20150257 Ver 1_Application_20150310

kimley-horn.com 3001 Weston Parkway, Cary, NC 27513 919 677 2000
March 6, 2015
Mr. Tom Steffens
US Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 West 5th Street
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Mr. Rob Ridings
NC Division of Water Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
RE:TIP# EB-5508 – New Hope Road Multi-Use Path Project – Nationwide 14 Permit Application
Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Steffens and Mr. Ridings:
On behalf of our client, the City of Goldsboro, Kimley-Horn is submitting the attached Pre-Construction
Notification package for authorization under Nationwide Permit 14 for the above referenced multi-use
path project located in Wayne County. The project proposes to construct 0.83 mile of 10-foot wide paved
multi-use path with 2-foot gravel shoulders along the south side of New Hope Road in Goldsboro. The
project begins at the intersection of New Hope Road and Wayne Memorial Drive, and continues east to
the intersection of New Hope Road and Hare Road.
Kimley-Horn staff conducted a field reconnaissance of the project corridor on January 21, 2015 and
identified a linear field ditch (feature S2), two perennial streams (Reedy Branch and S3), and two
jurisdictional wetland features (wetlands W1 and W2) within the study area.
The proposed multi-use path will utilize elevated boardwalk structures in W1 and W2 to minimize wetland
impacts, and permanent impacts to Reedy Branch have been entirely avoided with the use of a 70-foot
prefabricated pedestrian bridge that will span the entire width of the stream channel. Due to constraints
within the project corridor posed by an existing sanitary sewer line and other infrastructure, constructing
an elevated boardwalk within the entire wetland area of the alignment is not feasible, and unavoidable
impacts will result to W1 and W2 due to the necessary use of a paved greenway path along part of the
alignment. The total wetland impact proposed by the project is 0.22 acre, and mitigation has been
secured through the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program’s in-lieu fee program (ILF) due to the lack of
available third party mitigation credits in the Neuse 03020202 watershed.
Stream S3 will also be impacted due to the extension of an existing culvert beneath New Hope Road that
will allow the proposed multi-use path to cross the stream. Only 66 linear feet of S3 will be impacted by
the culvert extension, and a headwall will be utilized at the culvert inlet to minimize impacts associated
with fillslopes and slope stabilization. The impacted reach of S3 has been historically disturbed by a utility
line crossing, and extending the existing culvert will result in the least amount of stream impact while also
helping to stabilize the stream system through this previously impacted reach.
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no. _____________
DWQ project no. _______________
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps: Section 404 Permit Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?Yes No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
401 Water Quality Certification – Regular Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
401 Water Quality Certification – Express Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
Yes No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
Yes No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program.
Yes No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC’s twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below.
Yes No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?Yes No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:TIP# EB-5508 - New Hope Road Multi-Use Path
2b. County:Wayne County
2c. Nearest municipality / town:Goldsboro
2d. Subdivision name:N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:EB-5508
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:City of Goldsboro
3b. Deed Book and Page No.N/A
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):Guy M. Anderson, PE
3d. Street address:200 N. Center Street (P.O. Drawer A)
3e. City, state, zip:Goldsboro, NC 27533-9701
3f. Telephone no.:919-580-4377
3g. Fax no.:n/a
3h. Email address:[e-mail]
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: Agent Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:Jason Hartshorn
5b. Business name
(if applicable):Kimley-Horn
5c. Street address:3001 Weston Parkway
5d. City, state, zip:Cary, NC 27513
5e. Telephone no.:919-678-4155
5f. Fax no.:919-677-2050
5g. Email address:[e-mail]
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
N/A (linear transportation project, currently within right-of-
way acquisition, and will be fully acquired prior to
construction)
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):Latitude: 35.405478 Longitude: - 77.937010
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size:11.45 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project:Reedy Branch
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:C, NSW
2c. River basin:Neuse
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The proposed multi-use path project area is located on the south side of New Hope Road, within or adjacent to the
maintained right-of-way associated with New Hope Road. The majority of the multi-use path's alignment is within
historically disturbed areas such as utility easements and agricultural fields. A portion of the path traverses a forested
wetland area sloping down to Reedy Branch. The general land use in the vicinity of the project consists primarily of
agricultural uses and low-density residential housing, a community college campus, and forested riparian areas along
Reedy Branch.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.78 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
315 linear feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The multiuse path will provide connectivity from a previously built portion of the path at the Goldsboro Worship Center
near Hare Road to an existing sidewalk section at Wayne Memorial Drive. The project will also provide safe and
dedicated pedestrian access for students and faculty of Wayne Community College. The project will support pedestrian
and bicycle travel between residential, commercial, and recreational facilities around Goldsboro by providing an
alternative, safe, and dedictaed transportation option.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed project will consist of 0.83 miles of 10-foot wide paved greenway/bikeway (multi-use) path with 2-foot
gravel shoulders. Elevated boardwalks and pre-constructed pedestrian bridges will be used where practical to span
wetland areas and to cross Reedy Branch while minimizing and/or avoiding impacts. Typical roadway and bridge
construction equipment will be utilized, including cranes, track hoes, back hoes, graders, dump trucks, bulldozers, and
pavers.
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
Request was submitted to Tom Steffens (USACE) on
January 28, 2015. A Buffer Determination Letter for the
project study area was issued by Rob Ridings (NCDWR) on
February 4, 2015 (see attached documentation).
Yes No Unknown
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? Preliminary Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Jason Hartshorn
Agency/Consultant Company: Kimley-Horn
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A Buffer Determination Letter was issued by NCDWR on February 4, 2015, and documentation has been attached. The
Prelininary JD is currently pending with the USACE.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? Yes No Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to “help file” instructions.
N/A
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? Yes No
6b. If yes, explain.
n/a
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C.Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
Wetlands Streams - tributaries Buffers
Open Waters Pond Construction
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number –
Permanent (P)
or Temporary
(T)
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
(if known)
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
(Corps - 404, 10
DWQ – non-404, other)
2f.
Area of impact
(acres)
W1 P T Greenway Construction Riverine Yes
No
Corps
DWQ 0.16
W2 P T Greenway Construction Riverine Yes
No
Corps
DWQ 0.07
W3 P T Yes
No
Corps
DWQ
W4 P T Yes
No
Corps
DWQ
W5 P T Yes
No
Corps
DWQ
W6 P T Yes
No
Corps
DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.23 acres
(permanent)
2h. Comments: Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will result from the proposed greenway construction. Elevated
boardwalks have been used where practical to minimize wetland impacts, however due to constraints in the project corridor
imposed by existing underground and overhead utility lines, minimal wetland fill will result where boardwalks could not be
utilized.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number -
Permanent (P)
or Temporary
(T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial
