20160211 Ver 1_401 Application_20160301

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C.
4805 Green Road, Suite 100
Raleigh North, Carolina 27616-2848
[phone] Fax: [phone]
To:Date:.Z�lkC)
Company: N,)(- gv E,9, � >ta�t�� � lS.u�,t 512
We are sending you:
the following:
_Shop drawings
_Specifications
/ Other
/ Attached _Under separate cover via
_Prints _Plans
_Copy of letter _Change order
tin �:Shw�•� S�
tk, 21 k0CYA-
Samples
Copies Date No. Description
These are Transmitted as checked below:
v"For approval _Approved as submitted _Resubmit_ copies for approval
_For your use _Approved as noted _Submit _copies for distribution
_As requested _Returned for corrections _Return _corrected prints
vVor review & comment Other
Remarks:
Copy To: I'&&-) Signed:

VJA <
0 V4111:� 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
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: or General Permit (GP) number: 197800056
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes NX No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑X 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 X❑ No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X 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.
N Yes ❑X No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes NX No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Turnipseed Nature Preserve
2b.
County:
Wake County
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Wendell, NC
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
N/A
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Wake County
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
See attached list in supplemental data word document
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Contact Mark Forestieri Wake County Facilities Design & Construction Director
3d.
Street address:
Wake County Office Building 336 Fayetteville Street
3e.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
3f.
Telephone no.:
919-856-6356
3g.
Fax no.:
919-856-6355
3h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
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:
Becky L. Ward, P.E.
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C.
5c.
Street address:
4805 Green Road, Suite 100
5d.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, North Carolina 27616-2848
5e.
Telephone no.:
919-870-0526
5f.
Fax no.:
919-870-5359
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
See attached supplemental information
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.7454 Longitude: -78.4034
1 c.
Property size:
279 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Gin Branch (FEMA Basin 14, Stream 2) & Marks Creek
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:
Please see supplemental information attached to this form for description.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.35
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 10,800
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Please see supplemental information attached to this form for the explanation.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Please see supplemental information attached to this form for the explanation.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (includingall prior phases in the past?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑X Unknown
Comments:
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):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
4d.
See
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
email in the Wetland Determination section of the Appendix.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑X Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑X Yes ❑ No
6b. If yes, explain.
The initial project will include the trails, access, and parking included on the attached plans. It is possible in the future that additional trails will be added
in the park as need arises.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑X Wetlands ❑ Streams — tributaries ❑X Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
Type of jurisdiction
Area of
number
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or
DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 T
Access with bridge mats
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps
0.083
W2 P
Bridge/Boardwalk Pilings
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps
0.0002
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:
0.0832
2h. Comments:
W1 impacts will include temporary construction access for construction equipment to set bridge/boardwalk pilings and to construct set the prefabricated
bridge and wooden boardwalk. Bridge matts will be placed on all wetland areas for construction equipment to work from as called for on the plans.
W2 impacts include the total area of the 8 -inch diameter pilings to be installed in the wetlands for the boardwalk and bridge crossing Gin Branch.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial (PER) or
Type of
Average
Impact
number
intermittent (INT)?
jurisdiction
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(feet)
feet)
S1
S2
Choose one
S3 -
Choose one
-
S4 -
Choose one
-
S5 -
Choose one
-
S6 -
Choose one
-
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
NA - A bridge mat will be installed over UT to Gin Branch downstream of the existing pond to provide access for construction equipment. This bridge
access mat will be installed to span from top of bank to top of bank. No construction equipment will be allowed to cross the tributary other than at this
location. The construction for the bridge over Gin Branch will be accessed from either side of the stream no construction equipment will be permitted to
cross the stream. Therefore no stream impacts are anticipated for this project that would impair stream function.
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 indivi ually 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: N/A
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: N/A
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. 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?
X❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
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 P
Temporary Access
UT to Gin Branch & Gin Branch
No
6,780
5,160
B2 P
Pilings for Bridge/Boardwal
Gin Branch
No
5.8
0.73
B3 T
Permanent Trail and Abutm
UT to Gin Branch
No
370
240
B4
Yes/No
B5
Yes/No
B6
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
7,155.8
4,500.73
6i. Comments:
See attached supplemental data word document for comments on buffer impacts.
Page 5 of 10

D.
Impact Justification and Mitigation
1.
Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Trails and parking lots were designed to remain outside of buffers and wetlands. The streams have been crossed with elevated bridges and
boardwalks to avoid channel impacts.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Equipment will not cross at Gin Branch. Construction equipment will not be allowed to cross the stream only at locations with temporary bridge mats. All
work in wetland areas will be performed from bridge mats.
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 ❑X 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
❑ Yes ❑X No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c.
6d.
6e.
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
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

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
❑X Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
See attached Stormwater Report
❑X Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
2
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑X 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:
A stormwater impact analysis was completed for the project and has been submitted to Wake County for review and approval. Both peak flow and
nitrogen export were investigated in the report. Detention was required by Wake County at both proposed parking lots. The nutrient export with the
proposed improvements is within the allowable amounts for the Neuse River Basin and therefore a BMP for nutrient removal was not required. One
copy
of the stormwater impact analysis document has been been provided as a separate document to DWQ.
The approval letter will be will be made
available
to DWR upon approval.
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
Wake County
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is thisproject?
Wake County
X❑ Phase II
❑X NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes X❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
N Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
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)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
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 ❑X No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
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 ❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑Yes ❑X 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
F1 Yes ❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
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.
There will be no rest room facilitates on the site or wastewater generated from e proposed project.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
58. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
N Yes ❑ No
habitat?
51b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑Yes No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Once you have contacted.
-
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Axiom Environmental, Inc prepared a letter addressing federally protected speaks assessment and results In a letter included in the appendix.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
Be. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes N No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
This project will not have open water impacts. NOAA EFH Mapper was used to determine that the project is not near areas designated as essential
fish habitat.
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 N 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?
The NC SHPO website was used to calamine that the project would occur in or near an area Mal state, federal or tribal governments have designated
as having historic or cultural preservation status. A cemelery and building on the site have been preserved not currently identified on any register.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
Be. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
N Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
Gin Branch (FEMA Basin 14, Stream 21is a FEMA regulated Stream, the Bridge choosing Gin Branch spans the floodway width and published water
surface elevation. A Flood study analysis and report was submitted to Wake County for approval by ward Consulting Engineers.
Sc. What sources) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
NC Floodmaps site (www nciloktlmaps.com) was searched for FEMA floodplain limits. Gin Branch HMRAS models were obtained from the NC
Geospacial Data office in Raleigh M complete the goodstudy.
Mark Forestied
2-12-1'cP
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
App (cant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letterfrom Mea licant is rovitletl.
Page 10 of 10

Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form Supplement Data
Tunipseed Nature Preserve, Wake County North Carolina
A. Applicant Information
3b.
As labeled on Wake County IMAPS map above:
1.
Deed
Book
015682;
Deed
Page
00958
2.
Deed
Book
6816;
Deed
Page
00584
3.
Deed
Book
002453;
Deed
Page
00558
4.
Deed
Book
001670;
Deed
Page
00185
5.
Deed
Book
001670;
Deed
Page
00185
6.
Deed
Book
011511;
Deed
Page
01096
7.
Deed
Book
006246;
Deed
Page
00117
8.
Deed
Book
012945;
Deed
Page
01382
9.
Deed
Book
6816;
Deed
Page
00584
10.
Deed
Book
011974;
Deed
Page
02305
11.
Deed
Book
014693;
Deed
Page
01719
1
Ward Consulting Engineers, PC Turnipseed Nature Preserve

B. Proiect Information and Prior Project History
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
1772261939,1772152364,1772251653,1772363030,1772461434,1772144414,1772241463
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:
Wake County acquired the properties included in this project to create a nature preserve for Wake
County residences. The properties had been previously used for crop production and recreational uses.
The site is comprised of agricultural fields, mixed pine hardwoods, bottomland forest, loblolly pine
forest, wetlands, and a power line easement. Gin Branch and Sandy Branch bisect the Preserve that is
bound to the south by Turnipseed Road and to the west by Marks Creek. Residential properties border
the Preserve to the north and east. Conservation easements restricting the type and nature of potential
development exist on the Turnipseed Nature Preserve and adjacent properties.
3b. list the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
The entire 279 acre property was not investigated for wetlands. Wetlands were only investigated within
the limits of disturbance for the site in the low lying areas. Wetlands were identified in the
environmental report only within the limits of disturbance in the broad floodplain of Gin Branch by
Axiom Environmental. This area is currently heavily influenced by beaver dams. The listed estimated
wetland acreage of 0.35 acres shown in item 3b describes only the wetland area for a distance of 40 feet
upstream and downstream of the proposed bridge on Gin Branch. The total acreage of wetlands within
the site beyond the limits of disturbance was not quantified. Maps and wetland determination data
forms for the work completed by Axiom Environmental are included in the wetland determination
section of the attached Appendix.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Turnipseed Nature Preserve is designated as a Wake Nature Preserve for its ecological and geological
significance and will be open for limited public access for hiking and nature exploration as well as
research. No restroom facilities will be located on site.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The Preserve will be minimally developed, including two gated public entrances and parking areas, trails,
bridges and boardwalks, and picnic areas. Public entrance to the site from the west will be developed at
Pleasants Road as a gravel parking lot with access to the trail system throughout the park. Public
entrance to the site from the east will be upgraded and maintained along a gravel park access road
leading from Hunt Valley Trail to a parking lot with access to the trail system. A detention basin was
required to mitigate the peak discharge at each parking lot. The 1 -year 24 hour storm event will be held
in the pond and infiltrated into the native soils. The dry pond will be re -vegetated with herbaceous
vegetation. The park improvements have been designed to minimize clearing of existing vegetation on
site.
2
Ward Consulting Engineers, PC Turnipseed Nature Preserve

