltiodin =max points) 0 '-5 " 0` 4 0 " 2 Presence of adjacent wetlands '0-6 0_4 0 2 rio wetlands"=.0;lar"a adjacent"wetlands=max Dints R Chaonel siouosity _ — t extensive channelization=0;natural meander=max points . . 0 S 0 4 0—3 , Sediment ioput 14 -0-S 0-4 0 -4 w .; extensive de, osrtion=.'0,little"or no sediment max" Dints) N� 11 Size&diversiof channel,bed substrate NA 0 4" 0-5 fine,Boma "enous="0'large,diverse'sizes=max Dints yr r fr w.a 12 .'Evideoce of chaooel incisioo"or wideniog 0-5 4 S WIS 1 dee" ..incised=0;stable bed,&banks=max points) Preseoce of major haok failures. 0-5 0-5 0-5 13 (severe`erosion= ;na'erosion` stabl6,banks=max oints . Root depth and density on banks 14 no"visible roots=0;dense roots"throw bout=max points) 0—3 4 -4 0-5 impact hyagricalture;Aivestock;or timber production 0 1 . ,15 -S 0-4 0_S 1 substantial imp =0;no evidence=max amts " 16 . Presence of riffle poollripple-pool complexes': 0-3 : 0-5, 0-6 11 SO,O na rifflesln les or"`Dols"=0;well-develo ed"=max amts f Hahrtat complexity 17 `0''6 ' 0-6 0`=6". " little or.no habitat=0•�fre went-varied habitats'=.max oints Caoopy coverage over streamhed" 0_5 O,—5 , 0-5 1 no shadin Vegetation=0 'canfinuous cano —max p amts " Suhstrate,emheddeduess :: '~ 0'=4" 0'=4 deep l embedded ..0•1oose,strucmre=max " 20 Preseoce of.stream invertebrates(see page 4) 0-4" 0`—S 0—S na evidence=0 "common"numerous'types=max omts 21 " Preseoce ofamphibiaos 0-4 0-4 _4 sCa no evidence='0;common,numerous es=max points) Preseo cc of fish 22 no evidence 0; common;numerous es ma oints " 0_4 0—4 0—4' Evideoce.of.wildlife use.: � 23 0-6 0—S 0 S no evidence=:0 abundant evidence=max oints is<w . --r_✓' .,s�?^.',.. r7',.,r/,,,. ..z.rtir'"`, -„ S"" w.,r,..:"' `.w`:% ✓."v:.,... �, r:-..:a✓ .w° ". ✓'r.,.�.wi'\. a' ^�� �y. �v; �'r, .'s""" °✓',3r":..Ms' .a �.�."` �:!`- j. O RION ^5 " .y?' +* ✓$ s ou� olot�'ossib � y ' ", ,.F'. �""!�" ",. fir.."„`sa^ ",, ";..C4 .r ""v.u..,✓"�" `v.,, ^� � �rM.".a~_,-'� vt'*.""fS ,.:x'...'arx. 'o-�..'.�',�'.,.':.r,✓..,- '-"'.�':,.s...,ri„w rw "-,.a _.',;. ,.,/,...... ✓`-„",s....�e�.” r.;..3,P.`�j%v^":'.,yf^ ��F���� ram N' •""... .d. ��,�';\n yi ..✓.� �., ur..� ,^r.�^�yy" �"c'�«""`. .`: '�„,..�'�c3"�' i";UU,"� >^v/'x ``""��,.a.,'�r„,„y'���, 'G^."..r'�..M `..��a.ti,,`'✓ �'" �;:''�s`a..c",s'"y'�.✓.�.✓�'"c��� �,:x,.,.-.r r�.F✓.l.r >r„ W�'✓�. F ,yl l "�"^^:.may�^`'A..M "Y �' r?°a°'.°F.'� ���,yr� "✓� �Sy�B•, � C�G �.�„�,.,�,...,:wdr. .s.,.... _s�„�%?.,.:, ,-r.,.,^",,,'�;-...�.,,.�.,.�,�Y.S,`,��-rr,:!.rn:'a.r^ �r'" 7 ..,..✓ as, ���r�,>,x: ,,✓.....£.,,v- .:r ..., �� *These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. 2 NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Se'3 Date: 1111&'11,4 Project/Site: JZ_3 Lf Z,I Latitude:-311, 176 73 7 Evaluator: e-'S• - - rt County: R►'e_ an Longitude:-71,if Y507 Total Points: Stream Deter juNinatiorL(circle one) Other NC- Stream is at least intermittent Ephemera VfntermitteRt Perennial e.g,Quad Name: if a 19 or perennial if 2t 30* A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong la,Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 3 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 1 2 3 3, In-channel structure: ex,riffle-pool, step-pool, 0 2 3 ripple-pool sequence 4, Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 3 5,Active/relict floodplain 1 2 3 6, Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3 7, Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3 8, Headcuts 0 C 2 3 9.Grade control 0 0.5 1 C1 J-D 10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 C45 11. Second or greater order channel o=0 ') Yes=3 a artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 1 2 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0 15. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0.5 1 1.5 17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 46 = C. Bolo gy (Subtotal= 18. Fibrous roots in streambed (3) 2 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0 20. Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 1 2 3 21.Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3 22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5 24.Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5 25.Algae 0.5 1 1.5 26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0,75; OBL= 1.5 Other *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual. Notes: Sketch: tr�?-Ir SAA DWQ# Site#-5139 (indicate on attached map) STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment 1.Applicant's name- 2.Evu\uutor'onome 3. 4.Time ofevaluation: 16 S.Name of 6.River basin: 7.Approximate drainage area: Z 8. Stream order: 9.Length of reach evaluated: 10.0 11. Site coordinates(ifkoowo): prefer in decimal degrees. 1Z. Subdivision name(if any): Latitude(^x.a^.nos|z1: V'96~737 Longitude(ex.-7%5566||) Method location determined(ukn|c): GP3 O�* [DS Other 13.Location oY reach under evu\uudon(note nombymoduunJ-��������Juttuuh map identifying stncmm(a)iocutiou):_________ l4.Proposed channel work(if wny) /3 l5.Recent weather conditions: 16. Site conditions mt time ofvisit: 17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed____(I-IV) l8. Io there a pond or lake located upstream nf the evaluation point? YES(�O �}yyc�e�im�a&ew�o oudaco�ea:_________ �~� ��� 19.Does ohuouo\appear on 0SGS guuJ map? YES\�xO' 20. Doom channel appear on USDA 8ol/Survey? YES 21.Estimated watershed land use: %Bemiden6al %Cbmmom|u\ y6Industrial %/\gricu|iurn| � � �M= ��m��o�d _e�°Cleared/Logged %Other ) %2.Bwukfb||width: l3.Bank height(from bed ho top oy6uok) ,�� 34. Channel slope down 000�rofs�emu: _Flat(0m296 ___{�cnUo(2<o496) _=�^.~Jorute(4to109 ) _Steep(>10%) 35.Channel sinuosity: ^~~~StnaQ|u —Occasional bends —Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel Instructions for completion nf worksheet (located om page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ccoregino based on location, terrain,vegetation,stream dumsifiu4loo'etc. Every characteristic must bo scored using the same coomcgion. Assign points 10 each characteristic mI1hIn the range shown for the ecorogiou. Page 3 provides a brief description of how 10 review the characteristics \doo6ficdin the worksheet. Scores should reflect uo overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter V in the scoring box and provide uuexplanation in the comment 000bou. W&oo: there are obvious changes /n the character ofo stream under review(e.g,the stream flows from upasture into ufbo:m0'the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity,and u separate form used toevaluate each ouch. The mtu\ score assigned*oo stream reach must mm@e between and lO0,with u score of 100 representing uuucum of the highest quality. � Total Score (from reverse): � Comments: Evaluator's Signature B This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners anderiv-1ronmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United 8tutum Army Corps of Engineers to make o preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this 0mmm is subject to 08ACE approval and does not imply o particular mitigation ratio orrequirement. Form subject to change—version O6M3. To Comment,please call 0l9'87G-844lx26. 1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET CELARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE SCORE Coastal Piedmont Mountain Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 (no flow or saturation=0;strong flow=max poi S) 2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 (extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points) 3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 (no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points) 3 4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 Lt (extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max points) 5 Groundwater disebarge 0-3 0-4 0-4 (no discharge=0;springs,see2s,wetlands,etc.