20150282 Ver 1_401 Application_20150315

$�wg B ,ate
Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc Q!D Wo
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Mr. Andy Williams
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Re Jurisdictional Determination Request
Parcel 2177 —132 acres
Chatham County (Parcel ID: 9765 -47 -2252)
Granite Mill Blvd , Chatham County, NC
Andy:
20150282
February 20, 2015
WNR Project #• NNPBC -1000
D
MAR 1 7 2015
DENR -WATER i ES(56 2CES
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, representing NNP Briar Chapel, LLC, is requesting
issuance of a Jurisdictional Determination and approval for 0 006 acres of wetland impact under
a NWP 29 for the above referenced property. The property is located on Granite Mill Blvd.,
Chatham County, NC. The contact for this request is Mr. Lee Bowman and he can be reached at
919 -951 -0712.
WNR completed a detailed delineation of the subject property in December 2013.
Documentation including JD Forms, Stream Quality Assessment Forms, Wetland Data Forms, and
supporting maps and figures is enclosed for your reference. Also enclosed, are a PCN and figures
depicting the proposed plans and necessary impacts.
Please correspond if any additional assistance or information is needed to complete your
review.
cerely,
Chris Huysman
Sparta Office
170 Dew Drop Road
Sparta, NC 28675

Attachments.
— Jurisdictional Determination Request Form
— Vicinity Map
— Tax Parcel Map
— Aerial Photograph Map
— USGS topographic Map
— Approximate Waters Map
— Soil Survey Map
NWI Map
— FEMA Flood Map
— Stream Classification
Hydrologic Flow Pattern Map
— NCHPO
— NHP Summary
— Site Photographs
— Stream ID Forms
— Stream Quality Assessment Sheets
— Wetland Data Forms
— Corps JD Forms
Sparta Office
170 Dew Drop Road
Sporto, NC 28675

wet Iantj ai}il iJdiuial Ftatjuri_t
CUnbuIlai115 inr
r-,gent Authorization
r--
"�1
�J
The undersigned, a representative of the current landowner of the property Identified
below hereby authorize Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants to assist with the
collection preparation aild bUbmitlal cif information necessary for tnc processing of
Jurisdictional and /or Permit Verification requests and their associated Wate► Quality
Certification as regulated under the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act
Federal and State agents are authorized to be on said property when accompanied by
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants staff
Property Owner / Applicant i i�Y` r�F L•+(�c �,—
Contact Name
Street Address / PO Box
IV I
City. State, Zip Code r ---- --
Phone / Fax Number
Project Name�S
Property Street Address ,� r4
County and Tax PIN
Owner ( Applicant Signature
Date
15c. 7 _

W A
y
Office Use Only
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no
Form Version 1 4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
la
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps
®Section 404 Permit ❑Section 10 Permit
1 b Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number 29 or General Permit (GP) number
1 c
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1 d
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply)
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e
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
if
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)l
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a
Name of project
Parcel 2177
2b
County
Chatham
2c
Nearest municipality / town
Pittsboro
2d
Subdivision name
2e
NCDOT only, T I P or state
project no
3.
Owner Information
3a
Name(s) on Recorded Deed
NNP Briar Chapel, LLC
3b
Deed Book and Page No
1293/0483
3c
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable)
Lee Bowman
3d
Street address.
16 Windy Knoll Circle
3e
City, state, zip
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
3f
Telephone no
919- 951 -0712
3g
Fax no
3h
Email address
(bowman @newlandco com
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

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
Chris Huysman
5b
Business name
(if applicable)
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants
5c
Street address
170 Dew Drop Road
5d
City, state, zip
Sparta, NC 28675
5e
Telephone no
336- 4060906
5f
Fax no
I
5g
Email address
chris huysman @wetland - consultants com
Page 2 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a
Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID)
9765 -47 -2252
lb
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees)'
Latitude 35 830185 Longitude. - 79.120582
1c
Property size
132 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project
Pokeberry Creek
2b
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water-
WS-IV; NSW
2c
River basin
Haw River
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, Existing land use within and surrounding the site includes forested areas, residential development, and a
public golf course Parcel 2177 is all forested and has been managed for timber production for the last 50 years,
3b
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property 2 431 acres
3c
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property 6210 linear feet
3d
Explain the purpose of the proposed project Develop a conservation development (as defined by Chatham County) with
127 lots and developed area restricted to 48 acres and the remaining 82+ acres under conservation restrictions
3e
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used Heavy earth moving equipment will be
used to grade roads for access and lots for home sites
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes [0 No ❑ Unknown
Comments
4b
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
E] preliminary ❑ Final
4c
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known)
Agency /Consultant Company
Other
4d
if yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation
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
6.
Future Project Plans
6a
Is this a phased project?
Yes No
6b
If yes, explain
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

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
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) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1 P
Fill
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0 005
W2 P
Fill
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0 001
W3 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W4 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W5 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W6 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
2g. Total wetland impacts:
0 006
2h Comments
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)
39
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 -
Choose one
-
-
S2 -
Choose one
-
-
S3 -
Choose one
-
-
S4 -
Choose one
-
-
S5 -
Choose one
-
-
S6 -
Choose one
-
-
3h Total stream and tributary impacts:
31 Comments
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

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)
01 -
Choose one
Choose
02 -
Choose one
Choose
03 -
Choose one
Choose
04 -
Choose one
Choose
4f Total open water impacts:
4g Comments
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the 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
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f Total:
5g Comments
5h Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no
51 Expected pond surface area (acres)
5j Size of pond watershed (acres)
5k Method of construction
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 ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other none
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
B1 -
Yes /No
B2 -
Yes /No
B3 -
Yes /No
64 -
Yes /No
B5 -
Yes /No
B6 -
Yes /No
6h Total buffer impacts:
61 Comments
Page S of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

D.
Impact Justification and Mitigation
1.
Avoidance and Minimization
1a Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
Strict requirements for a Chatham County Conservation Development were followed
lb Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques
Erosion control measures will be taken to stabilize all disturbed areas
2.
Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a
Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
2b
If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply)
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in-lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3.
Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a
Name of Mitigation Bank
3b
Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type Choose one
Type Choose one
Type Choose one
Quantity
Quantity
Quantity
3c Comments
4.
Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a
Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached
❑ Yes
4b
Stream mitigation requested
linear feet
4c
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature
Choose one
4d
Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only)
square feet
4e
Riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4f
Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested,
acres
4g
Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested
acres
4h
Comments
5.
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