Several picnic areas will be located adjacent to each parking area. The trail system will consist of a 6 -
foot wide screened trail with 2 -foot grassed shoulders and will be constructed on grade where possible.
Standard 10' boardwalks 15 -inch RCP pipe crossings are proposed to be used for crossing small streams
and tributaries along the trail. Two bridges are proposed to cross streams and wetlands along the trail
corridor. Bridge A is a 10 -foot wide, 30 feet long bridge proposed to cross an unnamed stream
downstream of the existing dam. Bridge B is a 10 feet wide 120 feet long bridge to span the floodway
and the wetlands of Gin Branch with boardwalk joining to each abutment to connect the trail back to
natural grade. A construction road will be cleared for equipment access to Gin Brach to construct the
bridge and boardwalk. The contractor will be starting on the interior of the park and working out as they
construct the trails. The contractor will cross UT to Gin Branch with temporary bridge mats and will
construct the bridge and boardwalk from both sides of Gin Branch within the limits of disturbance as
shown on the plans.
It is anticipated that earth moving equipment will be used for the project including but not limited to
excavators, loaders, and dump trucks. A crane will most likely be required to set the bridge over Gin
Branch.
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
6i Buffer Impacts Comments:
B1 impacts include area within the buffer that will be required to be used for temporary access
to construct the proposed improvements.
B2 impacts include the total area for the proposed pilings for the proposed bridge/boardwalk
that will be installed in the buffer.
B3 impacts include the area of the proposed trail and concrete footing that will be installed in
the buffer of the tributary to Gin branch downstream of the existing pond.
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (Required by DWQ)
3c. Stormwater Management Plan: A copy of the stormwater impact analysis has been submitted to
DWQ along with the PCN. The plan has been submitted to Wake County and an approval letter will be
submitted to DWQ upon receipt.
3
Ward Consulting Engineers, PC Turnipseed Nature Preserve

Impact Maps

0
1A
\ f\i \ :� i �' i �'\�,♦' \'1 lig / 98-__/
I\ \ x t `.II 96,
i,yry �1` }\ \111 VIII / ---199.------
�
.0 /4 i --
1200--__
------ /
TEMPORARY r 8 oI GIN BRANAICHPROTEC11ON 5-5
HEADWALL C- �V -
0
s
I L, B1
1 200,\ /�
�Mre e4 FAR
IN'BRIDGE A I
SEE STRUCTURAL PLAN \ Po'1\ 1\\ I I I B / 1 I I \ / I 2
% \\ °p��1 1\1\ / I I� 1 �\ �-ao, 11 I I PROPOSED
��o — DUAL 24 RCP O 10.Ox
/Po> I oa �" , 11 INV. IN -201.23 FT.
♦ ,1 c._ �� ` _ _ _ / / " /j y'f o6i / /
lilt / / I INV. OUT=193.03 FT.
■ ` \��> I / / :>o iti I I I /
/V ,r I 06=39.15 (TOTAL)
I�Iv///J,
\ 1, \ � � � % ♦ / / /'/ / azo I I 1//� I
CLASS II RIPRAP
TRAIL LESS /" ,� PIPE INLET
THEN SR MAX/ / / / / I I I / / / / �' 15 FT. IN LENGTH TO
SLOPE / ELEVATION 202 FT
\1 11 11 i� /
l i/ �i/ STREXISTING
EAM,--
`� ( `Cis %�/�/ •�/ �// �/ I l /� // // / TOP OF BAjw<
OUTFLOW CHANNEL
CENTERLINE
208
204
202
200
196
196
194
49
PLAN MEIN
1'-20'
PROFILE VIEW
1'=20' HORIZONTAL
1'-2* VERTICAL
206
204
202
200
196
PCN EXHIBIT MAP
196
IES tlQ
WAKE COUNTY GIS CONTOURS
SURVEYED CONTOURS
- - PROPERTY BOUNDARY
••••.........
•• ••• 77- USGS STREAM CENTERUNE
194
— — 10D -YEAR FEMA FLOODPLAIN
500 -YEAR FEMA FLOODPLAIN
785 W STREAM BUFFER
PROPOSED CONTOURS
FLOOD PRONE SOILS
Loo LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
SF SILT FENCE AND TREE PROTECTION COMBINA71O N
SURVEYED TREELINE
Bi BUFFER IMPACT
20 10 0 20 40
SCALE 1"=20'
m
J n O
CL. N
U
ZM
S 00
ate. dl 01
Qj
v
U aj
Q io
H
U z `°
(B
::3 (o
Cn -r a
L
Z U
z
a� 4—
a> �
Q o
-- U
REVISIONS
Date'. 1-29-2016
C-2

i �� :{: nn •;�• •1 l
h LOOQ
LESS THEN 51L MAX / j : 1 • •1 ' ♦ . 1 ��� : +1' ' • t ' ; �` b k : m W ' i li 1 1 1
SLOPE , .1. � • ' �+ � •' I ,. f' � , '� I i E 1 1 ,4/� �1
• „• AN . r I
1 ' i ; • R , ','y .�� ti ' SEE S UC RAL PLANS ♦• b I 1 ♦ 1 ' Ii
116
1 1 �': . 1 ,�. : d •t I.:'' 10 FT. CLEAR * OUTLET,, ; `I j • 1 s 1_ 1 11
BUFFER-
4
\� i 1+I• •• , t • ` , ' '� •,' rte' K l 11r' ' f • A (i 1
� 1 i ,•1'y.• :��,,•�''nfRr '' � ''�,'' 'ri. t lSsl I r (1 11 i ��
\$%• • • ' ` . \,��s ,1r�� • •' : CEN
� � + .:.�,' ,t: IRI � <.� �' .��g��*;'• :�:- ,� � hf;i� �� ; �tll �, ,1 1
IwOO B11
VN
PROPOSEDbLL 1 1 1 wi`y�k� 1 .. • • ;�.: . • ' ' �. ' 3 . ' I�, •. :• • • , ',f r 1'
10 FT. CLEAR i ��. 11 1 ` 1 y°'• }- s'i '�"�Y.-C . • a .� , , r7. 1 , ' ; • � `1 g7) j,.
use--- ♦ • : `' ' ` $ 11n
CONTRACTOR TO USE MUD MATS Y • ' + . , . 4.. * • I `� �\ F
I
ABUTMENTS AND PIERS '%, � • •. � , , �( ,•, �, , - - / .- � IV§ ♦'� �a
- CONTRACTOR TO WORK FROM ` �• \, :`^` ,` e .
EAST SIDE TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS ' I `�(: �• • e + �` �� : '
j TO BRANDED CHANNEL TO THE • '. . * • ' . • .
/ WEST
PL AN VIEW
1'-2d CONCRETE BR
204
202
200
198
198
194
192
190
188
188
184
48+00 48+20 48+40 48+80 48+80 49+00 49+20 49+40 49+80 49+80
PROFILE VIEW
1'-20' HORIZONTAL
1•-2' VERTICAL
/pd
15 FEET SPACING
ALONG BOARDWALK
10 FT. CLEAR
204
20.2
200
198
198
194
192
190
188
188
184
50}00 50+20 50+40 50+80 50+90 51+00 51+20
NOTE-
NO
OTENO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WILL BE
PERMITTED TO CROSS THE EASTING CHANNEL OF
ON BRANCH. WORK IS TO BE COMPLETED FROM
NORTH OR SOUTH BANKS
Q)
v�
U
o
W
so
J
n O
w
w
CL
INJ�
■I_�■
■
pON/AMM,o"M/%/%i,VIA II ■ ■
10
m
�
t00
W%� /R
M•",
RI ■lmm
PCN EXHIBIT
1° �� t JI �:r�
Am
I ����■ �� „L • �i
mmm
mmm
I I
���� ■i���
SURVEYED CONTOURS
- - PROPERTY BOUNDARY
mmmYEAR
••••••••••••••• USGS STREAM CENTERLINE
-;a�
��
Zd
1--I
the
ODPLAINL7 I
ies� _ 50' STREAM BUFFER
PROPOSED CONTOURS
_----_mmmm
Q
H O
' L :.
O
z
U
$
RT$
U
Z �
Q
sdddEEE
� .0 -
20 10 o z- 40
Date: 1-29-2016
SCALE 1"=20'
C-3
mg
204
20.2
200
198
198
194
192
190
188
188
184
50}00 50+20 50+40 50+80 50+90 51+00 51+20
NOTE-
NO
OTENO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WILL BE
PERMITTED TO CROSS THE EASTING CHANNEL OF
ON BRANCH. WORK IS TO BE COMPLETED FROM
NORTH OR SOUTH BANKS
Q)
v�
U
o
W
so
J
n O
w
w
CL
INJ�
A
�
t00
Z
s
PCN EXHIBIT
n d,
w
•»
1.ESiEtlO.
_ WAKE COUNTY GIS CONTOURS
v
SURVEYED CONTOURS
- - PROPERTY BOUNDARY
••••••••••••••• USGS STREAM CENTERLINE
-;a�
��
Zd
1--I
the
...... 500 -YEAR FEMA FLOODPLAIN
ies� _ 50' STREAM BUFFER
PROPOSED CONTOURS
Q
H O
EMSTING WETLANDS
O
z
U
$
RT$
U
Z �
Q
sdddEEE
� .0 -
20 10 o z- 40
Date: 1-29-2016
SCALE 1"=20'
C-3
mg
Q)
r
Z U
z
PCN EXHIBIT
a
- — U
1.ESiEtlO.
_ WAKE COUNTY GIS CONTOURS
i
SURVEYED CONTOURS
- - PROPERTY BOUNDARY
••••••••••••••• USGS STREAM CENTERLINE
— —100 -YEAR FEMA FLOODPLAIN
REVISIONS
...... 500 -YEAR FEMA FLOODPLAIN
ies� _ 50' STREAM BUFFER
PROPOSED CONTOURS
FLOOD PRONE SOILS
EMSTING WETLANDS
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
SF TREE PROTECTION
SURVEYED TREELINE
B1 BUFFER IMPACT
OWETLAND IMPACT
20 10 o z- 40
Date: 1-29-2016
SCALE 1"=20'
C-3

Photo Log

Turnipseed Nature Preserve
Photo Log
rs ,
rod t
Lit -
Photo 1: Looking Downstream on Gin Branch at approximate 120' bridge crossing
location.
Photo 2: Looking downstream on UT to Gin Branch at approximate 30' bridge crossing
location.