=max points) U Presence of adjacent floodplain (no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max po nts) 0-4 0-4 0-2 7 Entrenchment/floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 (deeply entrenched=0;frequent flooding=max points) 8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 (no wetlands=0;1�me adjacent wetlands=max p ints) 9 -ten Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 (ex sive channelization=0;natural meander=max points) 10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 (extensive deposition--0;little or no sediment=max points) 11 Size& diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 (fine,homogenous=0;IaEge,diverse sizes=max points) 12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 >11 (deeply incised=0;stable bed-&banks=max points) 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 2- — (severe erosion=0;no erosion,stable banks=max points) 14 Root deptb and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 (no visible roots=0,dense roots throughout=max points) I rn 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 3 (substantial impact=0;no evidence=max points) 16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 (no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed=max points) 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 (littl or no habitat=0;frequent,varied habitats=max po nts) Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 (no shading vegetation=0-,continuous canopy=max points) 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 (deeply embedded=0;loose structure=max) 20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4) o-4 0-5 0-5 (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=rnax points) 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)____ 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 (no evidence--0;common,numerous types=max points) Evidence of wildlife use 23 (no evidence=0;abundant evidence=m ints) 0-6 1 0-5 1 0-5 Total Points Possible 1 100 100 100 TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 7c� These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. 2 NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 -5p DI Date. ///Iq//4t Project/Site: tZ-'3 4 1`7- Latitude: 3 6 Evaluator: 65z- County: Longitude; -71. ?0�yzy Total Points* Stream Determin"t _Q(circle one) Other lz,'a"..,�'�"I P C Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral lzt�rmitten�Perennial e.g.Quad Name: I if a 19 or perennial if 2:30* A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=_I_j Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1",Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 M 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 CD 2 3 3. In-channel structure: ex.riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 2 3 - ripple-pool sequence 4. Particle size of stream substrate 1 2 3 5.Active/relict floodplain 62 1 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 6) 2 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3 8. Headcuts 1 2 3 9. Grade control 0.5 1 1.5 10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1.5 11. Second or greater order channel Yes 3 a �0=0 art(ficfal ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 �53 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 1 2 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 01"S> 0 15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 4M 1 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 (9-5) 1 1.5 17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=O 6(ta -_3 C. Biology (Subtotal 18.Fibrous roots in streambed (2) 2 1 0 19.Rooted upland plants in streambed <�D 2 1 0 20.Macrobenthos(note diversfty and abundance) 0 �D 2 3 21.Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3 22.Fish 0.5 1 1.5 23.Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5 24.Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5 25.Algae 0.5 1 1.5 26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW 0.75; OBL 1.5 Other 9W Verennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual. Notes: Sketch: el USACE AID# DWQ# Site#19D (indicate on attached map) M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: I. Applicant's 2. Evaluator's name: 3. Date ef evaluation- 4.Time ufevaluation: 5.Narncnfstceam 6. Rivorbmhn 7. Approximate drainage uzeu 8. 3�mumardo 9. Length reach 10.Ceu R . lI. Site coordinates(if kuuwo): prefer io decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name(if mmy) Latitude(,x.s^.ora3i2): 3q. 1s666 ngitude-(i�x-77.556611)*. GP� Tpw8hp 8mhodb*�iood*�,m�*J(�oh� IS Other l3. loo�iuouYcc�h under ev�m��o�m� �u�ymodsuo6k�� u� dach map identifying stream(s)l000bon):______ "d or 14. Proposed channel work(if any): l5. Recent weather conditions: lG. Site conditions at time ufv{ait l7. Identify any special waterway classifications known: 3ootluo lO Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat Trout Waters _ Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watemhed_ (l-lV) 18` Is there pond or lake u�stremnu fthe evaluation np point? YES���8� If yes,estimate water surface areu:_________ 1g. Does channel appear ooOQGQ quad map? YES 2U. Does channel appear uuUSDA Soil 0urvcy?-�lqO 2l.Estimated watershed land use: Y6Residential %Cummoolu| %Induxt6u| %Agdoultuzo| '70 %Forested :30« Cleared/Logged %Other 22. Buokfb|l width: 23.Bank height(from bed to top ofbank) � 24. Channel n�podown 000�,ofs�e to 2%) - Gentle Moderate(4tolO96) ___$tuep(>l0%) 25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends ___Brcqucotmeuoder __'Very sinuous Braided channel IumtruoUaoo for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate oomn@iuo based on location, terrain,vegetation,stream classification,etc. Every characteristic must boscored using the same ccuogbm. Assign points to each obumotoriado n/hblo the range shown for the e*oregiao. Page 3 provides u brief JeaoipLiuo of how to review the characteristics idmodfimdio the ,mmkmheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If characteristic cauomK be evaluated Joe to site or weather conditions, enter 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 forest),the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity,and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total acam assigned toastream ouch must range between U and 100,with a score of )00representing ostrxum of the highest quality. Total Score (from reveme): Comments- Evaluator's Signatu Date This channel evaluation form is intended teboused only xmu guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make u preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total moero resulting from the completion of this form is subject to 08AC0 :pprovu} and does not imply u particular mitigation ratio urrequirement. Form subject to change-version U6N3. To Comment,please call 9l9-O?6-844l x26. STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE SCORE Coastal Piedmont Mountain Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 no flow or saturation=0•strong flow=max points), 2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 (extensive alteration=0•no alteration=max poi s) 3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points) ---- 4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical disebarges 0-5 0-4 0-4 (extensive discharges=0•no discharges=max points) 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 no dischar ge=0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points) Presence of adjacent floodplain 6 0-4 0-4 0-2 no flood lain=0•extensive flood lain=max point >( Entrencbment/floodplain access 7 0-5 0-4 0-2 (deeply entrenched=0;frequent flooding_=max points) 8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 no wetlands=0;lar ge adjacent wetlands=max voints) 9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 I (extensive channelization=0;natural meander=max oints 10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 (extensive deposition--0•little or no sediment=max voints) I I Size&diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 (fine,homogenous=0;large,diverse sizes=max points) 12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 (deeply incised=0•stable bed&banks=max points) ... 