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
I 6f Total buffer mitigation required:
6g If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e g , payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund)
6h Comments
Page 7 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
la
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
® Yes ❑ No
lb
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why
® Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Manage ent Plan
2a
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
< 24 %
2b
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
ED Yes ® No
2c
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why
2d
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan
Site complies with Chatham County Stormwater Rules Chatham County exceeds NC requirements
2e
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
Chatham County
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Chatham County
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?
El 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 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
❑ Yes ® No
use of public (federal /state) land?
lb If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)*)
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
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter )
Comments
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H _0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0200)?
2b Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes No
2c If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s).
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality's
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 Conservation development will be small and involves preservation of the remaining 82+ acres in perpetuity
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 wastewater for the site will be provided by a private waste water treatment entity that is, for the time being, operated /
managed by Newland Communities (Briar Chapel Utilities, LLC, "BCU ")
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

S.
Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a
Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b
Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
5c
If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted
-
5d
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
NCDENR Natural Heritage Program Map Viewer and GIS Layer, and a NCDCR Environmental Review was submitted
6.
Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a
Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
7.
Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a
Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e g , National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NCHPO GIS Service, and a NCDCR Review request was submitted and response letter with no comments was recieved
B. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a Will this project occur in a FEMA - designated 100 -year floodplain?
® Yes ❑ No
8b
If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements No disturbance is proposed in or near the regulated area
8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA floodmaps GIS layer
Chris Huysman
1
2/23/2014
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Applicant/Agent "' Slgnatu a
Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided
Page 10 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

I
I
I
I
FTI
�UT E
dEV ONT
BMP /
I1� --
I
I
v N�= IQMCTZEED
v
1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Phone [phone], Fax [phone]
F -1222
www mckimcreed com
i
US STEEL - SECTION 1
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
OVERALL SITE PLAN
DATE DECEMBER 12, 2014
MCE PRO7 #
02735 -01XX
DRAWN
BSS
DESIGNED
BSS
CHECKED
GCA
PRO] MGR
CHS
C1.0
N/A
NORTH
I I
®I ®I�
r US FINAL DRAWINGS REv 'ON
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY 1
Mac FILE NUMBER
SCALE
Ci.X
HOR120NTAL
DRAWING NUMBER
A wolimD
VERTICAL
C1.0
N/A
r US FINAL DRAWINGS REv 'ON
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY 1

%
0
CLIFFDALE ROA D
(27' B -B; 40' PUBLIC R/W)
PROPOSED PERMANENT IMPACT A
LOT FILL
'IMPACT AREA - 224 SF
Y PROPOSED PERMANENT IMPACT B
jr I < LOT FILL
IMPACT AREA - 48 SF
All
T'
AREA CL A SSIFI CA T1 ON SQUARE A CRES
I FOO TA GE
A LOT FILL 224 SF 0.005
B LOT FILL 48 SF 0.001
TO TA L 272 SF 0.006
vMC WETLAND IMPACT Sale: 1"=
M&CR EED
1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 500 EXHIBIT 0 20 40
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 Date:
0: 919.233.8091 F: 919.233.8031 Briar Chapel - US Steel Tract Feb 19, 2015:

Parcel 2177
Jurisdictional Features Table
Channels:
Channel
Name
Latitude
Longitude
Type
Cowardin
Class
Size
(Linear Ft.)
Pokeberry
Creek
35.835092
- 79120215
P -RPW
Riverine
996
CH A -100
35 834341
- 79.122508
P -RPW
Riverine
751
CH B -100
35 832913
-79120211
S -RPW
Riverine
593
CH C -100
35 830858
- 79.122029
P -RPW
Riverine
1336
CH D -100
35.828301
- 79.120794
P -RPW
Riverine
1904
CH D -200
35 828762
-79121124
S -RPW
Riverine
346
CH E -100
j 3S829079
-79118281
P -RPW
Riverine
392
6318
Wetlands:
Wetland
Name
Latitude
Longitude
Type
Cowardin
Class
Size
(Acres)
A -1000
35.833986
- 79.119947
Abutting
Palustrine
1.25
B -1000
35.832528
-79121342
Adjacent
Palustrine
0 008
C -1000
35.830863
-79122252
Abutting
Palustrine
0 006
C -2000
35 830843
- 79.121663
Abutting
Palustrine
0.055
C -3000
35.831098
- 79.121058
Abutting
Palustrine
0.27
C -4000
35 831602
- 79.120438
Abutting
Palustrine
0.022
C -5000
35.832407
- 79.119489
Abutting
Palustrine
0.28
D -1000
35.827581
-79121046
Abutting
Palustrine
0 013
D -2000
35.827982
-79120838
Abutting
Palustrine
0 047
D -3000
35 828587
- 79.121857
Abutting
Palustrine
0.11
D -4000
35 828767
- 79.120116
Abutting
Palustrine
0.018
D -5000
35 829167
-79120067
Abutting
Palustrine
0 015
D -6000
35 829685
- 79.119425
Abutting
Palustrine
0.008
D -7000
35.830554
- 79118559
Abutting
Palustrine
0.02
D -8000
35.830859
-79118081
Abutting
Palustrine
0 003
E -1000
35.826855
- 79.118602
Adjacent
Palustrine
0.16
E -2000
35 827849
- 79.118583
Adjacent
Palustrine
0.001
E -3000
35.82801
- 79.118474
Adjacent
Palustrine
0.005
E -4000
35.829397
- 79.118603
Abutting
Palustrine
0.12
F -1000
35.828653
- 79.123849
Adjacent
Palustrine
0.02
2.431

FIGURE 1
PARCEL 2177
LOCATION MAP
Scale 1" =3000'
'06 0
0 1500 3000 North
,6mwm&Cmm
Date January 27, 2014
0D
SITE
0
Mann's Chapel Rd
a�
rn
�o
o:
�a
m
gntlre�
Roatls��re
G
C f N
q,