USGS Quad Map and NRCS Soils Map

O
h I
J ....
P \ i
OOLE RD f .....
k f � as$ La-ke—''
Nuln,b.er O'ne��
250
m
0
250
.ADA D�/ '✓�'
i
- ✓ONATHAN DR
- �� CLAYTON QUAD MAP
- CG KNIGHTDALE QUAD MAP
f SHAH/AN RD - Lakes._
PROJECT AREA
GIN BRANCH �� _ _ _ `LATITUDE: 35.4443 0
r
­� 78.2413
zso
r
oub-Cem
JJ) f TURNIPSEED RD
3
L 5 00
,
��.W NDE iRD /
TURNIPSEED PARK
USGS QUAD LOCATION MAP
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2016
USGS QUADRANGLE
CLAYTON AND KNIGHTDALE WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
SCALE: 1 "=2000' ���
4805 Green Road, Suite 100(919) 870-0526
Raleigh, NC 27616 FAX [phone]

7=-r' - A P6 Qr ApB2 P 2 APD q� ��G APB2,
LoD '% a �"
`z
ApC2 ApC2 ,
LOD /r Ap82 LoD
ApC2 :ApC2 ` APB2
ApB2
ApC2 f ApC2 ApB2 W
✓' _ OApC2
'I
©`
�
a f
r ■ �'
ApC2
�1wo Q4 Ap82 QGL ` Lr„D -
� ApB2 l
DuC2
1 f LOQ,.. 106 6
p� Z LoC LoC LoD
VVkE, --
ApC2
DuB wo;! Lo'B APB2
A 2A 2 / i
ApC2
Loc Cn LoC
'
Ap
ApC2 �' +4 pp” � _ ; DuC' _
r�
V4''•: ApC2
n, L__ _ APD c ME
W o j / - c>
APC2 + y ice- f r ° LoD
Apt: mE APB2
ApC2
A C2 Nle \
�Ap D � a
a
i 2 ► 0
p
- Lo _ _ -- - 1► ►
AgC2 �. ApB2
ApB2 r ,
C2 4 Me LoD ApC2
ApB2
ApD p
Me
ApC2LoB
,
LoC
ApC2 ^ LoD LoD ApB2 Me i }�
APB ApC2 ApB2 l
Ap D
ApB2 _
70 _ AgC 'ApC2 ApC2
i
1 C) PIP �
Q
APB
�' rr
` - AgB2 Nle
TURNIPSEED PARK
SOILS MAP
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2016
SOURCE:
USDA SCS (NOW NRCS) SOIL SURVEY WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS PC
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ISSUED NOVEMBER, 1970
SCALE: NTS 4805 Green Road, Suite 100 [phone]
��__�� Raleigh, NC 27616 FAX [phone]

Axiom Environmental Report

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 919-270-9306
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
October 17, 2014
Mr. Eric Staehle, RLA
Wake County
Facilities Design & Construction
P.O Box 550
Raleigh, NC 27602
Re: Tumipseed Nature Preserve 14-016
Environmental Investigation Summary Letter
Wake County, NC
Dear Eric:
This letter is intended to provide a summary of the results of an Axiom Environmental, Inc. (Axiom)
investigation at the above-mentioned site (Figure 1). The approximately 265 -acre Tumipseed Nature
Preserve (Preserve) is located south of Wendell near the Johnston County line. The Preserve has an
irregular boundary that touches Marks Creek to the west, Turnipseed Road to the south, an unnamed
tributary (UT) to Marks Creek to the northeast, and Pleasants Road to the north. Approximately two-
thirds of the Preserve supports forest, and approximately one third is either fallow or active
agricultural field.
Wake County provided Axiom with a map depicting locations of proposed hiking trails and
boardwalks within the Preserve. During a September 18, 2014 on-site visit with the planning team,
we walked a proposed hiking trail north of the UT to Marks Creek, where we identified three
crossings of potential wetlands and/or streams subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. On
September 22, Becky Ward requested that Axiom add a federally protected species survey to our task
list.
Axiom has defined the project "investigation area" as an approximately 50 -foot wide corridor
centered on proposed hiking trails and access roads, three proposed parking areas, and three potential
stream and/or wetland crossings (Figure 1). The majority of the hiking trails and Parking Area C are
proposed for areas supporting approximately 50 to 60 year old hardwood forest mixed with pines.
Parking Area A is proposed in a young stand of loblolly pines (less than 30 years old). Parking Area
B and its associated access road are proposed for the margins of agricultural fields and a small stand
of loblolly pines less than 30 years old.

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Mr. Eric Staehle
October 17, 2014
Page 2
Axiom biologists conducted field visits to the investigation area on October 7 and 8. As part of the
investigation, we accomplished the following tasks:
• Section 404 jurisdictional stream and wetland delineations
o Axiom staff members visited the three crossings of potential streams and/or wetlands and
conducted stream and wetland delineations within the boundaries established by the
planning team on our September 18 site visit.
o Axiom completed stream and wetland data forms to document the delineation and stream
and wetland functional status during field surveys on October 7 and 8.
o Axiom generated a sketch map of the delineation and submitted the map to both Wake
County Facilities Design & Construction and Ward Consulting Engineers on October 9.
• Federally protected species surveys
o Axiom completed surveys for federally protected species during field surveys on October
7and 8.
Stream and Wetland Jurisdictional Areas
Axiom investigated three sites for jurisdictional areas: the crossing at the farthest north bend in the
hiking trail (north bend crossing), two crossings just below the borrow pit pond dam (pond spillway
crossing and pond outflow channel crossing), and an approximately 1500 -foot reach of the UT to
Marks Creek (UT to Marks Creek crossing) (Figure 1). Photographs of selected sites and data forms
documenting our findings are attached to this letter. Following are descriptions of our findings.
North Bend Crossing
This crossing appears to mark the beginning of a stormwater channel; and, below the crossing, the
adjacent land appears to have potential to support wetlands. An evaluation using N.C. Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR) guidance (the NCDWQ Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11)
resulted in the determination that this feature is an ephemeral channel that is not subject to Section
404 jurisdiction. An ephemeral channel typically contains surface water briefly following
precipitation events. An evaluation of the area adjacent to the channel using U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) guidance (the USACE Wetland Determination Data Form — Eastern Mountains
and Piedmont Region) resulted in the determination that this area is not subject to Section 404
jurisdiction. In summary, the north bend crossing does not include a jurisdictional stream or
wetland.

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Mr. Eric Staehle
October 17, 2014
Page 3
Pond Spillway Crossing
This is a man-made, "v" -shaped ditch constructed to allow overflow water to pass around the south
or right side of the pond dam (facing downstream) (Photo 1). This feature has been excavated in
high ground on the south side of this natural topographic crenulation. The bottom of this feature is
well above the groundwater elevation. An evaluation using NCDWR guidance resulted in the
determination that this feature is an ephemeral channel that is not subject to Section 404 jurisdiction.
During our field visit, there was no evidence of surface flow within this feature. In summary, the
pond spillway crossing does not include a jurisdictional stream or wetland.
Pond Outflow Channel Crossing
This crossing (Photo 2) is a stream that receives pond overflow from a drop structure through the
dam groundwater and seepage. This stream has a fairly small drainage area (less than 0.1 square
mile) and primarily drains forest areas and smaller amounts of residential yards. An evaluation using
NCDWR guidance resulted in the determination that this feature is a perennial channel that is subject
to Section 404 jurisdiction (see blue lines on Figure 1). The stream bed appears to be incised below
the natural elevation, and receives flow following rainfall events, but not enough to cause overbank
flooding. During the field visit, the channel bed was coated by iron -oxidizing bacteria indicating
groundwater seepage as a primary source of water. In summary, the pond outflow channel crossing
does include a jurisdictional stream but no wetland.
UT to Marks Creek Crossing
This stream has a fairly large drainage area (approximately 2.4 square miles) equally composed of
forest and agricultural/pastoral areas. The stream has been subject to beaver activity for an extended
period and is currently characterized by a series of channel segments, each of which rises below a
dam and drowns into the next impoundment. A perennial stream segment enters the upper end of the
investigated reach and drowns into an impoundment after several hundred feet (see blue line on
Figure 1). This reach typically supports low flows and is characterized by a sand bed lacking riffles
and pools (Photo 3). An evaluation using NCDWR guidance resulted in the determination that this
feature is a perennial channel subject to Section 404 jurisdiction.
The impoundments extend across the floodplain and are characterized by a mix of open water, Non -
tidal Freshwater Marsh, and relatively young Riverine Swamp Forest (Photo 4). An evaluation using
USACE guidance resulted in the determination that the majority of the floodplain is subject to
Section 404 jurisdiction (see pink lines on Figure 1). Riverine Swamp Forest is the predominant
wetland type within the investigated reach of this floodplain.
In summary, the UT to Marks Creek crossing includes both a jurisdictional stream segment and
extensive adjacent jurisdictional wetlands.