(PER) or
intermittent
(INT)?
3e.
Type of jurisdiction
(Corps - 404, 10
DWQ – non-404,
other)
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear feet)
Site 1 (Stream
S3)
P T
Culvert Extension
UT to Reedy
Branch (Stream
S3)
PER
INT
Corps
DWQ 4 66
Site 1 (Stream
S3)
P T
Construction Access
UT to Reedy
Branch (Stream
S3)
PER
INT
Corps
DWQ 4 5
S3 P T PER
INT
Corps
DWQ
S4 P T PER
INT
Corps
DWQ
S5 P T PER
INT
Corps
DWQ
S6 P T PER
INT
Corps
DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
66
(Permanent)
5
(Temporary)
3i. Comments: Unavoidable stream impacts will result from the proposed construction due to the extension of an existing
culvert beneath New Hope Road carrying stream S3, a perennial tributary to Reedy Branch. The culvert will be extended
beneath the proposed multi-use path. Five linear feet of the stream will be temporarily disturbed upstream of the culvert
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
extension to faciliate construction access for the installation. Temporary impacts will be restored to pre-construction contours
after the completion of the project. The main stem of Reedy Branch will not be impacted by the proposed construction due to
the use of a prefabricated pedestrian bridge to span the stream.
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact
number –
Permanent
(P) or
Temporary
(T)
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
O1 P
T
O2 P
T
O3 P
T
O4 P
T
4f. Total open water impacts 0
4g. Comments: No open water impacts will result from the proposed project.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID
number
5b.
Proposed use or purpose of
pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled ExcavatedFlooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments: No ponds or lakes will be constructed as part of the proposed project.
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required? Yes No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):n/a
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):n/a
5k. Method of construction:n/a
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
Project is in which protected basin?
Neuse Tar-Pamlico Other:
Catawba Randleman
6b.
Buffer impact
number –
Permanent
(P) or
Temporary
(T)
6c.
Reason for
impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1 impact
(square feet)
6g.
Zone 2 impact
(square feet)
Site 1
P T
Greenway
Construction
UT to Reedy Branch
(Stream S3)
Yes
No 3,258 1,517
Site 2
P T
Greenway
Construction Reedy Branch Yes
No 301 1,022
Site 3
P T
Greenway
Bridge/Boardwalk Reedy Branch Yes
No 507 0
Site 4
P T
Greenway
Bridge/Boardwalk Reedy Branch Yes
No 211 163
6h. Total buffer impacts 4,277 2,702
6i. Comments: Unavoidable impacts to riparian buffers associated with Reedy Branch and a UT to Reedy Branch (Stream S3)
will result from the proposed greenway construction. Much of the impacted area is historically disturbed and/or maintained as
the alignment follows the roadside edge of New Hope Road and a utility easement.
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a.Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Overall, impacts resulting from the proposed construction are minimal in nature and have been minimized to the extent
practical. Elevated boardwalks were used through the wetlands were practical however unavoidable impacts will result where
the existing sanitary sewer alignment limits the use of boardwalk structures. Where used, the boardwalk will be sufficiently
elevated to prevent shade fill to the wetland substrate below the structure. A pre-constructed pedestrian bridge will be used to
cross Reedy Branch to fully avoid stream impacts to this perennial system. Due to grade constraints, an elevated boardwalk or
bridge was not practical at the upper crossing of stream S3, but a headwall at the culvert inlet is proposed to limit impacts
associated with fill slopes and slope stabilization at this crossing.
1b.Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Impacts to streams, wetlands, and buffers within the corridor will be minimized to the extent practical throughout the
construction process by avoiding stream and wetland features wherever possible. Where feasible, staging and construction
acess routes will be located in puland areas throughout the corridor. Elevated boardwalks will be constructed along the
alignment to minimze impact areas, and the preconstructed pedestrian bridge will be lowered into place from existing impact
areas or high ground as practical. Tree protection fencing, silt fencing, and other standard Best MAnagement Practices
(BMPs) and measures will be used throughout the construction process to minmize impacts to downstream receiving waters
and to minimize runoff from the construction sites.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
Yes No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): DWQ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project?
Mitigation bank
Payment to in-lieu fee program
Permittee Responsible Mitigation
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: n/a
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)Type n/a Quantity n/a
3c. Comments: n/a
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:n/a linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: warm cool cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):n/a square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:0.25 acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested:n/a acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:n/a acres
4h. Comments: Active third party mitigation banks in the watershed were contacted and no riparian wetland credits were
available. NCEEP was contacted to secure In-lieu fee credits for the wetland impacts, and the impact area of 0.22 acres was
rounded up to 0.25 acres of ILF credit. Mitgation has been proposed at a 1:1 ratio for permanent impacts resulting from the
proposed project due to the historically disturbed nature of the impacted wetland areas and the type of project proposed.
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
n/a
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) – required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
Yes No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f.Total buffer mitigation required:0
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
Buffer mitigation is not required for the unavoidable buffer impacts resulting from the proposed project.
6h. Comments: Per the Neuse River Basin riparian buffer rules, impacts to protected riparian buffers resulting from greenway
construction are "allowable". As such, no mitigation is required for the proposed riparian buffer impacts.
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules? Yes No
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: Yes No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?27.9 %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? Yes No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: n/a
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
All stormwater will be allowed to sheet flow off the proposed path or it will be allowed to drain through existing
conveyances. There will be no new conveyances or drainage patterns will be introduced.
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
Certified Local Government
DWQ Stormwater Program
DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government’s jurisdiction is this project?Goldsboro
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs
apply (check all that apply):
Phase II
NSW
USMP
Water Supply Watershed
Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
Yes No
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply
(check all that apply):
Coastal counties
HQW
ORW
Session Law 2006-246
Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? Yes No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? Yes No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? Yes No
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
use of public (federal/state) land? Yes No
1b. If you answered “yes” to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Yes No
1c. If you answered “yes” to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
Comments: A Programmatic Categorical Exclusion has been approved by NCDOT
but approval by the Federal Highway Administration is currently pending.
Yes No
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
Yes No
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes No
2c. If you answered “yes” to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s): n/a
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes No
3b. If you answered “yes” to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered “no,” provide a short narrative description.
The proposed project will not result in additional development. The greenway and sidewalk facilities proposed will serve
existing communities and connect existing public locations with safe and dedicated pedestrian routes.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
The proposed project will not generate wastewater.