Gil 81
Directions from 998 Chapel Hill Rd to Unnamed Rd
Unnamed Rd
ul -!!—N,
oy, S
o 998 Chapel Hill Rd
Fearrington, NC 27312
1. Head northwest on Andrews Store Rd toward Baldwin Farm Rd
t
2. Turn right onto Granite Mill Blvd
r
3. Continue straight
t
o Unnamed Rd
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
These directions are for planning purposes only. You may find that construction
projects, traffic, weather, or other events may cause conditions to differ from the map
results, and you should plan your route accordingly. You must obey all signs or notices
regarding your route.
0
M
k- Dogwood vv-wy
Iro6Cllai a
IV R! V-
U HnIi W-96
pre slo aqe M Chapel :lilt
lvlp�
999 chapel Hill Rd
1.3 mi
0.8 mi
0.3 mi

ifl
.I
dt
c--
t 4A!o LL
00
CD
CD
VW Jf
R z cs
>
4, �:;:"CD (D
0 CD
n_
cu o
0 m o -0 >
0> DQ>aa
a) m
E -j c:
LZ
O.L) a)
U) >
r>-' 2
a.
ui
a- _j
< -i
T- 0
Y —j
C,4
C4
cq Q i T-
(I
L (D C
Z 1:
cn Z L) Z
E
.6.6 N a)
E E ->-
>>Z -o a) x
zz
75 OL C: 0 .0
p
0
0
�o
ovI
cc
c
E
E,
pU
UZ
go

iT
r' 1. ,\ �� •� `.
I
USGS Topographic Map (Vicinity)
Parcel(s): 9765 -47 -2252
Scale in Miles:
Evaluation Area: 132 acres
0.25 0.75
Parcel 2177
Stream Classification: WS- IV;NSW
Bynum, Chatham County, NC
River Basin: Cape Fear -Haw
0 0.5
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants
Figure I
Latitude: 35.830185 Longitude: - 79.120582
HUC 12: 030300020702, 3030300020701
S rces: Digital GI be, USDA Farm Service Agency,

q
I
i
— ---Pokeberry
Creek
"61.f. ,
Wetland I
ppliiw A -1000
I, A-100 _/^ 1.25 ac.
I\� 75tl.T.__
� � t
r �
Wetland'
B -1000
0.008 ac.
i
SRPW
B -100
i
/ / I
r
I f ,
Wetland
C -1000 Wetlanc
0.006 ac. C-3000
' 047 -a'c.
etland
PRPW C -2000
C -100 0.055 ac.
1336 U.
SRPW
D -ZW_ —
i
Wetland
C-4000
0.022 ac.
Welland
D�000
0.015 ac
LEGEND:
: Perennial RPW(s)
40`0 '%. / : Intermittent RPW(s)
0 : Jurisdictional Wetland(s)
100 ft. Buffer
. = = M . : 50 ft. Buffer
Total Acreage of Site : 132 Acres
Jurisdictional Stream(s) : 6318 Linear Feet
Jurisdictional Wettand(s) : 2.431 Acres
Wetland
D -1000
_ 0.01&dc.
Wetland ,
C-5000 ,
0.28 ac. I
I
D-6000
0.008 ac.
N
Wetland
D -8000
0.003 ac.
D -7000
0.02 ac.
PRPW
Wetland E -100
E -4000 3921.f,
0.12 ac.
i
Wetland
li If 01005 ac.
I / 1
1 'YOetland ` t
E -2000 _
0.001 ac.
1
1 �
I
�etland I
ti
k-1000
0.1,6 ac.
l
v � ,
i
Jurisdictional Determination / Field Delineation Sketch
Wetland Sketch provided for illustrative purposes in preliminary planning use only. Not intended to be relied upon for exact location, dimensions, or orientation.
The field evaluation was conducted utilizing current methodologies which are consistent with those outlined in the 1987 US Army Corps Wetland Delineation
Manual, Regional Supplement, post Rapanos Supreme Court decision guidance (2007), and the latest NC Division of Water Resources Methodology for
Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Ongins. All findings and assessments made by wetiand consultants regarding limits ofjurisdiction or
permitting requirements are subject to venficabon by the US Army Corps of Engineers, the NC Division of Water Qualrty, and other appropriate local authorities.
125 Parcel 2177 -132 Acre Site SHEET:
7 5 0' WETLAND DELINEATION SKETCH MAP
o'
= <:�
Chatham County, NC
250'
1 1
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants
"- scvF: i° = zso' corlrouR MFR1/AAL = 1 Fr EXISTING - OVERALL
r
WetlandIr
Wetio d
4 -- F4000
J l
0.02 ac.
PRPW
0.018 ac.
1�
r
D -100
Wetl a
19041.f.
-
I
i
0.1-3�ac.
Wetland
D -2000
0.047 ac.
LEGEND:
: Perennial RPW(s)
40`0 '%. / : Intermittent RPW(s)
0 : Jurisdictional Wetland(s)
100 ft. Buffer
. = = M . : 50 ft. Buffer
Total Acreage of Site : 132 Acres
Jurisdictional Stream(s) : 6318 Linear Feet
Jurisdictional Wettand(s) : 2.431 Acres
Wetland
D -1000
_ 0.01&dc.
Wetland ,
C-5000 ,
0.28 ac. I
I
D-6000
0.008 ac.
N
Wetland
D -8000
0.003 ac.
D -7000
0.02 ac.
PRPW
Wetland E -100
E -4000 3921.f,
0.12 ac.
i
Wetland
li If 01005 ac.
I / 1
1 'YOetland ` t
E -2000 _
0.001 ac.
1
1 �
I
�etland I
ti
k-1000
0.1,6 ac.
l
v � ,
i
Jurisdictional Determination / Field Delineation Sketch
Wetland Sketch provided for illustrative purposes in preliminary planning use only. Not intended to be relied upon for exact location, dimensions, or orientation.
The field evaluation was conducted utilizing current methodologies which are consistent with those outlined in the 1987 US Army Corps Wetland Delineation
Manual, Regional Supplement, post Rapanos Supreme Court decision guidance (2007), and the latest NC Division of Water Resources Methodology for
Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Ongins. All findings and assessments made by wetiand consultants regarding limits ofjurisdiction or
permitting requirements are subject to venficabon by the US Army Corps of Engineers, the NC Division of Water Qualrty, and other appropriate local authorities.
125 Parcel 2177 -132 Acre Site SHEET:
7 5 0' WETLAND DELINEATION SKETCH MAP
o'
= <:�
Chatham County, NC
250'
1 1
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants
"- scvF: i° = zso' corlrouR MFR1/AAL = 1 Fr EXISTING - OVERALL