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Mr. Eric Staehle
October 17, 2014
Page 4
Note: The UT to Marks Creek is included with nearby Marks Creek as part of a designated N.C.
Natural Heritage Program (NCHNP) Significant Natural Heritage Area element occurrence. This
area is an example of a natural community known as "Piedmont/Mountain Semipermanent
Impoundment." The UT to Marks Creek includes three sub -types of this community: Open Water
Sub -type, Piedmont Marsh Sub -type, and Shrub Sub -type.
Riparian Buffers
Any surface water depicted on either the most recent version of the NRCS county soil survey or the
most recent version of the USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangle is subject to the Neuse River riparian buffer
rules (15A NCAC 02b.0233). All streams identified as jurisdictional are subject to the buffer rules.
The buffer extends 50 feet perpendicular to the banks of these streams. Since the referenced map
products depict a stream flowing within the entire UT to Marks Creek crossing investigated reach, a
50 -foot riparian buffer is in effect for this feature until an on-site determination by a representative of
the NCDWR confirms the feature is not present on the ground.
Federally Threatened and Protected Species
Based on the most recently updated county -by -county database of federally listed species in North
Carolina as posted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (accessed October 7, 2014), the
bald eagle and three federally protected species are listed for Wake County. Table 1 lists these
species and indicates if potential habitat exists within the investigation area (a 50 -foot corridor
centered on the proposed hiking trail) for each.
Table 1. Federally protected species listed for Wake Countv. NC.
*Federal Status: BGPA=Protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, E=Endangered
Habitat
Common
Scientific
*Federal
within study
Name
Name
Status
Habitat
area
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus
BGPA
Mature forest with large, dominant trees or snags,
Yes
leucocephalus
typically within 1.0 mile of open water
Red -cockaded
Roosting habitat consists of 60 years old and older
woodpecker
Picoides borealis
E
living pine; foraging habitat consists of pine and
Yes
pine -hardwood stands 30 years old or older
Dwarf
Alasmidonta
E
Small to large rivers on a variety of habitat types in
No
wed emussel
heterodon
hydrologically stable streams
Michaux's
Rhus michauxii
E
Sandy or rocky open woods in association with
Yes
sumac
basic soils
*Federal Status: BGPA=Protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, E=Endangered

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Mr. Eric Staehle
October 17, 2014
Page 5
Bald Eagle
Personal communication with an adjacent landowner confirmed that a bald eagle has recently been
observed in the vicinity of the investigation area. Lake Myra is a large, open water providing eagle
feeding and roosting habitat that is located approximately 0.5 mile northwest of the investigation
area. The investigation area does support scattered large trees that could be used for eagle roosting.
The proposed project May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect bald eagle.
Red -cockaded Woodpecker
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) has documented red -cockaded woodpeckers within a
mile northwest of the investigation area in the vicinity of Lake Myra. The investigation area
primarily winds through forests dominated by hardwood trees but with scattered pines. The largest
pines observed in and adjacent to the investigation area are less than 60 years of age, so no
nesting/roosting habitat occurs within the investigation area. One pine stand occurs at the location of
proposed Parking Area A, but these trees are less than 30 years old so do not provide foraging
habitat. Several pine stands occur within 0.5 mile of the investigation area, but all are less than 30
years old. No evidence of red -cockaded woodpeckers was observed during our field investigations.
The proposed project will have No Effect on red -cockaded woodpecker.
Dwarf Wedgemussel
Habitat for dwarf wedgemussel consists of slow, well -oxygenated creeks and rivers with sand,
gravel, or firm silt bottoms. The UT to Marks Creek is the only stream within the investigation area
large enough to potentially support dwarf wedgemussel. This reach of stream has been subjected to
beaver activity for an extended period that has resulted in the replacement of most of the stream with
wetland/open water complexes. The one reach of stream remaining is characterized by sluggish flow
and an unstable sand bed. No mussel shells were observed during our field investigations. Suitable
habitat for dwarf wedgemussel does not occur within the investigation area; therefore, the proposed
project will have No Effect on dwarf wedgemussel.
Michaux's Sumac
The NCNHP has documented Michaux's sumac within the southwestern corner of Turnipseed
Nature Preserve (along the utility line corridor adjacent to Marks Creek). This site is outside of our
investigation area for this project. Suitable habitat occurs within the investigation area along the
margins of agricultural fields and existing roads. No evidence of this species was found during our
field investigations; therefore, the proposed project will have No Effect on Michaux's sumac.
Federally Proposed Species
A USFWS proposal for listing the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as an Endangered
species was published in the Federal Register in October 2013. The listing will become effective on

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Mr. Eric Staehle
October 17, 2014
Page 6
or before April 2015. Summer roosting habitat for northern long-eared bat is underneath bark, in
cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees, and winter roosting (hibernation) habitat consists
of caves and mines. Foraging habitat consists of forested hillsides and ridges.
The northern long-eared bat has been recorded in Wake County. The investigation area contains
both suitable summer roosting habitat, in the form of trees with crevices and/or peeling bark, and
foraging habitat. Therefore, the proposed project May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely
Affect northern long-eared bat. There appears to be two routes to take with regard to the northern
long-eared bat
1. Remove all trees required by the proposed plan (assumed to be the parking lots and access
roads) prior to the listing date. If there is no suitable habitat within the investigation area, the
biological conclusion for this species can be revised to "No Effect." Until the species is
listed, there are no restrictions on tree cutting. In this scenario, there is no need for
coordination with the USFWS.
2. Initiate an informal conference for the northern long-eared bat with the USFWS with the
intention of obtaining a concurrence letter. The success of this effort would likely depend on
the agreement to certain conservation measures associated with the development of the site.
Key conservation measures include minimizing loss of the remaining trees and avoiding the
removal of trees during the summer maternity season (May to July). The informal conference
application should consist of a cover letter describing the project and offering conservation
measures with the Axiom summary letter and figure attached. It takes approximately 30 days
for the USFWS to issue a concurrence letter for a successful application.
Future Tasks
Axiom is scoped to solicit verification of delineated streams and wetlands from appropriate natural
resource agencies; and we are to attend a site visit to obtain the delineation verification. We propose
this be a two-step process.
1. Axiom will request a NCDWR representative visit the site and make a determination as to
whether the portion of the UT to Marks Creek without a stream channel is subject to the
Neuse River riparian buffer rule.
2. The USACE will need a project area boundary in order to verify our jurisdictional area
delineation. It seems to us the proj ect area boundary might be equivalent to our investigation
area: an approximately 50 -foot wide corridor centered on the proposed hiking trails and
access roads, the three proposed parking areas, and the three potential stream and/or wetland
crossings. Is the planning far enough along for this boundary to have been finalized? If not,
for the purposes of obtaining the delineation verification, we may want to consider

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Mr. Eric Staehle
October 17, 2014
Page 7
generating a project area boundary map that overestimates the size of the project area so that
we will have USACE verification for the area included in the final plan.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this information. We appreciate the opportunity
to assist with this project.
Yours truly,
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
Alexander P. (Sandy) Smith
Senior Project Manager
Attachment

'� �• � $`vr� r �� ` � t y; .✓. � ;fir P I ,f— .�
e
-
1 i

Ar
4".
}` - 4: ,�1. - Y: Y; ,�4i �• ilia#1 �r
{
2k,x�ks+
'�' •'r s,'�.>�-� � t } -:� �� � �'�`�' ��r,�r�a _� ,int �'*
t!�''_-. ��4}`" �.�� _ I ���•-..,wiz y��. �'�'�.� � �iy -'
r � ki mrd`, yai cR �, 3,� �'Y�� •�,x. � _
3' � •ice: � �,>_.° -
r: `��r'' i �f •,� 1 ` r` � ��; Y� 1 7 Yom, � � ��f '% h
a�� 4►� A '�^s
AN;
fY
i

NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their ©ritains v. 4.11
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form 'Version 4.11
Date: I � � ,, ,� ; ��-
Projee#f5ite: "'j,I mJ $Wd Lw,�y
Latitude:
Evaluator. +^^ R ��.
L
County: 1�_�-
Longitude:
Total Points:
rrninataon (circle one)
Other
Stream is at feast intermittent
if ? 19 or perennial if a 30*
phemeral InterTnittent Perennial
e,g, Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = (0-)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
"`0.5)
3
3. In -channel structure„ ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
11-1'l
2 2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
= 3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
"0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
0.5
1
-
1,5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
-- 1.5
11. Second or greater oraer channel
No = D
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydroloply (Subtotal = 9 )
12. Presence of Basefiown
3
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
D..
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
"`0.5)
0
15_ Sediment on plants or debris
0 ,i
0.5
1
1-5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0,5 }
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No Cl)Yes
= 3
1,5
C. Biology (Subtotal = ]
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3;)
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
7
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mo#tusks
4.
1
2
3
22 Fish
`0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1,5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0 t
0,5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
-
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other= D
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes.
Sketch: fl�,�
L°' Y'i /`*�,0l i d�
41

_p5" NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial 'Streams and Their Origins v, 4.11
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4,11
Date: #Q
how
Prolect/Site: '
Latitude: 3> p
Evaluator::
County:
Longitude:�,�f�' ?�
Total Points: I
S#r ermination (circle one)
other
Stream is at least intermittent
if? 19 or perennial it 2- 30'
pherneral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 'T )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1$ Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
hIo Z 0 Yes = 3
1
2
3
4, Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Activelre#ict floodplain
1
1
2
3
6, Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1-
_ 2
3
8. Headcuts
, 0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0,5
1
1,5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0
Yes = 3
9 artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal T -.2-)
12. Presence of Baseflow
.0 1 2
3
13. iron oxidizing bacteria
1 2
3
14. Leaf litter
1,5 1 0.5
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.5 1
1.5
1£ Organic debris lines or piles
0.5 1
1.5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
hIo Z 0 Yes = 3
0.5
C. Biology (Subtotal y
18, Fibrous roots in streambed 3
2
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3
2
1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish Or
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians +.(y
0,5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBI = 1.5 Other
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 or manual.
Notes:
Sketch: r 1
41

NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their ariains v. 4.11
PVC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.13
Date: r ; . ,
Project/Site: P ,
Latitude: 3 N 5311
Evaluator: A J � •�.��
County:
Longitude:
,
1
2
Tata) Points:
Stream Determination (clr
Other
Stream is at least intermittentg
rf>_ 19 or erennial if 30- 7 ''
Ephemeral Intermitten erenniai
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geamor holo_ (Subtotal= ITS 1
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
Ly
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
01
o,5
j
i�
3
_
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
7 v l
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1 _.
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
o
1,
2
3
8 Headcuts
0)
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1 7
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11 -Second or greater order channel
No 4
Yes = 3
Sketch:
artificial ditches are not rated-, see discusns in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal q � )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
5/
3
13. iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1 ,
C).5
0
15, Sediment on plants or debris
0
o,5
2
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
7 v l
1
1,5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
b
No = 0 - -
Yes= 3
1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal 1 )
18. 'Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 mooted upland plants in streambed
'(30
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
211
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
b
tt.5
1
1.5
24 Amphibians
0
f7
1,)
1.5
25. Algae
t)
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:
Sketch:
t k
r�, t
-
I j
41