SIGNED AGENT
AUTHORIZATION

NCEEP
LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE

FIGURES

^_
US-117HWY
R e a m S t
E Elm St
N A
u
d
u
b
o
n

A
v
e
Is
l
e
r

S
t
Berry St
ClingmanSt
EvergreenAve
Palm
S
t
Bunche Dr
N V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

S
t
Wayne Ave
Beec
h

S
t
Poplar
St
Quail
D
r
E Wal
n
u
t

S
t
E Pin
e

S
tLaurel

S
t
Sh e l lyDr
N
i
n
t
h
S
t
C
a
s
h
w
ellDr
Park
A
v
e
Frank
S
t
N J
a
c
k
s
o
n

S
t
Ne ilSt
Peach
t
r
e
e

S
t
N J
a
m
e
s

S
t
N J
o
h
n

S
t
F o r e s t D rGree
n

D
r
P arkw
a
y
D
r
Thad Ln
S Hillcrest Dr
De ans Ln
For e s tH
ill
D
r
S
Mari o n D r
N
o
rt
h
D
r
GreenleafSt
L
uther
Dr
FranklinSt
D a nielDr
Maple

S
t
S BestSt
Q
uail Cro f t Dr
B
ollin
g
D
r
Lee D r Gate
w
a
y
D
r
N
GeorgeSt
Royall Av
e
C u y l e r B e s t R d
W ayne M e m orial D r
H o o d Swamp Rd
E
l
e
v
e
n
t
h