Viet;
• I. '
WeE
, • WdC
web
rn_
y
WeD
WeC wdc
eD - s va
WeE
a
LIJ VU B WeC
WdC WeC
Figure 6 Scale: 1" = 800' N
Soils Map aoo 1600
Parcel 2177 0 aoo
=' Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants
:•= -:- =' Chatham County, NC Source: Chatham County GISj
NRCS Soils Map

l:r
rLwt a w1 urunt
t:sM'K'e
• Wildlife
National Wetlands Invento ry
'^ • Jan 6, 2015
Wetlands
- Freshwater E-ne-geit
- Freshwater F7re;ted /Shrub
- Esualint; dims Mdrillt: Ccupwalel
E stjanne and marine
- Freshwater PDnG
Lake
Rivenne
- Other
Y•.
a
SOS to
2DDO f
This map Is for general reference only. The US Fish and wildlife Service Is not
responsible for the accuracy or currentnsas of the base data shown on this map. All
"fiends related data should be used in accordance with the layer rretadafe found on
the Wetlands Mapper web site.
User Remarks:

41
r 4
..' f
h
L
MGM=
w.,,,,, \1.,:
wi
ot
i ji•
• y 7 �e

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
.0311 CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
Class
Name of Stream Description Class Date Index No.
Terrells Creek (Ferrels
From source to Haw River
WS- IV;NSW
08/03/92
16 -32
Creek) (North Side Haw
intake to a point 0.5 mile
River)
downstream of U.S. Hwy. 64
Meadow Branch
From source to Terrells
WS- IV;NSW
08/03/92
16 -32 -1
Ward Branch
Creek
WS- IV;NSW
08/03/92
16 -37 -1
Crows Creek
From source to Terrells
WS- IV;NSW
08/03/9
16 -3 = ---
Williams Pond
Creek
WS- IV;NSW
08/03/92
16 -37 -=
Dry Creek
From source to a point 0.3
WS -V;NSW
08/11/09
16- 34 -(0.3)
HAW RIVER
mile downstream of Chatham
WS- IV;NSW,CA
08/03/92
16- (37.3)
County SR 1506
Dry Creek
From a point 0.3 mile
WS- IV;NSW
08/03/92
16- 34 -(0.7)
downstream of Chatham
HAW RIVER (B. Everett
County SR 1506 to Haw River
WS- IV,B;NSW,CA
08/03/9^
16- (37.5)
Long Branch
From source to Dry Creek
WS- IV;NSW
08/03/9?
16 -34 -1
Wilkinson Creek
From source to Haw River
WS- IV;NSW
08/03/92
16 -35
Brooks Creek (Branch)
From source to Haw River
WS- IV,B;NSW
08/03/92
16 -36
HAW RIVER
From a point 0.4 mile
WS- IV;NSW,CA
08/03/92
16- (36.3)
downstream of Brooks Branch
Hill Creek
to Pittsboro water supply
WS -V;NSW
08/11/09
16- 38 -= -(1)
Hill Creek
intake (located 0.3 mile
WS- IV;NSW
08/03/92
upstream of Pokeberry Creek)
HAW RIVER
From Pittsboro water supply
WS- IV;NSW
08/03/9=
16- (36.7)
intake to a point 0.5 mile
downstream of U.S. Hwy. 64
Pokeberry Creek
From source to Haw River
WS -IV ;NSW
08/03/93
16 -37
Ward Branch
From source to Pokeberry
WS- IV;NSW
08/03/92
16 -37 -1
Creek
Williams Pond
Entire pond and connecting
WS- IV;NSW
08/03/92
16 -37 -=
stream to Pokeberry Creek
HAW RIVER
From a point 0.5 mile
WS- IV;NSW,CA
08/03/92
16- (37.3)
downstream of U.S. Hwy. 64
to approximately 1.0 mile
below U.S. Hwy. 64
HAW RIVER (B. Everett
From approximately 1.0 mile
WS- IV,B;NSW,CA
08/03/9^
16- (37.5)
Jordan Lake below normal
below U.S. Hwy. 64 to dam
pool elevation)
at B. Everett Jordan Lake
Robeson Creek
From source to a point 0.7
WS -V;NSW
08/11/09
16- 38 -(1)
mile downstream of Chatham
county SR 2159
Hill Creek
From source to U.S. Hwy. 64
WS -V;NSW
08/11/09
16- 38 -= -(1)
Hill Creek
From U.S. Hwy. 64 to
WS- IV;NSW
08/03/92
Robeson Creek
Robeson Creek
From a point 0.7 mile
WS- IV;NSW
08/03/92
16- 38 -(3)
downstream of Chatham
County SR 2159 to a point
0.3 mile upstream of mouth
Turkey Creek
From source to Robeson Creek
WS- IV;NSW
08/03/92
16 -38 -4
:�B .0300
Page 10 of 69 2013 -12 -09 10:45:30

Ills <'1Y = t1UC[2- f IIUf-1_- IIU4tQ- /fie fit- t -
t1NU1211509 030 000205(ly otl /;i 1020101 411"3a1M12(17.of a IIIIL IS- it :utltio ura
o' � n.iuiurru?ulal'
1101 12- v
t1U(t 1 r ( 11t130on2u u=
/ 031)3110(13070 -' -
• � I11�1 1 =- � 1
l OilI tIM III- IITl12 '
.` ! :(� IIII C'12 -03031N111 1 l4 -,ll' -
' ( "4
I
11Cl_ � / Ai•h;vr Cf��rl. fi I 1 UC'
H IS-
1 (UIi3111111211007
1 ' 0303U0(2115(ly
j 4k
= 0301tWlll.107n2 03WU( 2
fl7{ . (13 61410207011 IIUCI I- t1,UC12 i c,` f ` 1100►
H -y
\ 01'I: 0 mi- u:il[i(IIg2((?ol 031/300112 12 U U U0112Ub1n
1 11113 0 0112 11 :111 ''�
U311311U120'lll I -IU _T2- Aw
o3o3o1N121ro-,
R11 I.- .
iIIlN 121k�1.1q
031:l0f020712
r }� 1
� 1101'12- �e
I t Fersero � �tf l! ( I 2 o- '. i�� aiO3an120'ol IIU[12-
-
UW2U7Ul 7S = -" 2.1,ln
IILI( 12-
l3113111N12117111 i'
<i? � Ih 11 iUUII,�, 11n1U
j
hill im,l^ utHlmNQIr.0-,
i IF
12-
� 0311i00020010
1 Ui�l•2- 11 Ut 12- 1 101 I .- I I UC' I
Figure 16 Scale: 1" = 32001 N
USGS NHD Map 1600 6400
Parcel 2177 o 6200
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants
-' Chatham County, NC Source: Chatham County GIS