AT PA k. 5 ewk
NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWQ Stream Identification Forth Version 4.11
[late: 10j?/` :..
1.
ProjectlSite.. ".`r 1"L--_.4 •}
Latitude:
Evaluator.,""� 1,"' 1 /AX,
County: f -r . y
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (cl
Other
Scream is at least intermittent
if ? 13 orperennial if? 30* a
Ephemeral Intermittent Peron ni
e.g. Quad •Name,
A. Geomor holo Subtotal = � `' '
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
13 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
I
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
16- Organic debris lines or piles
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
' 2
3
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
2
` 3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
j i
2
3
8. Headcuts
r
1
2
3
9. Grade control {;;;°``_%° f t ., . f :
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No r 0
Yes = 3
Sketch: Ar_1 14 -IA
4
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal
12. Presence of Basef#ow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1)
2 3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
11715
0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
" Q 1
0.5
1 1.5
16- Organic debris lines or piles
t3`,
0.5
1 1,5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No Y 0
Yes
C. Biology (Subtotal -T_.L_) )
16. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
i]
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1,
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
_
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
<
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0,5
1.5
24, Amphibians
0
0.5
t'-
1.5
25. Algae
0 .-
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in strearnbed
FACW = 0.75;
0131_x:2 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes-.
Sketch: Ar_1 14 -IA
4
AMP 3G`7rtvm j�`�"`
L�
y`�"l".\A4-V6,
41

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: 1��. IWA41 /T1A-F011P tL4 2. Evaluator's name: 9', l i
3. Date of evaluation: P17hi I If 4. Time of evaluation: —2-
5.
25. Name of stream: a kc L 6. River basin: 1`'+e9z
7. Approximate drainage area: 0,07 24&e. ^- 8. Stream order:_1S"�
f
9. Length of reach evaluated: 1) G "� 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): '�5r718321t 71.112111 12. Subdivision name (if any): TWA1 ,
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
16. Site conditions at time of visit: APPY" I
i
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters futrient Sensitive Wa s Water Supply Watershed
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? 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 ES No
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial % industrial 34 % Agricultural
60 1 % Forested % Cleared 1 Logged % Other
22. Bank -full width: 7 r 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): Z fe�;f
24. Channel slope down center of stream;°'Flat ( to 2°.�'a) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (} 11J%)
25, Channel sinuosity: Straight Dc _ jonal be _ Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksh� ee (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.
,-44
Evaluator's Signature &1K I K Date C>
/7/, /
This channel evaluatio6 form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and invfrodmental 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 419-876-8441 x 26,

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* 'These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
CIARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow f persistent pools in stream
0 - 5
0-4
0-5
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = marpoints)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
L -
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
ti
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
7
Entrenchment/ floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
'
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = maxpoints)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
4
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
I I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0 _ 5
0-4
0-5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks r maxpoints)
�
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
04
severe erosion = 0; no erosion stable banks = maxpoints)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0 - 3
0-4
0-5
�-
E„y
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle-poollripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0,; well-developed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
Canopy
- 5
05
0 - 5
shadingvegetation = 0; continuous can© = maxpoints)0
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
'
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0--5
0-5
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
1
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
Q
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
Q
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
r^i
evidence = 0; common, numerous es = maxpoints)
23
r__,no
Evidence of wildlife use
no evidence = 0. abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
1
* 'These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

LISACL AlDu
i7WQ
IATA MA454x
Site rd (indicate on attached ill apt
0 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information fur the stream reach under assessmenv
1. Applicant's nattte: C -- 2. IEvahlalur's resort . lhxrm_
3, mate of evaluation: 4. 1`inte of evaluatitpn'
5. blame of stream. - � ®� 6_ River basin' M&A e,
7. Appru.vimate drainage area- f1i_S _ 8. Stream. order. � -
9. Length of reach evaluated: P to. count".
11. Site coordinates (if known): pretler ira dMrnal Jegrrr.N 12. Subdivision name
t.oSl itude trs-7''5tw,I a I - �*
l.�riatit+�c l�ti a.a S7?,aV�t: J+-• a .� � _�� --
\tcthncl locattc�n dctrrtnusCtl ,sore to l: (IPS I opts Sheol ()rtho [Aeia11 Photo/GIS Officr GIS Other —�
1.3. l.ucation of reach under evaluation mote neatrbr roads and landmarks and attach neap identifying sire, (,s') location):
'YE_ 1 � 5� D � 1 �f �G i �`1 - - i } �t f 3 �1 i /'w i �JA kt- Iy-t, � A — —
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Art
la. Recent weather conditions_ -
16. Site conditions at tittle of visit:
17. Identify any special waterwav clan sifications knot%'n: —section lel l ictal Waters essential fisheries I labital
_-f-rout Watters Outstanding Resource Watet"' Y Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supp,% Watershed (1-14 1
18. Is there a pond or false located upstream of the evaluation point'? 4'l:. NO ff te4. estimate the ceatter st:rtact arca: � 20 �aL�'a�^�
19, hopes channel appear on LISGS quad neap?[Y . NO 24. Does channel appear cin USDA Soil Starve}" :1 5 0
21. Estimated watershed land use: Residential !"o Commercial 0. Industrial °e Agricultural
% Forested °ria Cleared I mg.ged ° _, Either
c
22. Banklull width. 4 23. Flank height (Prem epee, to tuP ui�btnk): �.< -�
24. Channel slate do"n center of stream: �" Flat ((i to 30^a) t3entle (2 to A%1 Moderate (a ter 10kr0 steel); I 10""I
25. Channel sinuosity: Stritighi _Occasional bends ,V Frequent mcander �Very sinuous _ _ Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoreeion based tits
location. terrain. vegetation. stream classification. etc. FVery characteristic must he scored using the same ecorevion- ANsign point,
to each characteristic within the range shown 1-6V the rcuregion. Page 3 provides as brief descripti+ n of hove tv revici.c the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. '-'.cores should reflect an overall assessincrtt of the stream reach Linder evralualion. Ii :1
characteristic cannot he evaluated due to site or "Cather colad'ttions, enter n in elle scorin boli and tifov ide an cxplonatiutt m the
comment section. Where there are obvious cllaang.cs in the character of ,i stream under revioc te,g_ the %atrcatm flow%s !write a p.lslure
into a forest), the stream may he divided into smaller rea ClICS that display more continuity. and a ,eparatte lorm used to Cvatluatc• v a0i
reach. The total score aassianed to a stream reach must range between U and 100, with a score of 100 representano a strcatnT Lot rite
highest quality.
ToUl Score (froth reverse): i comments.,tpra '
--a (�''%;.Y �!`. �"A "p'x" ' Vie. •.c �,{. r '"� / Pert'
l.vaivatar'sSignttlurc Y T Iyate
assist lando►iners aria ei virantuental professionals in
This channel evaluation tet is intended to he used only as a guide to a, t. I
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary ,assesstttent of %ircaunt
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to LISACE approval and dues not irn111► a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement- f=orm subircl to change - version 06"0" To Conlillent, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM (QUALI'T'Y ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
lltese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
CCIDIUCION
POINT
RANGE
SCORE,
CH.��c�•rrl��s•rICS
-
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
I
Pres tee of llo+F ; persistent pools in stream
0 - 5
t;-
0-4
0 - 5
(no flow or saturation Il strong lloNk max points)
t
6
0-5
0_5
evidence of past human alteration
4
(extensive aiteration = W: no alteration - max points)
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
Ino buffer = 0; contiguous. wide buffer max points)
,t Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0--g
0-3
0-4
(extensive discharges 0: no discharges = max points)
Groundwater discharge
0--'
U i
0 - d
(tit) discharge o; spriii-s. seeps, wetlands. etc. ° max points)
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 4
0-4
0 - ,
(no llvodplain . U. extcnsive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment 1 floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-
®
(deeply entrenched = 0, frequent flooding = max points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
4
0-2
r'
(no wetlands = 0. large adjacent wetlands - max points)
Q
Channel sinuosity
0-
0-4
0-3
(extensive ehannelization 0; natural meander ttiaax points)
10
Sediment input
U_ 1
0-4
2 -
0-4
extensive deposition 0: little or tit) sediment = max paints)
�I I Sixe & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA`
0 - 4
U - 3
(line. ftotnogeiMus (]; large. diverse sizes - max points)
'. Evidence of channel Incision or widening
0 _ 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
Z-
- j (deep€v incised _ 0. stable bed & banks - max paints)
_
13
_.—
Presence of major bank failures
0 - i
0 - 5
0- 5
(severe erosion = 0: no erosion stable banks - max paints}
14 -
- — Root depot and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
o -
(no visible roots - 0: dense roots throughout - max poinis)
D
k Impact by agriculture. livestock. or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
15
i (substantial impact -o: no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
o-3
0 - 5
0 - 6
t
(no Htflesfripplcs or pools 0: well-developed - max points)
I
17
Habitat complexity
0-o
0-6
0-6
Z
(little: or no habitat - U; frequent, varied habitats - max points)
_
1
Canopy coverage over streatmbed
0-5
0- i
0-5
i Ino shading, vegeration = 0; continuous cartop} - max paints)
1c)
1 Substrate enibeddedness
A,
d)
{) - 4
(deeply embedded -- 0: ioosc structures - max)
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0 - 4
0-5
0 - 5
(no evidence - 0: common, numerous tapes = max points)
,1
Presence of amphibians
tf
o-4
I} _ 4
j -
(tit) evidence 0. common.. numerous types max points)
o-4
0-4
0 - 4
�-
Presence of fish
(no evidence - 0: canton. numerous types - magic points)
Q i
Evidence of wildlife use
0- 6
0- 1
b- 5
'z}-
-
(n® evidence _ U; abundant evidence - max points)
_!
Total Points Possible
100
IN
100
TOTAL SCONE (also enter on first
page)
lltese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