S
t
E NewHope
R
d
N
S
p
e
n
ce
Ave
W
N
e
wHopeRd
Stoney Hill Rd
BelfastRd
S J
o
h
n

S
t
C e ntral H eig hts Rd
G oldLeafDr
S H a r d i n g D r
N Ber
k
e
l
e
y

B
l
v
d
N H
e
r
m
a
n

S
t
A St
S t o n e y C re e k C h urc h R d
Fedelon Trl
D
u
f
fyDr
S
a
ulsto
n
R
d
R y a n Way
C
o
u
n
tr
y
D
a
y
R
d
Corporate
D
r
Co
r
b
e
t
t

R
d
N C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

S
t
M i l l e r s C h a p e lR d
S
u
m
m
i
t
R
d
Combs
R
d
D
aw
Pa
te
Rd
Ryan B l v d
Salem
ChurchRd
M
c
L
a
i
n

S
t
HareRd
N
P
ark
D
r
T
h
o
r
o
u
g
h
f
a
r
e
R
d
StoneyRu n
S m ith M ill Run
JimmyPr
o
ng
B ill y B r a n ch
Howell
Creek
WestBearCreek
R e e dyBranch
BigDit c h
S toney
Cr
eek
¬«44
¬«111
£¤117
£¤70
£¤13
§¨¦795
Goldsboro
^_
WAKE
WILSON
PITT
JOHNSTON GREENE
WAYNE
LENOIR
SAMPSON
JONES
DUPLIN
Project Location
F
Legend
^_Project Location 0 4,000 8,000
Feet
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
TIP# EB-5508 - New Hope Road MUP
Goldsboro, North Carolina
February 2015
0 6 12
Miles
Kentucky Virginia
NorthCarolina
Tennessee
Georgia
SouthCarolina Atlantic Ocean
0 40 80
Miles
µ
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Legend
Project Study Area
Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map (NE Goldsboro Quad, 1983)TIP# EB-5508 - New Hope Road MUPGoldsboro, North CarolinaFebruary 2015
Cassedale
Dr
Way
n
e

M
e
m
o
r
i
a
l

D
r
WNew
HopeRd
Be
s
t

A
v
e
NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911
Board
µ
0 500 1,000
Feet
Legend
Linear Man-Made Ditch
Streams
Wetlands
Project Study Area
Figure 3: Jurisdictional Features MapTIP# EB-5508 - New Hope Road MUPGoldsboro, North CarolinaFebruary 2015
S2
S3
Reedy Branch
W1
W2
Figure 4: NRCS Soil Survey Map (Wayne County, 1974)TIP# EB-5508 - New Hope Road MUPGoldsboro, North CarolinaFebruary 2015
µ
Legend
Project Study Area
0 500 1,000
Feet
Map Unit Soil Unit HydricCoCoxville loam YesCrB2Craven sandy loam (2-6% slopes, eroded)NoCrC2Craven sandy loam (6-10% slopes, eroded)NoExExum very fine sandy loamInclusionsGoGoldsboro loamy sandInclusionsJsJohnston loam YesKaDKalmia loamy sand (10-15% slopes)NoLyLynchburg sandy loamInclusionsNoANorfolk loamy sand (0-2% slopes)InclusionsNoBNorfolk loamy sand (2-6% slopes)InclusionsRaRains sandy loam Yes
Wayne County Soil Survey
µ
0 500 1,000
Feet
Legend
Floodway
AE
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Project Study Area
Figure 5: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate MapTIP# EB-5508 - New Hope Road MUPGoldsboro, North CarolinaFebruary 2015