+vi naro kJ ' c
x CH0303 Sete Smith Howe & Gas Station (Gone71
R o
n3 V y
L
n �
CH0313 Fearrington- Ken field Log Howe CH0318 ester -Strowd Howe CH0302 Merritt- Strowd,litfp House
CH0284 Mann's Chapel 2017 A. f
CH0314 Riggs NO ad House ■ IIanns Ghap Rd CH0305 Whams -Wade Howe
CH0309Britten- Norwood use
3 �
e
P
•�v
`
One Mile Buffer ^ ;
l�
Roads [n3 -
f Hillsoi-15
Noll Rd
CH031 7 Bryant Hackney House CH 318 Lag Howe
H CH 0514 Isiiikh & Eliza Cole Hous e
CH0295 Donas Norwood Form,�o
Y
".,
Twin (. ices 06 CH0296 Hub
'ss G off C ours e +
b
r :a
Rry �ti
CH0308 Dr. Alexander Norwood
CH0297 Nor m&HIsmlet Hiluse
C:H0307
Figure 14
NCHPO Historic Structures
Parcel 2177
Chatham County, NC
0 NR Individual Listing
Yskw *-� ir`t
/1 ..
d8 l
4p
off'
Pleasant Methodist Chkrch Parsonage (former)
Surveyed Only
GH0311 Norwood.Menn Farm Complex
■ Study List Individual Entry
• NR Listing, Gone Surveyed Only, Gone Determined Eligible
CH030$WilliamBrocks Cheek House 1994
ou
Z ��ond O
t xr
I Htrra 1 �' ti
v 0233 Blake- Anrkews- Horton Farm
C140231 Lys bra Baptist Chur ch
IvFy -^
CH - -- Zion 5chmll {Gone}
a
40232 Mount Z ion gaptis t lC hkx ch
Oat fa
sn
A
k0271 Cheek Horne
>♦, Vickw kJ
CH0270 Lag House (Gone)
' CH0369 Isiah Cole House
CH0714 Log House 1CH0237 Evander Rigs bee House 1994
1:40,000
0 0.325 0.65 1.3 mi
0 0.5 1 2 km
Sources: Esri, DeLomre, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri
Japan, KETI, Esh Chha (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), Tom Tom 2013

ANFNDAL CREEK HIGHLAND
RIDGE
- FOR( -�T. SPRINGS A +' r j��.,
CEDAR �'fYLn _ J�t, � 7,�!9i..�- MEOR C
jlr-Ar HIGHLAND
WWE) E ` �,
GRC)VE CEDAR • LEA i SADD .
MTN BINGHAM ES?AtES B
RIDGE * RIDGE /�
SF NHS EO_ID "25454 �yi HOLT
HEARTLAND LAST OBS 201 QR �' �"' °`
ARCAD�A ° GROVE — GOVENORS CLUB "` C
%..,EO_STATUS CAent HIGHLAND
ACCURACY 3 - MediUM LYSTRA ,° POND i
FAGtI P<Ilr,' '0400[n A' SYMBOLOGY N rat Comouuwity
I r r� POLAS i'A *T'
Approximate Property Boundary LANDING.
�., . .
TN
BRIAR Cf /ABEL A=i
40 MACGREGO MTN (�
_ HERND Rd
Wocvs
HAW I •
GROVI t
HARRISON S
M POND ��
F"frington _ JORDAN
HAWiIELDS 8fAVER
9th HILLS
y.,. DAM
—g11 S IIN M10+ "' .F VILLAGE
103Ln
�7 - Sou +c e: NASA. Of A „USGS �1
�, _
2008 6MA'awft Cer p.,,�z _ i

NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Natural Heritage Program - NHP Map Viewer
Natural Heritage Program Map Viewer
(Data last updated on January 8, 2014)
He1F and Definition ( nttp . / /portai.ncdenr:or�/ddocument_ library/ het_ ftleiuuid= 3da6baa6- 9263.4e0a- 81H5.......................... 78d62a3b4741st oupld= 61587 )
Baldwin, NC, USA
35.83041923105466 - 79.1200590133667
Search Radius: 4 miles v
Search � Clear Fields and Reset Map
Enter an Address
OR
Latitude and Longitude
(decimal degrees)
OR
just click a map location below...
Show Legend
SHOW RESULTS FOR: O Significant Natural Heritage Areas 4 Managed Areas
Show 10 J entries per page Download Results
Filter search results:
Managed Area Name Acres
Owner
Owner Type
Federal
B. Everett Jordan Dam and Lake
176.08
US Army Corps of Engineers
B. Everett Jordan Dam and Lake
149.95
US Army Corps of Engineers
Federal
Chatham County Open Space
23.92
Chatham County: multiple local government
Local Government
Lower Haw River State Natural Area
85.76
NC DENR, Division of Parks and Recreation
State
Lower Haw River State Natural Area DNP
49.86
NC DENR, Division of Parks and Recreation
State
Orange County Water and Sewer Authority Property
4.38
Orange County Water and Sewer Authority
Local Government
Orange County Water and Sewer Authority Property
0.76
Orange County Water and Sewer Authority
Local Government
Triangle Land Conservancy Easement
181.7
Triangle Land Conservancy
Private
Showing 1 to 8 of 8 entries First Previous 1O Next Last

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:
3. Date of evaluation:_ —`0
5. Name of stream:
7. Approximate drainage area:
�-
9. Length of reach evaluated:
4- 1
-�'
I L Site coordinates (if known):
prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
2. Evaluator's name: ` e -� "' 1`, r'�
4. Time of evaluation: 00
Y„.
6. River basin:
8. Stream order:
1 A
10. County:
12. Subdivision name (if any).
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 shvam(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
4 LlM% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (
22. Bankfull width: l - 21 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): "
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ,Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) i�Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight .K- Occasional bends Y 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): ' w. (} 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 06103. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