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 (severe erosion=0;no erosion,stable banks=max points) 3 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout=max points) (1) is Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 (substantial impact=0•no evidence=max points) 16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 no riffleshipples or pools=0;well-developed=max points) 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 �Z (little or no habitat=0•frequent,varied habitats=max points) Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 no shading vegetation=0•continuous canopy=max points) _ 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 Lf – (deeply embedded=0;loose structure=max) 20 Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max oints Presence of amphibians 21 0-4 0-4 0-4 no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) — Presence offish 22 0-4 0-4 0-4 no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points) Evidence of wildlife use 23 0-6 0-5 0-5 no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points) Total Points Possible 100 100 100 TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. 2 C) ........... '0 M W Ui 6`�,, J L I Z", -C JrMa'�i Ont, 'YZA, ff,........ q/ [W .. .....I...... ............. Z !J J, ......... TJ N"A f ........... .......... 4 d: Vd— g of i NIT I J I INA f,!,iW ........I......�,!"SL(,2,r, .................... ­,M-0/0",ovy, ...... ..... "j qj, Jid g, I J p f"�V, I'll,Z11, ............ "E" "(........ '0 % M, A11111 'T, i.I ........ o)........ �j J), 'AM pit, Y J. .................. .......... j/ N .............. '44 ef th th w I x CL q111 .......... .......... M .. ......... 4 It .......... i, if N dill J, "V, It' .......... SE LiLwiding �01 I i/ fj ............... U Cn M .......... .............. . .......... 4, ,,�Ake 2 V1 no5l gg- lf�'MQ) lq�,Aj d" o J ff, 0 NFII�Iili'�', �J�,,O Nii ..... �-J LL_ K­ 7Y`Ni� de, jp 0 CL J 01,If 111, th CL r I,f f "", ", i � E a"If 11 1 1 If'N 5�( "', N , I , "'Mill, ZI .........- "51 Q, 1�20 0, Oe MO IW mxf ........f0t, AQ OP" f X (/ , �, I � ,,, �i�, , 0"[l r C ............. f�,:Z�Jil 4 . ........... "N J, xf ............ .......... ........... C14 A J A, if Tit k4, c, fi ......... 5 ,r_$A 7" T,N, V . .. ...... if J, StudyArea 10 Or" INDIA 2,z�, Y "S. If IN,1 0 1,000 2,000 9 .............. "'I"oo Vf, Og" z":', 1,,Yf z Feet L T, Sources:2011 National Geographic Society/ESR1,i-cubed Of� seamless USGS quadrangles(Rockingham,NC) Project 0 S udy Area provided by NCDOT. F; f IN Disclaimer Th al ly e information depicted on this figure is for information purposes on and was not prepared for,and is not suitable for legal or engineering purposes. C y y o p TbB ' TbB 9 % rn rr _ AcB Ailey loamy sand, 0 to 8% slopes AcC Aile loam sand, 8 to 15% slopes ® TbB / � � j �' ° "I N AgC Ailey gravelly loamy sand, 8 to 15% slopes , AgD Ailey gravelly loamy sand, 15 to 25% slopes ®� / TbB o Of CaC Candor and Wakulla soils, 8 to 15% slopes �� / r i w ChA Chewacla loam, 0 to 2% slopes, frequently flooded ' v CzD Cullen-Wynott complex, 15 to 35% slopes L!12� DaB2 Davidson clay loam, 2 to 8% slopes, eroded o o U- DaC2 Davidson clay loam, 8 to 15% slopes, eroded Dac2 MaC Masada sandy loam, 8 to 15% slope MaD Masada sandy loam, 15 to 25% slopes NoA Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2% slopes