STREAM AND WETLAND
DATA FORMS

Date:Project/Site:Latitude:
Evaluator:County:Longitude:
Total Points:40.5
Stream is at least intermittent
if ≥ 19 or perennial if ≥ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = AbsentWeakStrongScore
01 3 3
01 3 3
0 1 3 1
01 3 3
01 3 3
0132
0132
0 130
00.51.51
00.5 1.5 1.5
3a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 10.5
01 3 3
0 130
1.5 101.5
00.5 1.5 1.5
00.5 1.5 1.5
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 7.5
3 203
3 203
0 130
0 130
00.51.51
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0.5
0 0.5 1.5 0
0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Large perennial channel that frequently floods. Banks are low but
stable with roots throughout. Heavy beaver activity observed in the floodplain
and many deer/mammal tracks were observed along the stream banks.
2
22. Fish 1
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
23. Crayfish 1
24. Amphibians 1
25. Algae 1
21. Aquatic Mollusks 2
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 1
14. Leaf litter 0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles 1
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 1
6. Depositional bars or benches 2
7. Recent alluvial deposits 2
10. Natural valley 1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria2
8. Headcuts 2
9. Grade control 1
12. Presence of Baseflow 2
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple-
pool sequence 2
4. Particle size of stream substrate 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 2
Other
e.g. Quad Name:NE Goldsboro
22.5 Moderate
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 2
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 2
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
1/21/2015 New Hope Rd. MUP
Stream S1 35.405507
J. Hartshorn,
R. Sullivan Wayne -77.937171
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant’s name:2. Evaluator’s name:
3. Date of evaluation:4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream:6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area:8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated:10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known):prefer in decimal degrees.12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):Longitude (ex. –77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other _______
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
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 NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use:% Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ()
22. Bankfull width:23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream:Flat (0 to 2%)Gentle (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 worksheet (located on page 2):Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator’s Signature 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
City of Goldsboro J. Hartshorn, R. Sullivan
01/21/2015 1:30 pm
Stream S1 (Reedy Branch)Neuse
1,300 acres Third Order
~130 linear feet Wayne
N/A
35.405507 -77.937171
ì ì
The reach was evaluated from the box culvert outlet under New Hope Road south to ~ 130 feet
None
No rain within 48 hours prior to site visit. Temps ranging from high 60s to mid 30s Fahrenheit
Sunny, dry, and ~ 60 degrees Fahrenheit.
ì
ÒÑ
15
25
15 25
20
35'6'
ì
ì
71
Large perennial channel that frequently floods. Banks are low but stable with roots throughout. Heavy beaver activity observed
in the floodplain and many deer/mammal tracks were observed in the along the stream banks.
Jason Hartshorn 01/21/2015
ì
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE#CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 5
2 Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)0 – 6 0 – 5 0 – 5
3 Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)0 – 6 0 – 4 0 – 5
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 4
5 Groundwater discharge
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)0 – 3 0 – 4 0 – 4
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)0 – 4 0 – 4 0 – 2
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 2
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)0 – 6 0 – 4 0 – 2
9 Channel sinuosity
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 3
10 Sediment input
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 4
PH
Y
S
I
C
A
L
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)NA*0 – 4 0 – 5
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 5
13 Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)0 – 5 0 – 5 0 – 5
14 Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)0 – 3 0 – 4 0 – 5
ST
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 5
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)0 – 3 0 – 5 0 – 6
17 Habitat complexity
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)0 – 6 0 – 6 0 – 6
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
(no shading veg etation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)0 – 5 0 – 5 0 – 5
HA
B
I
T
A
T
19 Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)NA*0 – 4 0 – 4
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)0 – 4 0 – 5 0 – 5
21 Presence of amphibians
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)0 – 4 0 – 4 0 – 4
22 Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)0 – 4 0 – 4 0 – 4
BI
O
L
O
G
Y
23 Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)0 – 6 0 – 5 0 – 5
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
Stream S1 (Reedy Branch)
5
4
4
4
3
4
3
5
4
3
NA
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
NA
0
2
2
5
71
Date:Project/Site:Latitude:
Evaluator:County:Longitude:
Total Points:16.5
Stream is at least intermittent
if ≥ 19 or perennial if ≥ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = AbsentWeakStrongScore
01 3 3
0 1 3 1
0 1 3 1
0 1 3 1
0 130
0 130
0 130
0 130
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0aartificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 6.5
0 1 3 1
0 130
1.510 0
00.51.51
00.5 1.5 1.5
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 4
3201
3 203
0 130
0 130
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: S2 is a linear ditch feature running between two ag fields at the top
of hill slope/ridge. Recent high rain resulted in flash flood through system
giving likely false indicators of stream characteristics. Much of channel lacks
OHWM or defined bed and thalweg.
2
22.Fish 1
26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
23.Crayfish 1
24.Amphibians 1
25.Algae 1
21.Aquatic Mollusks 2
20.Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
19.Rooted upland plants in streambed 1
14.Leaf litter 0.5
15.Sediment on plants or debris 1
16.Organic debris lines or piles 1
17.Soil-based evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3
18.Fibrous roots in streambed 1