V5-0
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
_
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / 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)
.a
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
d
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands etc. = max points )
'?
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
y,
(no flood lain = 0• extensive floodplain = max points)
R.
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0 - 4
0-2
_ 2-
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = 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
Z_ ?,
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
I I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA.*
0-4
0 - 5
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)_2
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
>.
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
F
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
,
_ +
severe erosion = 0; no erosion stable banks = max oints)
Q
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 — 4
0-5
-
F
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
M
! 5
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
t
no ritlles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
d
1
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 - 6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0- frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddeduess
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 types = max points)
Z 1
Presence of amphibians
0 4
0-4
0 - 4
Q
no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max points)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
—�
(no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
I00
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

NC DWQ Stream Identification Fnrm Varcinn d 11
Date: tf� ._ 'F
4,y
Project/Site;
Latitude:
Evaluator
Counp
h+: Flo.
Lon itude:
g
Total Points:
Stmam is at least intermittent .--•
Stream Determination circle one
( )
Other
if 2. Igor or perennial Jf z 30` i
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Ueomor holo (Subtotal= { " '• i
1a-Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
Strong
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
0
1
1
:17'2
2,
3
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
0,
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
21"'"l
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
p
1
;'1
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5^x°
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No (6
Yes = 3
­.U. �cc vim ussions in manual u
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal T
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2 %
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
1
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0,
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
ganic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
�16.
il -based evidence of high water table?
____.. in � i.
No = 0
0.5
;'1
V. DtU1Vyy toubiotal
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversky and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
;'1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
_ _
FACW = .75;
BL = 1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

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: i 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: ( Z..? 4. Time of evaluation: '
5. Name of stream: :. 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: ± t�� 8. Stream order: S
''11;`�r
9. Length of reach evaluated: �_ 10. County °
;
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
12. Subdivision name (if any):
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
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters `Essential Fisheries Habitat
[gout 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 ch na nel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: k ,� - ' * _ 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 u 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.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
' These charactensrics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
1
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max oinks
0-5
U - 4
0-5
•e'
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alterafion = max poin ks)
s..
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 oinks
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
A
Uno
discharge = 0- springs, seeps wetlands etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
0 -4
0 -4
0 -2
Entrenchment/ floodplain access
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
0- 5
0- 4
0- 2
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)
Z
10
Sediment input
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
',
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max ints
: •_
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
11
fine homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
NA *
0 - 4
0-5
,.
.
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0- 5
y+
(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
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu out = max points)
IS
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
d
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 - 6
0-6
F
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
.
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
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max)
}
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)'j
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0- 4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points)
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 charactensrics are not assessed in coastal streams.

NC DWO Stream Identifiration Fnrm Varcinn A t 7
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ' `' w) �
j Proect/Site:
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County: "'°'
ty: -:
Longitude:
Total Points:
1
Stream is at !oast intermittent
i
termnaon
Stream De circle one
ti ( )
ether
if 2 19 or perennial i/ 2 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name: ,
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ' `' w) �
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2•'`"i0.
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
2 ---
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
0.5
1
1.5
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
0.5
1 ,? r
1.5
ri le- ooI se uence
0
0
1
1
/''Z j
3
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
f2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
-,
3 -
8. Headcuts
26. Wetland plants in streambed
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
i}
1 5
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No" 0
Yes = 3
..w.w ore nw aiev. awes uueu siuns in manual - -.
B. Hydrology (Subtotal _= 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2 �}`"
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2•'`"i0.
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1 ,? r
1.5
high water table?
17. Soil -based evidence of r7 I I %
No = 0
Yes 3
d
U. otology IJUDiotal =­i- t ,. }
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
0
19, Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
y.Y^ ,,
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
r r
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
z,lr'
2
3
22. Fish _
0 `
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
17`
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Ngae
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW =
.75; j OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch.

USACE AID#
DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
i STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET'
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 40
1. Applicant's name: _ 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation:; ',] r":I 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: - 6. River basin: C� \:"" "'':.
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: Ariz)
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
8. Stream order: i
10. County: C.':a."-�. }. fh s•
12. Subdivision name (if any):
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 strmm(s) location):
"i..�
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visi
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 : N0 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
k f3? L /. 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: * C 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 tows 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): t Comments:
� �.-., ;.,..� ar-t l,. '.,, ,�y �.j • � y«tA'��'i� <'4"'j;4 ,':;��'"� _'��',�,�'. t, {���,,
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
j
I
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of now 1 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
0-6
0-4
0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max po ints
0-5
0 -- 4
0-4
-�
04
5
Groundwater discharge
U
no discharge = 0' springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max oints)
0-3
0- 4
0--4
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
no Flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
0-4
0 -- 4
0-2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
064
(deenly 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
�r
9
Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
0_ S
0- 4
0- 3
10
Sediment input
(extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max oints )
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
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
F
dee t 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
_
00
14
Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
:r'.
1 5
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
0 - 5
0-4
0 - 5
5
16
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple -pool complexes
E 1
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well - developed = max points)
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
1
Habitat complexity
(little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max points)
0- 6
0- 6
0- 6
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
(no shadin vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
,
19
Substrate embeddedness
_
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
I
>
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
r-�
21
Presence of amphibians
O
(no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
;" )
points)
�+
22
Presence of fish
no evidence = 0; common, numerous 493es = max oints
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
Z3
Evidence of wildlife use
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points
0 0-6
0-5
0 - 5
,
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
Ll1WV alt; IIUI aJSCSSCU III CUail_i{I Streams.

NC DWO Stream Identification Form VArcinn d 11
Date:
y
Project/Site:
Latitude:
Evaluator �,�� ft"(`
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
"1 .
2
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other
if 2! 19 or perennial if? 30
2
e.g. Quad Name_ •'t.l+sS
0__"
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = '�SN t =-' I
18 ' Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
2 )
Strong
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
"1 .
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
�1
L%
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5--
2
3
5. Activeirelict floodplain
0.5 3
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
` O�i
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
; "
1
2
3
9. Grade control
1.5
25. Algae
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
:'0.5: '"
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
Unnuaa+ ditches are not rated; see d+sc�+ons i nual
B. Hydrology Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
. - 1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
r." 0"'
.]
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 .;
0.5--
i
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5 3
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No 6 .;0
Yes = 3
l.. t5►oto y (Subtotal
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1 ---u
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
C 0 ,
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
EIJD
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks _
00
1
2
3
22. Fish
0,�
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians _
Q r
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0)
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:
Skotch:

USACE AID#
DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
-Aar,
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:
3. Date of evaluation:,`
5. Name of
7. Approximate drainage area: ?
9. Length of reach evaluated:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
2. Evaluator's name: 't " \k,)`''^`k--''�i -i,`' vi-
4. Time of evaluation: —k
6. River basin:
8. Stream order
10. County:
12. Subdivision name (if any):
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 (1 -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 66) 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
i —
22. Bankfull width: Z 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 �L Occasional bends X 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 I00 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 -976 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
11
l
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
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
'
(extensive discharges = 0; no dischames = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0--4
PJ
t
5
Groundwater discharge
(no discharge = 0; springs, sees wetlands, etc. = max points)
0 -3
0 -4
0-4
f
0"
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
a'
(de t entrenched = 0; frequent floodin = max oints
0-5
0 - 4
0 - 2
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max poi nts)
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
a -
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
.. ?
1 l
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA'
0-4
0 - 5
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
Z..
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
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
-
severe erosion = 0; no erosion stable banks = max points
r ?
0
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
substantial impact =0; no evidence-- max poin )
0 -5
0 -4
0 -5
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
(no n0cs /ri les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
Q
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
rte.
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max ints
^
0z
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
t
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 -- 4
-7
deeply embedded = 0, loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0 -4
0 -5
0- 5
^ -1
no evidence = 0' common numerous types =max rots)
-
21
Presence of amphibians
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
Q
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)l
r
22
Presence of fish
0- 4
0- 4
0- 4
no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
no evidence = 0, abundant evidence = max points)
1
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
>
1
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastem Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/site: US Steel Property City/Courtty: Chatham Sampling Date: 12110/2013
ApplicanVowner: NNP Briar Chapel, LLC - State: NC &Iimpling point: Upland
Investigator(s): Hussman Section, Township, Range: Bynum
Landtorm (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillSIODe Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope ( %): 3 -5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat. 35.826460 Long: - 79.118165 Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Wedowee Nm dassificatiion: None
Are climatic / hj drologic 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 EZ—] No
Are Vegetation Soil H or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (11 needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes P Not � Is the Sampled Arm
Soil Present? Yes No _L within a Weiland? Yes = No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes = No
Typical forested high ground. Mixed mesic forest
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two mquiredl
Primary. Indicators (minimum of
one is reouired: check all that aggly)
❑ Surface Sod Cracks (86)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (814)
❑ 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 (131)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (82)
H Recent Iron Reduction in Titled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (63)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (85)
❑ Geomorphic Position (02)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B?)
D Shallow Aquitard (D3)
n Water - Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑Aquatic Fauna (BI 3)
❑ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Yes Q No Q Depth (inches):
Water Table Present?
Yes Q No Q Depth (inches);
II n
Saturation Present?
Yes Q No ❑ Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary trio e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), If available:
s
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Ftve Strata) — Use scient fic names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30' }
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Spec la? Status
1. Quercus alba
20
Y
FACT
2. Liriodendron tulipfera
20
Y
FACT
3. LiQuidambar stvraciflua
20
Y
FAC
4. Pinus taeda
20
Y
FAC
S.
80.00 - Total Cover
50% of total cover: 40.00 2o% of total cover: 16
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
i. Liquidambar styraciflua 20 Y FAC
2. Corms florida 15 Y FACT
3. Ilex opaca 10 N FACT
4. Juniperous viroiniana 10 N FACT
6.
55 _ Torsi cover
50% of total cover: 27.5 20% of total cover: 11
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: f
2.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5
Sampling Point: Upland
Test
Number of Dominant Spades
That Am OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
Total Number of Dorrinant 16
Spades Across All Strata (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are oaL. FACW, or FAC: 43 (AB)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: MUMOIY bY:
OBL species x1-
FACW species x2=
FAC species x3-
FACU species x4=
UPI. species x5-
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence index - B/A -
Hydrophyftc veyetedon indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is s50%
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is S3.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
• Total Cover I
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
1. Goodyera repens
2
Y
FACU
2. Hexastylis arifolia
5
Y
FAC
3. Mitchella repens
2
Y
FACU
4. Viola hirutula
2
Y
FACU
5. Rhubus arvensis
2
Y
FAC
6.
11
13 = Total Cover
5o9`0 of total cover: 7.5 2o% of total cover: 2.6
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: }
1. Lonicera iaponica 2 Y FAC
2. Vitus rotundifolia 2 Y FAC
3. Smilax bona -pox a Y
5.
6 • Total Cover
5o% of total cover: 3 20% of total cover: 1. 5
photo numbers here or on a separate
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 It (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sniing - woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, exduding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - AN herbaceous (non - woody) plants, including
herbaosous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytk:
Vegafatbrt
Present? Yes n NofZ:L
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: Upland
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
_ Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type
_ Loc`._�
_ Texture_ _ _ Remarks
0 -4
10 YR 4 /2
100
_
Fine
4 -7
10 YR 6 /6
100
_
Fine
7 -20
7.5 YR 5 /6
85
10 YR 6 /6 10 C
M
Clay
2.5 YR 4 /6 5 C
M
`Type- C= Concentration, D= Depletion,
hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipadon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
[] Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (96)
Restrictive Layer (i1 observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks: y
RM- Reduced Matrix. MS= Masked Sand
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
L] Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Redox Depressions (1'8)
❑ Iron Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
on: PL =Pore Lining, M=-Matrix,
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
[] Other (Explain in Remarks)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present.
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No
f ;
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro(ectlsite: US Steel Property city /County: Chatham flog Date: 12/10/2013
Applicantlowner: NNP Briar Chapel. LLC State: NC Sampling Pant: WI 1000
Investigator(s): Huvsman Section, Township, Range: Bynum
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (90): 1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat. 35.826868 N Long: - 79.118645 W Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Wedowee Nm classification: None
Are climatic / hydro is conditions on the site Pfor is tins of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil(� or Hydrology signft Mly disturbed? Are - Normal Circumstances' present? Yes M No Are Vegetation Soil Imo• 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 r _171 NO Is the SwnpW Area
Hydric Sal Present? Yes ✓ NOE within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓f No
Remarks:
Wetland depression that resulted for topography and timbering operation.
HYDROLOGY
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: ch
❑ Surface Water (A1)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Saturation (A3)
Q Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
M-1 Water Marks (B1)