NoB Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6% slopes F Agc PaC Pacolet gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes TbB Turbeville sandy loam, 2 to 8% slopes Ud Udorthents, loamy UwD Uwharrie loam, 15 to 25% slopes P WcB Wakulla and Candor soils, 0 to 8% slopes CL „ r Ir A D I TbA '1'- 04 EzB ® DaB2 / % f f y1 O dt j / PaC L Z O '1 O N z PaD (A 0 �Cf -0 ~ ® O E .r_ � � h TbB 1 ® E N MaD � Project Study Area N RCS Soil Boundary n W DaC2 o sus Aso � Feet Source:NRCS digital Soil Survey of Richmond * ` �� DaB2 County,2009,High Resolution NC Statewide rp $ li l r Orthoimagery,CGIA,2010; "� ;� Project Study Area provided by NCDOT. o ® Disclaimer:The information depicted on this figure is for informational purposes only and was not prepared for,and is \t � 111 112,11111 1 111111 111111111111111111111111111111 DaC2 / not suitable for legal or engineering purposes. Da MaC PaD MaD a AcB Ailey loamy sand, 0 to 8% slopes e �' °' s f° 111d l / p O AcC Ailey loamy sand, 8 to 15% slopes ChA DaB2 p y� Mac rn Y AgC Ailey gravelly loamy sand, 8 to 15% slopes Ace AgD ® N N a AgD Ailey gravelly loamy sand, 15 to 25% slopes NoB l �, ��%" Of CaC Candor and Wakulla soils, 8 to 15% slopes ChA Chewacla loam, 0 to 2% slopes, frequently flooded / �1� MaD v ai o e / �, �vr a� c � CzD Cullen-Wynott complex, 15 to 35% slopes ,� / o 2 DaB2 Davidson clay loam, 2 to 8% slopes, eroded 0- 01 ° ii , tip a DaC2 Davidson clay loam, 8 to 15% slopes, eroded i MaC Masada sandy loam, 8 to 15% slope MaD Masada sandy loam, 15 to 25% slopes NoA Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2% slopes NoB Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6% slopes PaC Pacolet gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes jl TbB Turbeville sandy loam, 2 to 8% slopes i �F Ud Udorthents loamy UwD Uwharrie loam, 15 to 25% slopes WcB Wakulla and Candor soils, 0 to 8% slopes ua / r I� �a i � r r r t i I f Q U O dN Z M U) C ' l r! (j d -o 1— >+ 0 1 m E E � / r 0 N Project Study Area E f NRCS Soil Boundary 0 375 750 c� Feet Source:NRCS digital Sod Survey of Richmond * k County,2009 High Resolution NC Statewide r\ $ DaB2 ® /� j� % Ortholmagery,CGIA,2010; ;1 a DaC2 �� Project Study Area provided by NCDOT. , Disclaimer:informati nal purposes only and was depicted ot prepared for,and is fi1 j DaC2 j not suitable for legal or engineering purposes. a AcB Ailey loamy sand, 0 to 8% slopes o -17 v AcC Ailey loamy sand, 8 to 15% slopes ChA 'u MbD nnfD o N Y N AgC Ailey gravelly loamy sand, 8 to 15% slopes A D Ailey ravel) loamy sand, 15 to 205% slopes TbB CrB ` ° �' a� wcB Of CaC Candor and Wakulla soils, 8 to 15% slopes ChA Chewacla loam, 0 to 2% slopes, frequently flooded v CzD Cullen-Wynott complex, 15 to 35% slopes ! � Llq2� o MbC2 i�� % i DaB2 Davidson clay loam, 2 to 8% slopes, eroded /� Iy �� o o ii DaC2 Davidson clay loam, 8 to 15% slopes, eroded MaC Masada sandy loam, 8 to 15% slope MaD Masada sandy loam, 15 to 25% slopes, NoA Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2% slopes NoB Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6% slopes PaC Pacolet gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes i 1 TbB Turbeville sandy loam, 2 to 8% slopes Ud Udorthents, loamy UwD Uwharrie loam, 15 to 25% slopes WcB Wakulla and Candor soils, 0 to 8% slopes ® 1 r wMbC2 �i MbB2 � i4 AgC +O+ ' N th M UwB2 Q g ® m PaD CaC PaC EmD AcB w O z M EzC ® o � U) o (1) z TbB N U d ® Q "0 I- i O � E Or- r � O I , f N N " 11pIPV ill p IiQlf��kl�uu�l�ll���l�ill��l��i� li��,,,.