6.Depositional bars or benches 2
7.Recent alluvial deposits 2
10.Natural valley 1
13.Iron oxidizing bacteria 2
8.Headcuts 2
9.Grade control 1
12.Presence of Baseflow 2
11.Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
3.In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple-
pool sequence 2
4.Particle size of stream substrate 2
5.Active/relic floodplain 2
Other
e.g. Quad Name:NE Goldsboro
6 Moderate
2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 2
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 2
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
1/21/2015 New Hope Rd. MUP
Feature S2 35.403895
J. Hartshorn
R. Sullivan Wayne -77.933059
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant’s name:2. Evaluator’s name:
3. Date of evaluation:4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream:6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area:8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated:10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known):prefer in decimal degrees.12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):Longitude (ex. –77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other _______
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
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 NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use:% Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ()
22. Bankfull width:23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream:Flat (0 to 2%)Gentle (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 worksheet (located on page 2):Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator’s Signature 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
City of Goldsboro J. Hartshorn, R. Sullivan
01/21/2015 2:30 pm
Feature S2 Neuse
40 acres First Order
~84 linear feet Wayne
N/A
35.403895 -77.933059
ì ì
The feature was evaluated from the 24" RCP culvert outlet under New Hope Road near the Goldsboro Worship Center.
None
No rain within 48 hours prior to site visit. Temps ranging from high 60s to mid 30s Fahrenheit
Sunny, dry, and ~ 60 degrees Fahrenheit.
ì
ÒÑ
ÇÛÍ ÇÛÍ
20
15 75
3'2'
ì
ì
10
S2 is a linear ditch feature running between two ag fields at the top of hill slope/ridge. Recent high rain resulted in flash flood
through system giving likely false indicators of stream characteristics. Much of channel lacks OHWM or defined bed and
thalweg.
Jason Hartshorn 01/21/2015
ì
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE#CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 5
2 Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)0 – 6 0 – 5 0 – 5
3 Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)0 – 6 0 – 4 0 – 5
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 4
5 Groundwater discharge
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)0 – 3 0 – 4 0 – 4
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)0 – 4 0 – 4 0 – 2
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 2
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)0 – 6 0 – 4 0 – 2
9 Channel sinuosity
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 3
10 Sediment input
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 4
PH
Y
S
I
C
A
L
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)NA*0 – 4 0 – 5
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 5
13 Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)0 – 5 0 – 5 0 – 5
14 Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)0 – 3 0 – 4 0 – 5
ST
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 5
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)0 – 3 0 – 5 0 – 6
17 Habitat complexity
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)0 – 6 0 – 6 0 – 6
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
(no shading veg etation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)0 – 5 0 – 5 0 – 5
HA
B
I
T
A
T
19 Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)NA*0 – 4 0 – 4
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)0 – 4 0 – 5 0 – 5
21 Presence of amphibians
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)0 – 4 0 – 4 0 – 4
22 Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)0 – 4 0 – 4 0 – 4
BI
O
L
O
G
Y
23 Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)0 – 6 0 – 5 0 – 5
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
Feature S2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
NA
1
2
3
0
1
0
0
NA
0
0
0
0
10
Date:Project/Site:Latitude:
Evaluator:County:Longitude:
Total Points:32.5
Stream is at least intermittent
if ≥ 19 or perennial if ≥ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = AbsentWeakStrongScore
01 3 3
01 3 3
0132
0132
0 1 3 1
0 1 3 1
0 130
0 130
0 0.5 1.5 0.5
00.51.51
3a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 10
01 3 3
0 1 3 1
1.5 1 0 1
00.51.51
00.51.51
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 6
3 203
3 203
0 130
0 130
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0 0.5 1.5 0
0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
1/21/2015 New Hope Rd. MUP
Stream S3 35.404618
J. Hartshorn,
R. Sullivan Wayne -77.934696
Other
e.g. Quad Name:NE Goldsboro
16.5 Moderate
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 2
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 2
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple-
pool sequence 2
4. Particle size of stream substrate 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria2
8. Headcuts 2
9. Grade control 1
12. Presence of Baseflow 2
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 2
7. Recent alluvial deposits 2
10. Natural valley 1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 1
14. Leaf litter 0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles 1
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 1
2
22. Fish 1
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
23. Crayfish 1
24. Amphibians 1
25. Algae 1
21. Aquatic Mollusks 2
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
S3 is a linear perennial channel crossing beneath New Hope Rd.
Channel begins offsite at entrance of S2 and a stormwater outlet from
Goldsboro Worship Center. No biology observed but channel experienced high
flow event within the previous week.
USACE AID#DWQ #Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant’s name:2.Evaluator’s name:
3.Date of evaluation:4.Time of evaluation:
5.Name of stream:6.River basin:
7.Approximate drainage area:8.Stream order:
9.Length of reach evaluated:10.County:
11.Site coordinates (if known):prefer in decimal degrees.12.Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):Longitude (ex. –77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other _______
13.Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14.Proposed channel work (if any):
15.Recent weather conditions:
16.Site conditions at time of visit:
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 NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21.Estimated watershed land use:% Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ()
22.Bankfull width:23.Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24.Channel slope down center of stream:Flat (0 to 2%)Gentle (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 worksheet (located on page 2):Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator’s Signature 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
City of Goldsboro J. Hartshorn, R. Sullivan
01/21/2015 3:30 pm
Stream S3 Neuse
60 acres Second Order
~190 linear feet Wayne
N/A
35.404618 -77.934696
ì ì
The feature was evaluated at the 36" RCP culvert inlet under New Hope Road west of feature S2
None
No rain within 48 hours prior to site visit. Temps ranging from high 60s to mid 30s Fahrenheit
Sunny, dry, and ~ 60 degrees Fahrenheit.
ì
ÒÑ
ÇÛÍ ÇÛÍ
20
15 75
3-4'2-5'
ì
ì ì
33
S3 is a linear perennial channel crossing beneath New Hope Rd. Channel begins offsite at entrance of S2 and a stormwater
outlet from Goldsboro Worship Center. No biology observed but channel experienced high flow event within the previous week.
Jason Hartshorn 01/21/2015
ì
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE#CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 5
2 Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)0 – 6 0 – 5 0 – 5
3 Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)0 – 6 0 – 4 0 – 5
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 4
5 Groundwater discharge
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)0 – 3 0 – 4 0 – 4
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)0 – 4 0 – 4 0 – 2
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 2
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)0 – 6 0 – 4 0 – 2
9 Channel sinuosity
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 3
10 Sediment input
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 4
PH
Y
S
I
C
A
L
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)NA*0 – 4 0 – 5
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 5
13 Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)0 – 5 0 – 5 0 – 5
14 Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)0 – 3 0 – 4 0 – 5
ST
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)0 – 5 0 – 4 0 – 5
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)0 – 3 0 – 5 0 – 6
17 Habitat complexity
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)0 – 6 0 – 6 0 – 6
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
(no shading veg etation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)0 – 5 0 – 5 0 – 5
HA
B
I
T
A
T
19 Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)NA*0 – 4 0 – 4
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)0 – 4 0 – 5 0 – 5
21 Presence of amphibians
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)0 – 4 0 – 4 0 – 4
22 Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)0 – 4 0 – 4 0 – 4
BI
O
L
O
G
Y
23 Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)0 – 6 0 – 5 0 – 5
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
Stream S3
4
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
1
NA
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
NA
0
0
0
2
33
Goldsboro, Wayne County
City of Goldsboro W1-WET
J. Hartshorn, R. Sullivan Stoney Creek
Floodplain wetland Concave 0-2%
LRR T 35.405523 -77.937029 NAD 1983
Craven sandy loam PF01Cd
ì
ì
ì
W1-Wet is approximately 20' from the stream bank and 50-70' from the road. W1 is a floodplain
wetland that also is a large wetland seep from adjacent hills. The wetland is frequently inundated
by Reedy Branch. Heavy beaver activity observed in wetland during the site visit.
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì >24"
ì ì
Wetland hydrology is provided through frequent flooding of Reedy Branch and from a hillside
seep feeding into the wetland. The water table was not observed, but the soil was saturated at
the surface.
W1-WET
30'
Þ»¬«´¿²·¹®¿Y FACW 11
12
91.6%
15'
10%
5%2%
ß´²«­­»®®«´¿¬¿Y FACW
Þ»¬«´¿²·¹®¿Y FACW
Ó±®»´´¿½»®·º»®¿Y FAC
Ô·®·±¼»²¼®±²¬«´·°·º»®¿Y FACU
Ú®¿¨·²«­°»²²­§´ª¿²·½¿Y FACW
Ý»°¸¿´¿²¬¸«­±½½·¼»²¬¿´·­Y OBL
Þ¿½½¸¿®·­¸¿´·³·º±´·¿Y FAC X
40%
20%8%
5'
Ó·½®±­¬»¹·«³ª·³·²»«³Y FAC
ͽ¸±»²±°´»½¬«­­°ò Y OBL
Ϋ¾«­¿®¹«¬«­N FAC
65%
32.5%13%
30'
ͳ·´¿¨®±¬«²¼·º±´·¿Y FAC
10%
Ô±²·½»®¿¶¿°±²·½¿Y FAC
ì5%2%
Some of the small trees within the wetland are becoming buttressed. The site is dominated by
wetland vegetation and is frequently flooded by Reedy Branch.
W1-WET
0-8"
8-18"
18-24"
ì
ì
ì
Floodplain wetland with large seep influence from adjacent hillsides. Inundated for much of the
year with saturation found throughout the profile.
Goldsboro, Wayne County
City of Goldsboro W2-WET
J. Hartshorn, R. Sullivan Stoney Creek
Floodplain wetland Concave 0-5%
LRR T 35.405661 -77.937494 NAD1983
Craven sandy loam None
ì
ì
ì
W2 is a floodplain wetland adjacent to Reedy Branch that is confined by disturbance/fill from
road, greenway, and sewer easement.
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì >24"
ì ì>24"
W2-Wet is on a slight slope above the wetland at the foot of a large spoil pile. Area is frequently
flooded by Reedy Branch. Cattails with surface water dominate interior of W2, but no surface
water was observed at data point.
W2-WET
30'
2
2
100%
30'
X
5'
ß²¼®±°±¹±²ª·®¹·²·½«­60%Y FAC
Ö«²½«­»ºº«­«­35%Y OBL
Í»¬¿®·¿°¿®ª·º´±®¿N FACW
100%
50%20%
30'
ì
The vegetation within W2 is maintained as part of the roadside and sewer easement. It is a
frequently flooded low-lying area.
W2-WET
0-12"80%20%Sandy clay loam
12-24"70%30%Sandy clay
ì
ì
Area was likely impacted during sewer line/greenway construction but the area is frequently
flooded by Reedy Branch and the soil is hydric.
Goldsboro, Wayne County
City of Goldsboro W1/W2-UP
J. Hartshorn, R. Sullivan Stoney Creek
Roadside fillslope 5%
LRR T 35.405624 -77.936921 NAD 1983
Craven sandy loam None
ì
ì
ì
Wetlands W1 and W2 are floodplain wetlands adjacent to Reedy Branch. The upland data form
W1/W2-UP was taken on a roadside fillslope in close proximity to both wetlands.
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì ì
No wetland hydrology indicators observed.
W1/W2-UP
30'
б°«´«­¬«´·°·º»®¿Y FAC 3
4
75%
15'
10%
5%2%
Ô·¹«­¬®«³­·²»²­»Y FAC
X
15%
7.5%3%
15'
Ú»­¬«½¿­°ò 55%Y NI
ͱ´·¼¿¹±­°ò 15%N NI
Û«°¿¬±®·«³½¿°·´´·º±´·«³15%N FACU
Ô¿³·«³¿³°´»¨·½¿«´»10%N NI
ß´´·«³½¿²¿¼»²­»5%N FACU
100%
50%20%
30'
Ô±²·½»®¿¶¿°±²·½¿Y FAC
5%ì2.5%1%
The vegetation around the upland data form is maintained by frequent mowing/herbicide
application.
W1/W2-UP
0-12"85%Fill/Split Matrix
10 YR 7/6 15%Loam Fill/Split Matrix
ì
Could not analyze soil below 12" due to compacted clay layer, likely from road construction.