�)A cmy
!'
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA w=Gf2M -Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro)ectr5ite Yrt 4 , '� CilylCounty: PVAK►si Sampling Date.
ApphcanllOwnerr State- NZ- Sampling Point a i`t
lnvestigatof(5). - I Section. Township, Range
Landform (hills tnpe, terrace, etc.): � Local relief (concave, convex, rione) Slope (%):'' 7-
Sulam=gran (LRR or MLRA) La, t. `5" Y:, iib Long- - 7ffljP.3 5 wDaRIM
Soil Map Unit Name: I ` A �' r'� �� Nwl classification:/r' f
Are climatic t hydrologic conditi s qn the lite typical for this time of year, YeasUV No (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ✓ . Soil ar Hydrology /V significantly diMutbed7 Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes V No
Are VPgelmion � . Soil or Hydrology N naturally problematic'? (Il needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects important features, etc.
Hydrophyt�c Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No X.
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No IV
Rr marks
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Sernndary Indicators (minimum of two re umd
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reciWed: cheek
all that aantyl
.__ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants 18 14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (681-
- High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor tt;1)
_ Dratrti,&3a
Saturation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhixospheres on Laving Roots
— ass Trim tines (1316)
Water Marks (BI) e.
Presence of Reduced Iran
w Dry -Season Water Tabic (C2)
Sediment Deposits (fit) �
Recant iron Red n Tilled Soils (CW
! Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (l33) _
!_
Thin unlace (G7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (G9)
Algal Mat or Crust (84)
(Explain in Rernarks)
, Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (85)
r Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aer- Vry 1137)
— Shallow Ayutaird (031
_Wat€:r-Stain 5 (89)
_,_, Microtopographic Relief (D4)
atic Fauna (613)
„ 1=AC-Neulral Test (Dtil
field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
A,�(
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Ir
Depth (inches) i
S<aiwation Present? Yes No 00'
Depth (inches): e v �
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary Irin e
Describe Recorded Data (Stream gaLrge, monitoring well, aerial photos, prvvious �nspection5). if available.:
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mournains and Piedmont - Version 2..0
I

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
4
Absolute
Dormant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
1 r . - Iratuni [Mot site: i
------� }
% Cover
species? Status
Number umbor of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: IA)
.I
I I0 =Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total Number of Dominnnl
50% 41 tool c9Vr!t.
d_
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4
_._
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (AIB)
6.
.I
I I0 =Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of Mttltiuly by
50% 41 tool c9Vr!t.
37J 20% of total cover:
0761. species x 1 =
Sapii S rat rm (Piot size
1.
67Y
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x -
2 i`1f+WJ Y'A !�
FACU species x •l =
a
LIPL species x
4
Colurrara Totals: (A) ILij
5
Prevalence Index = BIA -
6
= Total Craver
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of t tai cover:
2o% of total cover~ -
— 1 - Rapid Test far Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot sire:
_ 2 - Dominance Test is 350%
{ j-
:s - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
2
;wtw-
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supponing
—6m
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4
5
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
_ F 50% total cover-
+; X)
20%of total cover:
Tree - Woody plants. excluding woody vines.
H btr t
(blot size;'1
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
FAL
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH)
Sapling -Woody plants, excluding woody VInBS,
2 PKC IW JAAT F04
FA
3 i�
a t"4
Ai 114
approximately 20 It (6 ro) or mfe in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) D8H.
4
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) In height
7
Herb - All herbaceous (non•woody) plants. including
8
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9
It (1 m) in height
t0
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
1L
7
= Total Cover
50% of total c vef
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Slra
1.}rrl�
Sol` tz )
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
- Total Cover Vegetation,,
50% of total cover 7, 20% of total cover: r Present? Yes No
rs here or on a separate sheet )
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 Mama Redox Features
bnchesl Color (moist), "s, color (moist) % Tyne i,ncTexture Remarks
I Type. C=Concentration. D=Depletion, RM=)deduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=f ore Lining, M -Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
Dark Surface (S7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (Q)
_
i?olyrnlue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_
_ Coast B.�rclex
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 14B)
(MLRA 147, 148)
® Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Geyer! Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F 19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Da ace (F6)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (AI I
_ D d Dark Sur [ace (F7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
s I hick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Depressions (FE)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (
_ Iron -Manganese Massi s IF 12) (LRR N.
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ sandy Gle Atrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
511 edox (Sa)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Sails (F19) (MLRA 148)
wel#and hydrology must be present.
Stripped Matrix {Sri)
Red Parent Material (1721) (MLRA 127, 147)
sinless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type.
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
US Army Corps of €ngineers Eastewn Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VVETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProjecvSite 441/MP }C�;,dX0
Applicant/Owner. A
In ve s tigator(s).
Landform (hillslope, terrace. etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) J
Soil Map Unit Name: LPK15�*
Are climatic I hydrologic condition
Are VegetationV Soil Alr
Are Vegetation A , Soil %V
way- -0 R �4
_ CityaCounty: sampling Date.
State; Xl— Sampling Point
— 7eC110F% i VWrrSnrp, rcunge-
Local relief (concave, convex, none). LOvItAt- Slope (%) 4 2—
Long,
Long, -` f', 9*145 Datum,
NWl dassil-w atiran: P(�"—]
year? 'res No (If no, explain in Remarks:I
fitly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes / No
problematic? (If needed, explain .any answers in Remarks.)
SLIMMARV OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes tJ No Is the Sampled Area
Hydrrc soil Present? Yes —7-- No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes —;/— No
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology indicators:
Secondary Indicators (manimiirn of two renurrcd)
Primary indicators (minimum of one is reouired, cheek all that appy)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (Bh)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
„ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C I)
s Drainage Patterns (810)
+Y Saturation (A3)
^_
Oxidized Rhazosphems on Living [toots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
— Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
____ Sediment Deposits (82) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Brill Deposits (133) _
Thin Muck Surface (0)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
1 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (01)
imn Deposits (1355)
Geomorphic Position (132)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquilard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Microlopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic fauna (1313)
rf FAC-Neutrai Test (05)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches).
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches). —71W
Saturation Present? Yes_y No
Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
mctudes capillary (fin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring Well, aerial pholos, previous inspections), i( available;
R+,jnor k s
US Army Corps or Engineers E astern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific dames of plants.
l rr_r? Stratum (Blot size:
1
2
3
4
5
6.
Sampling Point: �A
Absolute Dormant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover Species? Status (1lumher of Dominant Species u
Thai Are 413L. FACK or FAC. ! (A)
- = Toiai Cover
MY% of total cover 20% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (plot sire: i
1 Lij>Miu i A LA M
2
3,
4
5,
6.
Z" = Total Covet
50% of total cover; �� 20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: I
1
2
4.
5.
- Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:.
Hera} Stratum (Piot size:
I M 1 it— yk C41tA
2_ s 1 l is
JiID,,1;-,k2V
5.
7
9,
10.
11. _
= 1 wal Cover
50% of total Cooler: 9'T 20% of total raver.
W.ZWy Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
4
I
50% of total cover:
rs here or on a separate
- Total Cover
20% of total cover:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: [Hi
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL. FACW, or FAC- (ArB)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total * Cover af:
Multiply by;
OBL species
x 1 =
FAC'W species
x 2 -
FAC species
x 3 -
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL Species
x 5 -
Column Totals:
(A) (g)
Prevalence Index - B/A
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid fest for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 -[dominance test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations` (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophylic Vegetatton' (Explain}
"indicators of hydric Soil and wetland hydrology must
be present. unles% disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines.
approximately 20 ft (6 in) or more in height and 3 in
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (OBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft 16 in) or more in height and less
than 3 in (7 6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines.
approximately 3 to 20 H (1 to 6 rrt) in height.
Meru - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants. except woody vines, less than approximately 3
h (1 ret) In height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes 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 bdatrid
Redox Features
(inches) Color fmoistl �:.
Color nmoi t % _TypeI-rr&
Tl:x_I rS Remarks
10 IV '
}i
{2f -,
"Type. C -Concentration, D= Depiction. RW Reduced Matrix. MS -Masked Sand Grains.
`Location. PL_ Fore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils'.
H"stosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (57)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histo Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (AIG)
Black Hisltc (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
® Hydrogen 5ullide, (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)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 1 1)
! Depleted Dark Surface (F?)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
I hick Dork Surl ace (Al2)
r RedDx Depressions (FE)
— Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ iron -Manganese Masses (F1Z) (LRR N.
MLRA 147, 146)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
''lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (SS)
_ Piedmont Ftoodplain Soils (F 19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sl ripped Matrix IS61
Red Parent Matwiai (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth (inches)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes –IL No
Rema€ks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