�aN � I 4V l llw�lli !I ��� IIIRI A v g NoB %i ' Agc Project Study Area g l i i W' NRCS Soil Boundary 0 375 750 � f e ® MaD % Feet � � r i 6 l t PaD , Source:NRCS digital Soil Survey of Richmond ; j County,2009,High Resolution NC Statewide " Orthoimagery,CGIA,2010 � /agC NOA Project Study Area provided by NCDOT. ' $ ! TbB MaD Disclaimer:The information depicted on this figure is for r vt � A , informational purposes only and was not prepared for,and is � not suitable for legal or engineering purposes. � Nok ' A9 C, AcB Ailey loamy sand, 0 to 8% slopes AcC , , e PoB i CaC ci o AcC Ailey loamy sand, 8 to 15% slopes ud ° C\l Y "I AgC Ailey gravelly loamy sand, 8 to 15% slopes AgD Ailey gravelly loamy sand, 15 to 25% slopes cac CaC Candor and Wakulla soils, 8 to 15% slopes ChA Chewacla loam, 0 to 2% slopes, frequently flooded r//� � Acc v ai CzD Cullen-Wynott complex, 15 to 35% slopes acs � ,% '`''` � `_ qY 4�+�' 2 DaB2 Davidson clay loam, 2 to 8% slopes, eroded o o ii DaC2 Davidson clay loam, 8 to 15% slopes, eroded MaC Masada sandy loam, 8 to 15% slope � MaD Masada sandy loam, 15 to 25% slopes Acc NoA Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2% slopes NoB Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6% slopes PaC Pacolet gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes ' ; TbB Turbeville sandy loam, 2 to 8% slopes ' Ud Udorthents, loamy UwD Uwharrie loam, 15 to 25% slopes 1� WcB Wakulla and Candor soils, 0 to 8% slopes WCBj %�✓ rJ f,m ? ® V 1 '//'//fi7JJ/��% r CaC O th th / F / M ' f�� 1n lyWcB CL o jt„it U ® i 'I'- N E o M U) C Z r WcB ," WcB Q AcC >` >; N U f ,, W E it E cB O !r f, N / Project Study Area N RCS Soil Boundary ii 9 JmA o sus Aso Feet i u'Yi Source:NRCS digital Sal Survey of Richmond y County,2009;High Resolution NC Statewide �� v Orthoimagery,CGIA 201021 a` Project Study Area provided by NCDOT Disclaimer The information depicted on this figure is for informational purposes only and was not prepared for nd is \t�,� u, manot suitable for legal or engineering purposes. a <r x � % W� rn _ Zy� o a) 0 N o Y N � C) SH °r w t" SI SM L o o A SO SK �' WI SI SJ �1 �� WG O ✓'� CL SG f 1� o c� SH ) U SD m E o M Z O o 111 — N o z � m E U E ca C p N N M i Project Study Area Ir Jurisdictional Wetland o WF Jurisdictional Stream E °------------------ Surface Water 0 375 750 j — Feet Source:High Resolution NC Statewide v Orthoimagery,CGIA,2010; Project Study Area provided by NCDOT. - t g Disclaimer:The information depicted on this figure is for informational purposes only and was not prepared for,and is not suitable for legal or engineering purposes. <� x a ; M CO O U � N � o w l U ai L M 0 C) Ll M WAA r' SAA SBB 0 N i CL %f I U) (/) v -5 M I �i r N E O 4 .0 O (n S z N O C � E «; C O Sri 04 Project Study Area r � Jurisdictional Wetland 0 WC r Jurisdictional Stream 1� Surface Water r �+� 0 375 750 c, SNiN". O Feet Source:High Resolution NC Statewide v Orthoimagery,CGIA,2010, Project Study Area provided by NCDOT. - SHDisclaimer:The information depicted on this figure is for � 1 informational purposes only and was not prepared for,and is SI not suitable for legal or engineering purposes. <r x a f �1 = O N i Y r w » L12!� U 1� s t M d O a+ Q A m ca 1� o ca U U I I ZM O > o '1 o m N o z N U E E 1 C n � O ST o N N Project Study Area M �� SR Jurisdictional Wetland o Jurisdictional Stream E �� °------------------ Surface Water 0 375 750 c� i Feet y� Source:High Resolution NC Statewide Orthoimagery,CGIA,2010; Project Study Area provided by NCDOT. - v Disclaimer:The information depicted on this figure is for informational purposes only and was not prepared for,and is t,h o. not suitable for legal or engineering purposes. <� x a rn _ o :.,2 -0 N H M U') N N � �) w r I U L tl C) , Q 1�• O U) � C) It N i C z M L- >; � r .04- — +r o 2tn c= z c U — r E WM E p 0 WFF Cy iu N M Project Study Area Jurisdictional Wetland I ! i Jurisdictional Stream SDD '' � ' ------------------ Surface Water r� w n 0 375 750 c� �r r fie, Feet i Source High Resolution NC StatewideA Ortholmagery,CGIA,2010, Project Study Area provided by NCDOT Disclaimer The information depicted on this figure is for p g +�.. informational purposes only and was not prepared for,and is t��K not suitable for legal or engineering purposes. <� x