NCDWR BUFFER
DETERMINATION
LETTER

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Pat McCrory Donald van der Vaart
Governor Secretary

1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] \ Internet: www.ncdenr.gov

An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer

February 4, 2015

MEMORANDUM

To: Ross Sullivan, Kimley-Horn

From: Rob Ridings, NC Division of Water Resources, Transportation Permitting Unit

Subject: Drainage Features for the proposed City of Goldsboro New Hope Road Multi-Use
Path, Wayne County, TIP No. EB-5508.

Determination for Applicability to the, Neuse Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0233)

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This memo is to confirm your on-site determination of the above-mentioned features for applicability to
the Neuse Buffer Rules. The drainage features are approximated on your map sent to DWR on January
28, 2015 as “Reedy Branch” and tributaries “S2” and “S3”.

NCDWR has confirmed the following:
S2: NOT Subject to Neuse Buffer Rules.
S3: Is Subject to Neuse Buffer Rules.
Reedy Branch: Is Subject to Neuse Buffer Rules
Please note that no other features at this project were evaluated at this time. Also this letter determines
the buffer rules applicability of these features within the City of Goldsboro’s EB-5508 project limits,
only.

This letter only addresses the applicability to the buffer rules and does not approve any activity within the
buffer, Waters of the United States, or Waters of the State. Any impacts to wetlands, streams and buffers
must comply with the Neuse Buffer Rules, 404/401 regulations, water supply regulations (15A NCAC 2B
.0216), and any other required federal, state and local regulations. Please be aware that even if no direct
impacts are proposed to the protected buffers, sheet flow of all new stormwater runoff as per 15A NCAC
2B.0233 is required.

The owner (or future owners) or permittee should notify NCDWR (and other relevant agencies) of this
determination in any future correspondences concerning this property and/or project. This on-site
determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter.

Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by NCDWR or Delegated Local
Authority that a surface water exists and that it is subject to the mitigation rules may request a
determination by the Director. A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the
Director in writing c/o Amy Chapman, NCDWR Wetlands/401 Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
NC 27699-1650.

Individuals that dispute a determination by NCDWR or Delegated Local Authority that “exempts” a
surface water from the mitigation rules may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You may obtain the petition
form from the office of Administrative hearings. You must file the petition with the office of
Administrative Hearings within sixty (60) days of receipt of this notice and the date the affected party
(including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. A petition is considered
filed when it is received in the office of Administrative Hearings during normal office hours. The Office
of Administrative Hearings accepts filings Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00am and
5:00pm, except for official state holidays. The original and one (1) copy of the petition must be filed with
the Office of Administrative Hearings.

The petition may be faxed-provided the original and one copy of the document is received by the Office
of Administrative Hearings within five (5) business days following the faxed transmission.
The mailing address for the Office of Administrative Hearings is:

Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: (919)-431-3100

A copy of the petition must also be served on DENR as follows:

Mr. John Evans, General Counsel
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center

This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days.

If you have any additional questions or require additional information please call Rob Ridings at 919-707-
8786.