r - 4-o tipks r,,rmk A -0 1 q
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProjectlSile- CitylCounty: Wk>� Sampling Date:
ApplicantlOwner State: Mz Sampling Poinl
Investigator(,): Section. Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope. terrace, etc.)* Local relief (concave, convex. none): Y'r00- Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):, Lat: 75-71572-1) tong, ' �� `�1 � �iS Dattim-
Soil neap unit Name: LA -01 ifA 3l?w'f � � NWI classification-
Are climatic l hydrologic conditions the site lcal for this time of year? Yes Na (If no, explain in Remarks,)
Are Vegetation __A1 • Soil / , or Hydrology IV significantly disturbed? Are `Normal Circumstances' present? Yes � No
Are Vegetation _AL, Soil --tl or Hydrology a,, naturally problematic? (If neede l explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Y Is the Sampled Area l
Hydric Soil Presenl? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No "
Remarks _
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicatofs hmnimurn of two rpouirnrll
Primary Indy ators (minimum of one is reouired: check all that apply) __ _---__ ___.
— surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water' (Al)
____ True Aquatic Plants 11314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
, Hydrogen Sulfide Cdor (Cl)
, Drainage Patt(,jn,--, {1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizosphem-5 can Living Roots (0)
__ Moss Trim a{ `�~
Water Marks (81)
� Presence of
„_ry-Season Water 1a171e (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
R�eflLlCed�Iron(C4)
Recent Iron Soils (CB)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
uck S
_ Saturration Vi5itgp on Aerial Imagery (0)
Algal Mat or Crust (84)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
Cron Deposits (135
Geomorphic Position (Q2)
_ Inunda liable on Aerial imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquilard (D3)
Vlfater-Stained Leaves (139)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic fauna (1313)
FAC -Neutral test (t)5)
Field Observations.
Surface Water Present? Yes No
r Depill (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Deplh (inches) i
_.t_
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes ca itlar fringe)
Describe Recotded data (scream gauge, mpnrforing well. aerial photos, previous inspmtions), if available:
Remarks.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Versir.)n 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
1� Abwlute Dominant indredlor
Fret: 5tr.Ilum (Plot sir - dflA i 'i;. Cover_ Species? Status
3
4,
5
6
LQ - Total cover
50t% of t tal cover: 3V 20% of total cover: _
saotir�atum (Pkat ize:
2. bL () i+tlAk P
3 gip.
4.
6
= Total Craver
50% o total cover. K 20% of total cover:
Shrub SUMP (Pfot si• e:
r) �-
z 70
..
3.
4
5.
�P * Total Cover
50%of total cover: 20% of total cover: 12-
Nr'rh Stratum (Plot sizes ' ' }
t �rll
Frit -�-
Sampling Point:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are 08L, FACW, or FAC (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata. 12- (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL. FACW. or FAC iAdi)
Prevalence Index worksheet
Total `ro, Cover of
by.
OBL species
x 1 -
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 _
Colunisr Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index - $IA =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
, - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is X50%
R 3 - Prevalence Index is s$.0°
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soii and wetland hydrology must
be present. unlf'SS d'4Urbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines.
approximalely 20 It (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(1.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height ft7BH}
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines.
approximately 20 It (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7,6 cin) DBH.
7. Shrub - Woody plants. excluding woody vines.
{_ approximately 3 to 20 ft (, to 6 m) in freight.
'r Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants. including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
` It 0 m) to height,
IS
Total Cover
509E of ®tail c ver. ,,T 20% of total cover;
WWdyVineVine Stratum (Plot size:. �� , t6F J t
2.
3 t4,j r 1
4.
5
;V - Total Cover
50% of total cover: —LQ -- 20% of total cover
photo numbers lrere or on a separate sheet.)
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Versiori 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point:
Prorife Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix R dox FegW(gs
fin
ch
�es)
I r m i % Color(moistl % Tune _Lnc`_ �T_axtuure- Remarks
D
+iL� 'j,_ ). 1.
'T voe: C Concentration, D Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
FirstoSol (At)
Hislic Epipedon (A2)
Black HiSfic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surlace (Al l',
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (51) (LRR N.
MLRA 147, 148) `
Sandy Gleyed Matr(
:Z:-S1rlpped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if oh
Type_
Depth (inches)
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix. MSzMasked Sand Grams. 'Location. f L=Pare Lining, W Matrix.
Indicators for Probleakvic'f
Dark Surface (57)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 1,
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147. 1
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F 2)
Depleted Matrix (f3)
_ Redox Dark 5 e (IN
Deple ark Surface (F 7)
vx Depressions (F8)
Iron•Manganesp Masses (F 12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbnc SU1face (F13) (IALRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 12'7, 147)
2 r (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Piedmont d Inrxiplam Sods (F 19)
(MLRA 136. 147)
Very Shagow Dark Surface (TF 12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be presont,
unless disturbed or prohlernalic
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No .y
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmom - Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProlecuSite �cit lCaunty: Sampling
Date:
ApplicanUOwner: V State: A4 Sampling Point: - ft=
Investigator(s): r L" r ' 1 ^'` Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillsldpe, terrace, etc.}; 1t tit ! r,s Local rebel (concave. convex, none) �Io I�+ri+�°' Slope
S-ubregion (LRR or MLRA): Las 6- -01101_ Lang• ' `!), q)' Ct I Oalum:
Soil Map Unit Name: tr M. Ity 106 5 wNWI classification.
Are climatic 1 hydrologic co dot' on the sits typical for this time of year, Yes t/ Na (If no. explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation /+ , Soil ; or Hydrology tl significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology L naturally problematic? {If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.}
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes N.
Remarks,
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary indicators (minimum of Iwo reouirgril
Primary Indicators (rniWmurn of one is requiredcheckalt that aR21y„I,
r Surface Soil Cracks (86)
Surface Water (Al) —
True Aquatic Plants IB 14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface IBM
High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizosphems on Living Roots (C3)
— Moss Trun Lines (616)
_ Water Marks (81) _
Presence of Reduced Iran (G4)
— Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
.__ Sediment Deposits (62) ,
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Solis (CG)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
.� . Drift Deposits (Q3) —
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
� Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aigal Mal or Crust (134) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01)
Iron Deposits (BSS)
� Geomorphic Position (132)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B 7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
MicTotopographic Rdwl` (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (813)
_ IAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yrs No :/
Depth (inches),
Water Table Present? Yes_ No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes. No
Includes cn ilia trio r3
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge. monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if availab)e
Remarks.
US Army Carps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of ,plants.
ti
Tree SIMILrTI IPlot
2 '
3
4
5
Absolule Doninani Indicator
Com Species? Status
Total Cover
5091, of tptal cover: t � 20% of total cover:_
f +�e
SappingStratum (Plot -Yze - "A , kj f y
1, �,Y 71! "/� EA
3.
4,
5.
?f = TOW Cuvtff
% of tglal cover; 1 209 of total cover: __ a
Shrub Stratum} [Plot size: f r 0
3.
4
5
6
50Y of total cover -
HOLD t
overHe r (Purl size.
2 V
3
4.
5
7
9.
RX
Tota? Cover
20'96 d total cover
Sampling Point ,
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (t3)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are Ol3L, FACW. or FAC: (A<0)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
I Mal 1h, Cover Q1
Mullrply by
OBL species
x i =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3
FACU species
x 4 =
UPI_ species
x 5 -
Colurnit Tutals: ___—
(A) {B}
Prevalence. Index = l3FA -
Hydrvphytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 . Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is S10'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophyltc Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present. unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 24 ft (6 m) tx more in height and 3 in
ry /}r [_ (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter al breast height (DgH)
3g - Total Cover
5+0% of t0tat ctrVer i � 20% of total cover:
Woody Vint? Strall-Mi (Plot W- P 1, .fir 1 _
1. �30.11i171�' 1 0
2.
3-
4
5.
Total Cover
50% of total cover 7 2496 of total cover
Remarks; (Include photo numbers here or an a separate sheel.) - -
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7-6 cm) D3H.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - AN herbaceous loon -woody) plains. including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 M) t" height
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of heighl.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Carps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0

SOIL
Scirnp(ing Paint:
Profile Description: jbescrlbe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix.
Redox f i ',azures
_ Dark Surface (57)
inc iesl
alor (moist) 2.
r
_ Golor (moist) 1 vr,c
Loc Texiurf� Rwnarks
Black Histtc (A3)
Thin mark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147,148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (f2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (n)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
— Redox Clark Surface fF5)
_ Very Shallow park Surface (TF 12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface(F7)
. _ Other (Explain on Remarks)
thick Hark Surface (All 2)
'Type. C=Concentration, D -Depletion, RM -reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. rLocation: f L=f ore Linincr, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils';
_ Hislosol (A I)
_ Dark Surface (57)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histtc (A3)
Thin mark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147,148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (f2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (n)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
— Redox Clark Surface fF5)
_ Very Shallow park Surface (TF 12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface(F7)
. _ Other (Explain on Remarks)
thick Hark Surface (All 2)
— Redox Depressions (FF)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F 12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
i Sandy Gteyed Matrix (S4)
_ Urnbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 156, 122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (55)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F 19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present.
_ Stripped Matrix (SC)
_ Red Parent Matenal (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
type
Depth (inches)
remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes V No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and piedmont - Version 2.4

Q,y hj45 &tew)�-w) L W)g -IL Pf
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
!f�l✓/�MProtect/Site'CSampling Date PD M
ApphcanVOwner w4r, 1#10+v - - Slate- Sampling Point �Z
h7ve_+tlgatorfs): `+� ; l 5ecitan, Township. Range
landform (hillstope, terrace, etc.). C Y1.1G ► Local rete! (concave, convex, none): Slope (%)- Z
Subregion (LRR or MLRA)i Lat' r ' ^ 7 Jr { l'_nng '!� . � sir Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: 53#4f 1 r `) o 1'v NWI classification: /y/ -
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditicinVon the site typical for this time of yeai-� Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are VegeLition , Soil or hydrology significantly dislwbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil or hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Y�
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two ieguired)
Primary. indicators (minimum of one is recuired:
check
aH that aoolyl
,Surface Soil Cracks (86)
_ 'Surface water {AI)
�
True Aquatic Plants IBI 4)
_ Spar ed Concave Surface (58)
_ high Water Table (A2)
i
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
rainarge Patterns (810)
_ Saturi0on (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospberes on Livi
s (C3) � Moss Trim Lines (816)
_ Water Marks (81)
_
Presence of Reduced 4)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
i Sediment Deposits (132)
—
Recent Iran on in Tilled Soils (C8) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift. Deposits (03}
_
Thi Surface (0)
Saturation Visible. on Aerial Imagery (C9)
T Algal Mat or Crust (84)
lather (Explain in Remarks)
� 'Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dt)
Iron Deposits (B5)
_.. Geomorphic Position (f)2)
Inundation Visible on Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (133)
Water-St,7tned-haves (89)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Arluatic Fauna (1313)
_ _ FAC -Neutral Test (135)
Field Observation&
Surface Water Preserx? Yes No
Deplli (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
'�
Depth (inches).
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Presents Yes No
includes capillary fungel
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, moniloring well. aerial photos. previous inspections), it available -
Remarks:
US Army Corps of e=ngineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:_
„ y i
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
FACW species
Tri + `;ir,f! _irra (PInt Size, JAVj*U i
%over
r
S C 57 Status
j
Number a9 Dominant Species
t
1 arc+,f*
C "
CalLlntn Totals:
That Are DBL, FACW, or FAC:
_ (A)
2
Y
Total er orDominant
3
Species Across S ata:
(B)
A
Percent of Dominant Species
5 _
That Are DBL. FACW, or FAC:
lA/B)
6
s } - Tolal Cover q
so - of tot I c;� `� 20% total cover: 11_
r
�inliwj St;atsim (Plot six :: �� I,M
2.1
4 l "tr �1 f f7 � A. �
Tolal Covef
50% of tat coven 209 of total cover:
Shrub stratum (Plot size:
3
a
20 - Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20`#, of total cover:��
Herb (Plot siZef.
2.
3.
7
S.
10.
11
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: _ 20% of total cover:
w(x)¢y vine Stratum (Plot sizo:
2
R emaf ks.
Total.*- Capf of:
Multiply by
08L %pecles
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 -
FACU species
x 4 =
U PL 5pectes
x 5 =
CalLlntn Totals:
(A) {B]
Prevalence Index - B1A -
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic vegetations
2 - Dominance Test is >50'X,
3 - Prevalent' Index is s3.0'
- . 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ ProNerratie Hydrophytic vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
he present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants. excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 It (6 m) oar more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in dtameter at txeast height (DSH)
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7 F cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines.
approximately 3 to 20 It (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants• including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximatey 3
If (1 rn) in "to.
Woody vine - All woody vines. regardless of height
{{Hydrophytic
7 Told Covi�r vegetation f
50'x, of total cover: 20% of Intal cover: Z
Present? Yes V No
here or on a separate
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains .and Piedmont - Version 2 0