0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Titled Soils (C6)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Thin Muds Surface (C7)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Iron Deposits (W
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑✓ Water - Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
Remarks:
Yes !: No 1, .
Yes ❑ No Q
Yes ❑ No
gauge, monitoring
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (incites):
photos,
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
D Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑✓ Sparsely vegetated Concave Surface (68)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial imagery (C9)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di)
0 Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (133)
❑ Mi=topographic Relief (134)
❑ FAC- Neutral Test (DS)
Wetland Hydro"y Present? Yes r - t No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of punts.
Sampling Point: "1000
Absolute Dominant Indicator Domnance Test worltshest: -
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) %SSoyer Status Number of Dominant Species
1. Quercus phellos 50 Y FAG That Are OBL, FACW, or FAQ 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
1
3. Spades Across AN Strata:
(B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: 100 (A/3)
IF
- Total Cover
Total % rMer of: Muitiohi by:
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: OBI. species x 1 =
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: ^ 1 FACW species x 2 =
1 FAC spades x3=
2• FACU species x4-
3.
UPL stases x 5 =
4. Column Totals: (A) (B)
50% of total cover.
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
5.
7.
1a
11
50% Of total cover:.
Woody Vime Stratum (Plot size: )
Prevalence Index = B/A -
= Total Cover Hydoophytic Vegetation indicators:
_ 20% of total cover: ❑ 1 • Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
0 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Q Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soli and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
= Total Cover DoWgone of ithm Vegetation Strata:
_ 20% of total cover: Tres - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 it (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (t to 6 m) in height.
Herb - AN herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in heighL
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
s Total Cover
20% of total cover.
�. Hydrophytc
. Total Cover Vegetation
5o% of total cover: 20% of total cover. Prrewo Ves II No=
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sparsely vegetated area
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WI 1000
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0 -2 10 YR 2 /1 100 Fine
2 -20 10 YR 7 /1 85 2.5 YR 4 /6 15 C PL Clay
)e: C= Concentration
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑✓ Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): _
m
k i
o !
ced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. Location; PL =Pore Lining, M =Matrix.
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ Poiyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 146)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
L] Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric So
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes a_ No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastem Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProiecUSite: US Steel
city1courtty: Chatham Sampling Date: 12/10/2013
Applicanvowner: NNP Briar Chapel, LLS _ __ State: NC Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Huvsman Section, Township, Range: Bynum
Landform (hills", terrace, etc.): Valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 3
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Let: 35.829206 N fig: - 79.1188328 W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Wedowee (conditions more like Worsham ) Nwi classification- None
Are climatic / hydrolcialc conditions on the site Wpkw foL& time of year? Yes -7-1 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 Mowing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No to Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Sal Present? Yes No within a Welland? Yes d No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes r/ No T77
Valley type wetland.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required-, check all that many)
❑ Surface Sal Cracks (136)
Q Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
❑✓ High Water Table (A2)
Q Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
0 Saturation (A3)
Q Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
D Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (131)
Presence of Reduced Iron (04)
❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
❑✓ Sediment Deposits (B2)
g Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (ca)
❑ 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)
Q Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aqukwld (D3)
❑ Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ FAC- Neutral Test (DS)
Field Obsemdons:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0
No ❑ Depth (Inches): 2-3 in
Water Table Present? Yes Q
No= Depth (inches): 8-12 N
j�
Saturation Present? Yes Q
No ❑ Depth (inches): 8-12"
Wetland
Hydrology Pleseftt? Yes t - No
includes capillary frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if avaAable:
Remarks:
Wetlands confined to the bottoms of narrow valleys.
i
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Pant:
Tree Stratum WI bounds
Mute
Dominant indicator
Status
Dongrww a Test worksheet:
{Plot size:
v
N
Number of Dominant Species
1. Acer rubrum
_ 20
Y FAC
That Are OBL. FACW, or FAC: 11 (A)
2. Liquidambar stYraciflua
20
Y FAC
2. Betula nigra
5 N FAC
FAC species
x3-
Total Number of Dominant
11
3
FACU species
x4.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
uPL specifies
x5=
Percent of Dominant Species
4. Woodwardia areolata
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
5.
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A(B)
6.
62 - Total Cover
50% of total cover: 31 209', of total cover: 12.4
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
1. Lindera benzoin
40.00 =Tow cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover: 20.00 20% of fatal corer. 8
TQ-W % Cover of:
Multiply by
N
FAC
3. Ilex alabra
OBL species
x 1
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Acer rubrum
30 Y FAC
FACW species
x2=
2. Betula nigra
5 N FAC
FAC species
x3-
3. Fraxinus pennsylvanica
7 N FAC
FACU species
x4.
4. Liquidambar styraciflua
20 Y FAC
uPL specifies
x5=
- Why plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 It (6 m) or more in height and less
4. Woodwardia areolata
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
5.
5.
6.
62 - Total Cover
50% of total cover: 31 209', of total cover: 12.4
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
1. Lindera benzoin
35
Y
FAC
2. Vaccinium corymbosum
7
N
FAC
3. Ilex alabra
7
N
FAC
4. Viburnum dentatum
7
N
FAC
Prevalence Index - BJA -
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >509'0
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptatlons' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
❑ Problematic Hydrophyfic Vegetation' (Explain)
5.
6.
56
- Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation strata:
50% of total cover: 28
20% of total cover: 11 .2
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum Plot size:
( )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Boehmaria c0indrica
7
Y FAC
m
(7.6 an) or larger In diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Lobelia cardinalis
7
Y FAC
3.Osmundastrum cinnamomeum
5
Y FAC
- Why plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 It (6 m) or more in height and less
4. Woodwardia areolata
5
Y FAC
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 It (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb - AN herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
8.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
8
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11.
Woody vh* - All woody vines, regardless of height.
24
= Total cover
50% of total cover: 12
20% of total cover 4.8
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Smilax rotundifolia
30
Y FAC
2. Toxicodendron radicans
10
Y FAC
a
5.
40 - Total cover
5o% of total cover: 20 20% of total cover: 8
Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophydc
Vegetation �
Pre"nt9 you c ' ' No=
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point:
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) % Tvoe Loc Texture Remarks
0 -3 10 YR 3 /1 100
3 -20 10 YR 4 /1 95 10 YR 4 ,'6 5 C PL
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Deletion, RM =Reduced Matrix, MS- Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL-Pore Lining, M =Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
❑ Histosol (A1)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (At 0) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
D 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)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
[] Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
D 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)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
- -- - ----
f Restrictive Layer (if observed)-- -- - : - --
Type: _.
❑
Depth ( irches):
_
Hydric
Soil Present? Yes
No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -- Version 2.0