SOILSampling Point: H/S) I
Profile Description; (describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox F �atwv,
tmche5) Color (most) _ `36 C0!gr {mars) ;,, 1Voe, I_mc7 Texture Remark,,
Hydric Sail Indicators:
Histosol (At)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Hislic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfidt; (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (AID) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1)
thick dark Surface (At 2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (Lt
MLRA 147, 146)
_ Sandy Gle rix (S4)
Sa+ttli�edox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S(5)
Restrictive Layer (if ob
Type
Depth (inches)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below SUrfare (SS) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy tGleyed Matrix (f 2)
Depleted Matrix (1-3)
Redox Dark a WO
_ DQ Dark Surface(F7)
Redox Depressions IF E)
_. Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
T Umbric Surface (F 13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F1'9) (MLRA 148)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Indicators for Problematic
2 cm Muck LRA 147)
rause RcAox (AIG)
(MLRA 147. 146)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain In Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophylic vegetation and
welland hydrology must be present
unless 65turbed or problematic
Hydric Soit Present? Yes No
r
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Verslon 2-0

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 919-270-9306
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
September 22, 2015
Mr. Eric Staehle, RLA
Wake County
Facilities Design & Construction
P.O Box 550
Raleigh, NC 27602
Re: Tumipseed Nature Preserve 15-025
Summary Letter
Wake County, NC
Dear Eric:
This letter is intended to provide a summary of the results of an Axiom Environmental, Inc. (Axiom)
investigation at the above-mentioned site (Figure 1) on Monday, September 21, 2015. We had as our
goals the following two tasks:
• Extend our previous Gin Creek wetland and stream delineation for a distance of
approximately 100 feet to the northwest.
• Make a stream determination at the proposed crossing location.
The attached figure, titled Erosion Control Central Area, depicts the locations of these two tasks.
Following is a brief summary of our findings.
Gin Creek Delineation Extension
The delineation flags of the wetlands and stream boundaries that we hung October 7-8, 2014 were
found. These flags were still in place and legible. The flags delineated three lines, the western
wetland boundary (the WA line), the left bank of Gin Creek (the SB line), and the eastern wetland
boundary (the WB line). All three lines were extended northwestward for over 100 feet to a
generally east -west oriented line identified by bright green flagging and diamond-shaped signs
indicating a Wake County property boundary. The extensions of the wetland lines are marked on site
with the use of enumerated pink -and -black striped flagging, and the extension of the stream line is
marked on site with the use of enumerated solid orange flagging. The attached Figure 1 generally
depicts these line extensions and provides the extension flag numbers (Gin Creek is approximately 5
feet wide). Photo 1 shows the upper end of the delineation extension.
Stream Determination
Axiom visited the site of the requested stream verification at the proposed crossing location (Photo
2). The site includes a natural topographic crenulation. Evaluation of this drainage feature using the

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Mr. Eric Staehle
September 22, 2015
Page 2
N.C. Division of Water Quality — Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial
Streams and their Origins, v4.11 resulted in a determination that the stream is ephemeral, a non -
jurisdictional stormwater conveyance. The completed NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version
4.11 is attached. In addition, this feature is not depicted on either the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle (Clayton, NC 1993) or the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS) Soil Survey for Wake County (1970), so the feature is not potentially
subject to the Neuse River riparian rules.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this information. We appreciate the opportunity
to assist with this project.
Yours truly,
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
Alexander P. (Sandy) Smith
Senior Project Manager
Attachment

j.. �}•3A ` �, FyP
I MI
J
t� k
4
tf4
reFw q..
t
Photo 1. Northeast end of the Gin Creek delineation extension.
Photo 2. Low end of the stream determination site, facing upstream.

WAKE FOREST
Copynght:fD 2013 National Geographic
Society, i -cubed
(4�
K-714111�1_,_,.�
MkId
WAKE
COUNTY
RALEIGH
Z.
-7: , 1\7
WENDELL
M
GARNER
JOHNSTON
COUNTY
-fT
CLAYTON
-;pyrign; 13 National Geographic'
Society; -cu
0
Gin Branch crossing area
AL -,e Enoronmentak 1w.
Prepared for:
WAKE
COUNTY
WORTU CAR01 TNA
Project:
TURNIPSEED
NATURE PARK
Wake County, NC
Title -
DELINEATION
EXTENSION
AND
STREAM
DETERMINATION
Notes -
7
1 - Background imagery source:
2013 color ortho photography
provided by the INC OneMap
Program (online, supported by
the NC Geographic Information
Coordination Council)-
2- 4 -foot elevation contours
Stream verification area
are generated from 2007 Light
Distance and Ranging (LiDAR)
data generated by the INC
Floodplain Mapping Program
by the NC
and provided
WAKE
COUNTY
RALEIGH
Z.
-7: , 1\7
WENDELL
M
GARNER
JOHNSTON
COUNTY
-fT
CLAYTON
-;pyrign; 13 National Geographic'
Society; -cu
0
Gin Branch crossing area
AL -,e Enoronmentak 1w.
Prepared for:
WAKE
COUNTY
WORTU CAR01 TNA
Project:
TURNIPSEED
NATURE PARK
Wake County, NC
Title -
DELINEATION
EXTENSION
AND
STREAM
DETERMINATION
Notes -
1 - Background imagery source:
2013 color ortho photography
provided by the INC OneMap
Program (online, supported by
the NC Geographic Information
Coordination Council)-
2- 4 -foot elevation contours
Stream verification area
are generated from 2007 Light
Distance and Ranging (LiDAR)
data generated by the INC
Floodplain Mapping Program
by the NC
and provided
Department of Transportation -
Legend
Project area
investigation areas
Stream location, delineated September 2015
Wetland location, delineated September 2015
Drawn by: SGD
Date Sept 2015
Scale: As shown
Approximate seam location. delineated October 2014
2, stream
Approximate location, delineated October 2014
wetland
Project No.: 15-025
Field -located data point
Major (named) streams
FIGURE
1,000 500 0
1,000 NCDOT roads
Feet 4 -foot elevation contours

/ NnrcHUNeewosNORTH
was Oman as sop EROSCONIM
! 5 1 P Y
ON
1i _
�1e �xrtl�a�pt�1.� `•w �I �zalt
'�!
P �� ,
uta a
b� tIAND pal '
oa
r� ` -- ---' �oPoSEO C�1�1L1 I�CA�101� � ro
+/ ' '� NazMl�t•'1Z5Q�i0,391Q1 o v
EASTAA 11'115MA4 I L
r;
1
LU
� 1
tI
Yld
N}141Z
/X0,
an
IV
IN
iM �A 92l
WO
h C a
dp
IVP
rr
MONO ARM
OR
frIM
t"MOMOM
w MAXIE°a K

P ap+
NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Oriains v. 4.11
iNt_ owy z!)trearn wentincatlon Irorm Version 4.11
Date: Projectlsite:_' 5a//Ip Latitude: 35,17,f 301P
Evaluator: rtiy I�fr County: w 't, Longitude: 7'sr�iMI
Total Points:Lphemeralntiarrnittent
pe rmination (circle one) Other G� )n ,l ,(
Stream is at least intermittent i
if? J9 or erennialitz 3Q' 15 Perennial e.g. Quad Name
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Y I LJ
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
3. In -channel structure: ex riffle -pool, step -pool.
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0
/'
t
2
2
3
3
5. Activelrelict floodplain
N
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1.5
1
2
3
8, Neadcuts
0
1
0
3
9. Grade control
0
OV,
1
1.5
10. Natural valley0
.perennial streams may also be identifed using other methods. See p. 35 of
Notes: OOVI Y4 rte-
5
1
.5
11, Second or greater order channel
No6 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
R HVrtrnlnnV lSiihtntal -_ 1,:) 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1 2
14. Leaf litter
1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5 1 11.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No 0 Yes = 3
C: Rinlnav (Siihtntal = 7_ ) -
18, fibrous roots in streambed
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
3
2
2
1
0
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1 0
1
2
3
21, Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23 Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
; 0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75 GBL = 1.5 Other = 0
f r_
.perennial streams may also be identifed using other methods. See p. 35 of
Notes: OOVI Y4 rte-
an-pual.
t
Sketch:
41

WAKE, FOREST
v.
A
A
WAKE A
COUNTY
�/
RALEIGH k '� C.4
WENDELL
7
cp
04
GARNER
JOHNSTON
,A.-
f- COUNTY
CLAYTON q 1�,Tu rn i ps ee d I R'0a d
I
71
182
X a
v
lel
Aw" Prepared for:
A
7 0
ON. S
Project:
TURNIPSEED
NATURE PARK
Wake County, NC
1CP Title:
LOCATION
IAN
N
Ln
(N
Drawn by: SGD
Date: Sep 2014
Scale: 1:6600
Project No.:
FIGURE
Legend
Project area
Major (named) streams
NCDOT roads
Hydric soils
0
1,000
E- Soils which may include hydric inclusions
0
Feet
2 -foot elevation contours
Ab
Drawn by: SGD
Date: Sep 2014
Scale: 1:6600
Project No.:
FIGURE